|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 2, 2014 10:50:53 GMT -5
Geez, this has been insane to watch. I'm frankly astonished at how the CBR admins are acting, specifically Jonah. His attitude is baffling. "We're going to bulldoze your neighborhood and you can build a new one, and you're going to like it and be happy about it or we'll evict you. Now smile!" Also, the irony that they have chased off most of the posters who embodied what they were looking for. I agree that his comments in the negative thread were crazy toward the end. So much confirmation bias! Of course people are upset that years of community and history were wiped out without warning through no fault of their own. Don't burn down my neighborhood and library and expect me to thank you for it. Sheesh. Thanks again for setting this place up. Page seven of the now locked "I Don't Understand" thread - community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?148-I-don-t-understand/page7Edit: The bottom of page six is even more troubling. It is definitely troubling to see even reasonable discussion of the new format being less user friendly being shut down. The old layout was pretty brilliant from a simplicity of use angle. It's also a drag to see the number of board members who never seemed like a problem that have decided to leave. I;m even debating it, and I had no problem with a restart that went back to the layout of the old forum. When I pointed out to Weiland on the now deleted "no thanks" thread that the new sign-up process required people to impossibly state they had read terms of service they could not read until they had signed up, he within seconds replied that I was wrong in a rather rude way. A few seconds later, he had edited that to thanking me for pointing out a technical error, but somebody had already quoted him. Weiland's edited post did not carry the usual "last edited by..." stamp. At this point, he is so angry he should have some other mods take over for a couple of days and go to a spa or something. He already banned several posters who agreed with the move (Jared) and/or were even actively sucking up to him (End of Time). This might get worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 10:51:05 GMT -5
I have to side with Weiland over the issue of criticizing creators. Are people so callous nowadays that they're uncertain whether or not "no talent hack" is an offensive description? Though the fact that we live in a world in which Rob Liefeld exists does muddy the waters somewhat. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 2, 2014 10:52:08 GMT -5
That's a good point regarding the layout. So many of these changes seem so arbitrary. I spent most of my time in the Music and TV/Film sub forums, an the Music sub is just gone! Folded into Community when they have a Media category. Bwah? If there are any folks interested, my favorite forum was the old All Purpose Metal thread in the music forum. 200+ pages of discussion and band/song suggestions and names. I archived the entire thing if anyone has an interest. Oh, sorry, should I be posting this sort of thing somewhere else?
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 2, 2014 10:52:13 GMT -5
I have to side with Weiland over the issue of criticizing creators. Are people so callous nowadays that they're uncertain whether or not "no talent hack" is an offensive description? Come on. Certain people simply don't like it when their freedom to act like assholes is taken away from them. I think most of us realize that constructive criticism is usually tolerated (though there are certainly exceptions) so I find the feigned ignorance a tad irritating. CBR obviously wants to be creator friendly and is simply not the place to act like that. But how would Scott Lobdell harassing a female creator have been discussed under the new rules? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 2, 2014 10:53:36 GMT -5
Good! I didn't mean to come off so hostile but it seems to me that inviting other exiled sub-communities to this site can't help but defeat the whole point of creating it in the first place. Rock on, Rumblers, and good luck! Cei-U! I summon the olive branch! Amen to that! I am overjoyed that the Classics Board survives, but I wouldn't want this site to become "CBR in exile". It has too much of a negative ring to it. |
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on May 2, 2014 11:00:14 GMT -5
CBR obviously wants to be creator friendly and is simply not the place to act like that. That's why creators have their own boards where the interaction is better, albeit sycophantic at times...*COUGH* Byrne *COUGH* Simone *COUGH*... but better for the creator to be in control of what he or she wants to talk about. Her Jonah just strong armed people in this regime. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 2, 2014 11:00:30 GMT -5
I have to side with Weiland over the issue of criticizing creators. Are people so callous nowadays that they're uncertain whether or not "no talent hack" is an offensive description? Though the fact that we live in a world in which Rob Liefeld exists does muddy the waters somewhat. Well of course Liefeld's is a no-talent hack, but is there really a reason to say it on CBR? This is a site that still, for some unknowable reason, has him as a guest on CBR TV. I think the gist of it is that "no talent hack" is really no different from calling someone a loser or idiot; it's a flat out insult and attack, regardless of its validity. In this regard, I can understand Weiland's comments. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 2, 2014 11:02:09 GMT -5
I have to side with Weiland over the issue of criticizing creators. Are people so callous nowadays that they're uncertain whether or not "no talent hack" is an offensive description? Come on. Certain people simply don't like it when their freedom to act like assholes is taken away from them. I think most of us realize that constructive criticism is usually tolerated (though there are certainly exceptions) so I find the feigned ignorance a tad irritating. CBR obviously wants to be creator friendly and is simply not the place to act like that. But how would Scott Lobdell harassing a female creator have been discussed under the new rules? I have no idea, but if he wasn't banned or at the very least made to apologize publicly, I'd have a serious issue with CBR. My creator bias ends at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 2, 2014 11:05:39 GMT -5
CBR obviously wants to be creator friendly and is simply not the place to act like that. That's why creators have their own boards where the interaction is better, albeit sycophantic at times...*COUGH* Byrne *COUGH* Simone *COUGH*... but better for the creator to be in control of what he or she wants to talk about. Her Jonah just strong armed people in this regime. I'm of course not advocating that creators shouldn't be open to strong critiques. This site makes no pretense of being creator friendly or unfriendly as its primarily by and for fans. I must admit that I've grown tired of trolls and trollish behavior. If it's a specific fan site for a particular creator, it's beyond pathetic to spend time at site dedicated to someone you dislike just to be unkind. That being said, I share your disdain for sycophantic ass-kissery. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 2, 2014 11:37:36 GMT -5
But how would Scott Lobdell harassing a female creator have been discussed under the new rules? I have no idea, but if he wasn't banned or at the very least made to apologize publicly, I'd have a serious issue with CBR. My creator bias ends at that point. No, he harassed the woman at a con, www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/marinaomi-harassed-comics-panelwithout naming him but he admitted to what happened from his perspective. His defenders basically said he was being "awkward" and didn't mean it. The only way to really express what the facts bore out was to call him a predatory sexual harasser - something that seems a bannable offense under new board rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 11:48:57 GMT -5
I think any creator who goes out of their way to interact with fans on a message board are going above and beyond the call of duty, and that's cool. At the same time though, where is the line drawn? Are we allowed to critique the work of a creator on a site where they post? I'm not talking about derailing a thread they're participating in, but just in general. When we have a "Worst comic you like" thread, do we have to leave the names of creators who participate off the list of bad comics? I think directly bickering with or attacking a creator would rightfully be frowned upon, but let's say we're discussing Frank Miller's Holy Terror, what are we allowed to say about that piece exactly? By that extension, actual articles posted by CBR, including the one that caused all this mess, were critiques of the industry, the publishers, the talent, and specific comics and images. Without simply telling a creator he's an idiot, criticizing the work should be fair game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 2, 2014 11:49:04 GMT -5
I have no idea, but if he wasn't banned or at the very least made to apologize publicly, I'd have a serious issue with CBR. My creator bias ends at that point. No, he harassed the woman at a con, www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/marinaomi-harassed-comics-panelwithout naming him but he admitted to what happened from his perspective. His defenders basically said he was being "awkward" and didn't mean it. The only way to really express what the facts bore out was to call him a predatory sexual harasser - something that seems a bannable offense under new board rules. There are a few things I don't get about this: 1. What the hell was Lobdell doing on a panel about queer comics? (I read the whole thing and didn't find a mention of this) 2. He also shows he's a racist with the "squinty Asian eyes" bit. I had no idea Lobdell was that big of a creep. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 2, 2014 11:53:17 GMT -5
No, he harassed the woman at a con, www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/marinaomi-harassed-comics-panelwithout naming him but he admitted to what happened from his perspective. His defenders basically said he was being "awkward" and didn't mean it. The only way to really express what the facts bore out was to call him a predatory sexual harasser - something that seems a bannable offense under new board rules. There are a few things I don't get about this: 1. What the hell was Lobdell doing on a panel about queer comics? (I read the whole thing and didn't find a mention of this) 2. He also shows he's a racist with the "squinty Asian eyes" bit. I had no idea Lobdell was that big of a creep. Sheesh. He wrote the infamously bad "Northstar coming out as gay" story in the 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 2, 2014 11:53:24 GMT -5
I think any creator who goes out of their way to interact with fans on a message board are going above and beyond the call of duty, and that's cool. At the same time though, where is the line drawn? Are we allowed to critique the work of a creator on a site where they post? I'm not talking about derailing a thread they're participating in, but just in general. When we have a "Worst comic you like" thread, do we have to leave the names of creators who participate off the list of bad comics? I think directly bickering with or attacking a creator would rightfully be frowned upon, but let's say we're discussing Frank Miller's Holy Terror, what are we allowed to say about that piece exactly? By that extension, actual articles posted by CBR, including the one that caused all this mess, were critiques of the industry, the publishers, the talent, and specific comics and images. Without simply telling a creator he's an idiot, criticizing the work should be fair game. I think my main concern (and I'd suspect Wieland's even if he can't outright say it) is that legitimate creator's will see all the "Greg Land sucks! and "Liefeld is a ridiculous hack!" threads and stay far away. Case in point would be Peter David returning to post in the X-Men forums. I'm a big David fans and would love to read what he has to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 2, 2014 11:55:46 GMT -5
I have to side with Weiland over the issue of criticizing creators. Are people so callous nowadays that they're uncertain whether or not "no talent hack" is an offensive description? Though the fact that we live in a world in which Rob Liefeld exists does muddy the waters somewhat. Couldn't have said it better. I already get the feeling that you're going to save me, from a lot of unnecessary posting. |
|
