PDA

View Full Version : Thread Drift: Fans, Professionals and Online Decorum



boots
05-12-2017, 05:57 PM
Hey,

Wish I could recommend something, but I can't. Podcasts are great for when you're on a walk, driving around, or falling asleep though.

Dan, don't focus so much on the negative, is my unsolicited advice. I don't know what it's like to be in your shoes, so maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd focus on the positive reception.

Okay, easier said than done.

absolutely.

there's a reason why morrison and waid came up with the concept for irredeemable and why many writers completely refuse to read or engage online opinion (i think dan abnett is one of them).

Frontier
05-12-2017, 07:24 PM
absolutely.

there's a reason why morrison and waid came up with the concept for irredeemable and why many writers completely refuse to read or engage online opinion (i think dan abnett is one of them).
If he did, that would make Dan Abnett even more of a smart writer then I though (and I already thought he was pretty smart) :).

boots
05-12-2017, 08:07 PM
If he did, that would make Dan Abnett even more of a smart writer then I though (and I already thought he was pretty smart) :).

well, it's not about smart but about how well you feel you can manage your own feelings and responses. or if you care to in the first place

Frontier
05-12-2017, 10:13 PM
well, it's not about smart but about how well you feel you can manage your own feelings and responses. or if you care to in the first place
Well, I think it's smart given the tendency over social media for vitriol or arguments that more often then not culminate in someone saying something they regret.

Not denying the benefits of creators communicating with fans over social media, but I can definitely see the benefits of a professional steering clear of it.

boots
05-13-2017, 07:31 PM
Well, I think it's smart given the tendency over social media for vitriol or arguments that more often then not culminate in someone saying something they regret.

Not denying the benefits of creators communicating with fans over social media, but I can definitely see the benefits of a professional steering clear of it.

definitely, because it's not always fair. especially because that creator's work is somewhat personal, and having someone just imply that your work (and by extension you) supports racism or rape or whatever other passive aggressive slander, would get harder and harder over time to take in good nature.

some creators are better at navigating those minefields publicly (but i'm sure even they take a few breathes before they hit "reply") and some get just as nasty in return.

it is a bit sad that the "closer" we get, the worse we act.

Metamorphosis
05-14-2017, 10:19 AM
definitely, because it's not always fair. especially because that creator's work is somewhat personal, and having someone just imply that your work (and by extension you) supports racism or rape or whatever other passive aggressive slander, would get harder and harder over time to take in good nature.

some creators are better at navigating those minefields publicly (but i'm sure even they take a few breathes before they hit "reply") and some get just as nasty in return.

it is a bit sad that the "closer" we get, the worse we act.

All the more reason for the pro to watch what they're saying and how they phrase it, really.

People are going to be reading these interviews, parsing them, and taking bits out and discussing them. Same as its always been.

And why pretend there aren't plenty of bad actors on both the fan and pro sides?

Prof. Warren
05-14-2017, 10:38 AM
All the more reason for the pro to watch what they're saying and how they phrase it, really.

People are going to be reading these interviews, parsing them, and taking bits out and discussing them. Same as its always been.

It would be impossible for any writer, artist or editor to anticipate the insane ways that fans will choose to distort and misconstrue the most innocuous comments.

That's not about discussing a creator's words and engaging with them on an honest level, it's about singling out a comment, removing it from context, twisting its meaning, making the worst assumptions about its intent, and then relentlessly haranguing the creator - only to then blame the creator for having the nerve to ever open their mouth in the first place with "It's not my fault! You should've watched what you said!"

Metamorphosis
05-14-2017, 11:17 AM
It would be impossible for any writer, artist or editor to anticipate the insane ways that fans will choose to distort and misconstrue the most innocuous comments.

That's not about discussing a creator's words and engaging with them on an honest level, it's about singling out a comment, removing it from context, twisting its meaning, making the worst assumptions about its intent, and then relentlessly haranguing the creator - only to then blame the creator for having the nerve to ever open their mouth in the first place with "It's not my fault! You should've watched what you said!"

Eh, the opposite problem is just as true, when someone (and their apologists) becomes so insanely sensitive as to what "certain people" are saying (usually the ones deemed as the troublemakers), that everything they say becomes construed as an insult or slam. So there can't be any actual back or forth of any meaning or value anyway.

WebLurker
05-14-2017, 11:32 AM
I personally think that, on this forum I've seen Mr. Slott be given unfair crap in specific contexts. So, I wouldn't blame him for feeling frustrated at that. However, conversely, I have not been impressed with how he reacts to criticism (legitimate or otherwise). Now, I think that one could make the case that the initial poster sets the tone for the conversation, but I don't see how stooping to the level of the one acting the least adult does any good for anyone.

Also, it seems like 99% of the disagreements over Slott's Spider-Man career can be traced back to his writing and creative decisions. The fact is, Slott's version of Spider-Man is, and probably always will be, controversial due to how far removed it is from the core concepts premises that make the foundation of the franchise (your mileage will vary if you think that's a good thing or if you're like me and think that it's a huge mistake). So, should Slott be treated with respect? Of course. However, I think it's only fair to expect the same from him. On top of that, to keep in mind that his version of Spider-Man is not for everyone and that one can disagree with his work (and make cases to support it) without making it personal.

To make it short. Can we all please be polite and act like the adults we are, even when discussing things we disagree with?

Frontier
05-14-2017, 11:37 AM
To make it short. Can we all please be polite and act like the adults we are, even when discussing things we disagree with?
I'm down for that :).

The Kid
05-14-2017, 11:49 AM
I personally think that, on this forum I've seen Mr. Slott be given unfair crap in specific contexts. So, I wouldn't blame him for feeling frustrated at that. However, conversely, I have not been impressed with how he reacts to criticism (legitimate or otherwise). Now, I think that one could make the case that the initial poster sets the tone for the conversation, but I don't see how stooping to the level of the one acting the least adult does any good for anyone.

Also, it seems like 99% of the disagreements over Slott's Spider-Man career can be traced back to his writing and creative decisions. The fact is, Slott's version of Spider-Man is, and probably always will be, controversial due to how far removed it is from the core concepts premises that make the foundation of the franchise (your mileage will vary if you think that's a good thing or if you're like me and think that it's a huge mistake). So, should Slott be treated with respect? Of course. However, I think it's only fair to expect the same from him. On top of that, to keep in mind that his version of Spider-Man is not for everyone and that one can disagree with his work (and make cases to support it) without making it personal.

To make it short. Can we all please be polite and act like the adults we are, even when discussing things we disagree with?

I'm not gonna lie. I find the way Slott argues and tries to defend himself online to be cringeworthy as hell. Like c'mon man, be a professional and ignore the internet trolls.

Bor
05-14-2017, 12:34 PM
I'm not gonna lie. I find the way Slott argues and tries to defend himself online to be cringeworthy as hell. Like c'mon man, be a professional and ignore the internet trolls.

I am curious can you give a specific example? Because with one exception from a couple of years ago, which he apolizied for at the time, I dont think I have seen Slott say anything I find cringeworthy at all. What I do see a lot is various posters say he should not say stuff because of hus job as if he is some kind of elected official instead of being a writer on fictional character and every time it just seems to me that those posters are envious that apparently their job/bosses does not allow them to say anything.

Bor
05-14-2017, 12:41 PM
I personally think that, on this forum I've seen Mr. Slott be given unfair crap in specific contexts. So, I wouldn't blame him for feeling frustrated at that. However, conversely, I have not been impressed with how he reacts to criticism (legitimate or otherwise). Now, I think that one could make the case that the initial poster sets the tone for the conversation, but I don't see how stooping to the level of the one acting the least adult does any good for anyone.

Also, it seems like 99% of the disagreements over Slott's Spider-Man career can be traced back to his writing and creative decisions. The fact is, Slott's version of Spider-Man is, and probably always will be, controversial due to how far removed it is from the core concepts premises that make the foundation of the franchise (your mileage will vary if you think that's a good thing or if you're like me and think that it's a huge mistake). So, should Slott be treated with respect? Of course. However, I think it's only fair to expect the same from him. On top of that, to keep in mind that his version of Spider-Man is not for everyone and that one can disagree with his work (and make cases to support it) without making it personal.

To make it short. Can we all please be polite and act like the adults we are, even when discussing things we disagree with?

Can you give me a specific example of Slott not treating someone with respect before after they accused him of anything from condoning rape to lying about his or Marvels view? Because all the posters I see here not getting Slotts "respect" is people who have spend time attacking him. Not to mention being mad at him for where they think his story is going and then still being mad at him after it did not happen.

Lee
05-14-2017, 12:42 PM
Also, it seems like 99% of the disagreements over Slott's Spider-Man career can be traced back to his writing and creative decisions.

4% of it is his writing and creative decisions, 95% of it is because he's been the most prolific Spider-Man writer since One May Day happened.

The Kid
05-14-2017, 12:47 PM
I am curious can you give a specific example? Because with one exception from a couple of years ago, which he apolizied for at the time, I dont think I have seen Slott say anything I find cringeworthy at all. What I do see a lot is various posters say he should not say stuff because of hus job as if he is some kind of elected official instead of being a writer on fictional character and every time it just seems to me that those posters are envious that apparently their job/bosses does not allow them to say anything.

Just my opinion, but the way he keeps trying to defend himself from criticism on Twitter and forums just makes me cringe. To be fair, I don't like when any creator including ones I like (ie. Waid) do it. It usually comes down to petty bickering and for a professional, I find it pretty embarassing



I am curious can you give a specific example? Because with one exception from a couple of years ago, which he apolizied for at the time, I dont think I have seen Slott say anything I find cringeworthy at all. What I do see a lot is various posters say he should not say stuff because of hus job as if he is some kind of elected official instead of being a writer on fictional character and every time it just seems to me that those posters are envious that apparently their job/bosses does not allow them to say anything.

Not envious but I do think some of us who work in the corporate world find it very odd. I guess there's just different standards in professionalism when compared to the comic book industry where arguing and fighting with consumers is apparently common

Bor
05-14-2017, 12:58 PM
Just my opinion, but the way he keeps trying to defend himself from criticism on Twitter and forums just makes me cringe. To be fair, I don't like when any creator including ones I like (ie. Waid) do it. It usually comes down to petty bickering and for a professional, I find it pretty embarassing



Not envious but I do think some of us who work in the corporate world find it very odd. I guess there's just different standards in professionalism when compared to the comic book industry where arguing and fighting with consumers is apparently common

Again: could you provide an example? This is not directed at you specificaly but people says stuff like that here all the time and then they either do not provide the example or give the vague notion of "its out there".

I guess for me it comes to that I dont put these creators on any kind of pedistal. Unless they are saying something I find horrible, see a certaint prominent current DC artist, I dont have any expectation of them to just take every criticism without responding. An artist of any kind should not have the same limitations as a elected official when it comes to interacting with the target receivers. And again unlike certain other creative talents I have yet to see Slott act like a terrible humanbeing. Sure he might seem a little childish at times but so what? He is writing comic books for a living not deciding the fate of a country or anything like that.

The Kid
05-14-2017, 01:00 PM
Again: could you provide an example? This is not directed at you specificaly but people says stuff like that here all the time and then they either do not provide the example or give the vague notion of "its out there".

I guess for me it comes to that I dont put these creators on any kind of pedistal. Unless they are saying something I find horrible, see a certaint prominent current DC artist, I dont have any expectation of them to just take every criticism without responding. An artist of any kind should not have the same limitations as a elected official when it comes to interacting with the target receivers. And again unlike certain other creative talents I have yet to see Slott act like a terrible humanbeing. Sure he might seem a little childish at times but so what? He is writing comic books for a living not deciding the fate of a country or anything like that.

It has nothing to do with being an elected official. I also never said anything about Slott as a human being. I just find such behavior by comic book writers and artists to be very unprofessional because that's just how it'd be seen in my (and most other) professions.

I think professionals should be held to certain standards and many in the comic book industry never meet them.

Bor
05-14-2017, 01:22 PM
It has nothing to do with being an elected official. I also never said anything about Slott as a human being. I just find such behavior by comic book writers and artists to be very unprofessional because that's just how it'd be seen in my (and most other) professions.

I think professionals should be held to certain standards and many in the comic book industry never meet them.

So you dont have an example? Too bad. I know you never said anything about Slott as a human being that is why I said it was not specifically directed at you.

I must disagree with you here.

Different profession have different standards.

I dont expect the same restraint from someone who produces stories featuring a man dressed in spandex with a spider on his chest who fights an enemy made of nazi bees as I do from my elected leaders, bank employe or doctors. I have a job where there are certaint things I should not say and cannot talk about in publich for various moral or legal reasons, but I see no reason to expect every job to have the exact same type of restictions. If Marvel has a problem with how Slott conducts himself online then sure they should say something to him, but it does not seem they have done that a lot so far.

Mister Mets
05-14-2017, 01:52 PM
It would be impossible for any writer, artist or editor to anticipate the insane ways that fans will choose to distort and misconstrue the most innocuous comments.

That's not about discussing a creator's words and engaging with them on an honest level, it's about singling out a comment, removing it from context, twisting its meaning, making the worst assumptions about its intent, and then relentlessly haranguing the creator - only to then blame the creator for having the nerve to ever open their mouth in the first place with "It's not my fault! You should've watched what you said!"There are so many sides here.

I'll note that this is my personal opinion, and not a comment on rules as a moderator.

I want to learn as much about what goes on behind the scenes as possible, so I think it's important to encourage pros to show up. This means that they should be able to make occasional mistakes without people making too big a deal of it. In this case, we know for a fact what these guys do for a living, and that their time is valuable. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be corrected if they err, but that can be done without being obnoxious. If someone isn't being directly quoted, there's always the possibility of something being lost in a game of telephone, so that also has to be kept in mind, before anyone jumps on a professional for the nuance of something in a summary/ paraphrase.

There are some differing views. Some people are partisans, preferring that the professionals they like are treated well, and that professionals they don't like are treated poorly. I think this is a habit that should be discouraged, although I can respect someone who is honest about their views, someone willing to say "Look, due to all of Writer X's accomplishments and contributions, we should treat him with respect. Writer Y is a talentless hack, so if he wants to defend the ways in which he has damaged the characters we love, he damn well better do it perfectly, taking into account the feelings of all the people he has hurt." People rarely are honest about this, though.

There are also going to be some people who would treat all pros with the same level of suspicion. There's an argument that some places should be safe spaces for fans to give their honest opinion without the interruption of a professional who has greater stature, can lie about insider information, and can rally supporters against a less privileged critic. It seems to me that this policy would have to be clearly and unambiguously established lest anyone unaware of the unwritten rules start thinking that the lack of a response is the equivalent of tacit agreement with a particular criticism.

A related view is that professionals have an obligation to be nicer than the people they're engaging with. They are the ones asking for people's money, and they are also the ones who have made the decision to take a job many people would want, so by this argument they should be fine with a higher level of scrutiny, and with occasional obnoxiousness from detractors, who may also be potential customers.

The purest view might be held by those who think that everyone should be held to the same standard, be it a high standard of politeness or anything goes thunderdome. It's not pulled off very often. You would know these people by their willingness to call out everyone equally or at least to praise positive behavior on both sides (although there may very well be situations in which one group acts worse than another, which means the group should be called out more and praised less).

A further complicating factor is the nuances of different communities. One group may be more sensitive to use of terminology than others, and what impresses a poster in what group might not impress those in others.

Many of these views might never be articulated, which makes navigating discussions even more of a minefield.

So, what can we do as individuals? We should be polite, honest and as articulate as possible. We should be willing to praise positive behavior (including well-written arguments) by people we disagree with, and to call out errors in judgement on our side.

The Kid
05-14-2017, 02:13 PM
So you dont have an example? Too bad. I know you never said anything about Slott as a human being that is why I said it was not specifically directed at you.

I must disagree with you here.

Different profession have different standards.

I dont expect the same restraint from someone who produces stories featuring a man dressed in spandex with a spider on his chest who fights an enemy made of nazi bees as I do from my elected leaders, bank employe or doctors. I have a job where there are certaint things I should not say and cannot talk about in publich for various moral or legal reasons, but I see no reason to expect every job to have the exact same type of restictions. If Marvel has a problem with how Slott conducts himself online then sure they should say something to him, but it does not seem they have done that a lot so far.

Fair enough. I was just giving my own thoughts on this kind of behavior. All I said was that I find it cringeworthy, not that he should be fired or anything. To me, it doesn't matter where or what you work in. Professionalism is professionalism

Tuck
05-14-2017, 02:42 PM
A professional is a known entity of whom reasonable expectations can be had.

Most everyone else is some random person. They could be a kid, dyslexic, have emotional, mental, or psychological deficiencies. You don't know. But it's good to keep in mind that you don't know who you're interacting with. That poster you're laying into might have a story that will make you feel like a complete heel if you hear it.

Dan Slott
05-14-2017, 03:20 PM
All the more reason for the pro to watch what they're saying and how they phrase it, really.
You're arguing to NOT give interviews altogether.
There is nothing a person can do or say that can't be twisted if the person who's doing the twisting is motivated enough.
This entire thread branch is going on because you spun something I said-- based on another person's interpretation of a synopsis of what a 3rd person heard-- to imply that I may have said something racist-y. Which is a little on the insane side of things.


People are going to be reading these interviews, parsing them, and taking bits out and discussing them.
And people with agendas and personal vendettas are going to be twisting and distorting them-- and taking bits out of context-- to serve whatever messed up reasons they have.


Eh, the opposite problem is just as true, when someone (and their apologists) becomes so insanely sensitive as to what "certain people" are saying (usually the ones deemed as the troublemakers), that everything they say becomes construed as an insult or slam. So there can't be any actual back or forth of any meaning or value anyway.
I feel for you. That must really suck to have things you've said taken that far out of context and spun terrible ways by "certain people".


A professional is a known entity of whom reasonable expectations can be had.
I'd argue that's not 100% true. While most pros aren't full-blown J.D. Salingers or Steve Ditkos, who've kept most of their public lives private, there's only so much of a public life that any pro is going to offer up online.


Most everyone else is some random person. They could be a kid, dyslexic, have emotional, mental, or psychological deficiencies. You don't know. But it's good to keep in mind that you don't know who you're interacting with. That poster you're laying into might have a story that will make you feel like a complete heel if you hear it.
I've had fans I've argued with turn out to have conditions like Asperger's syndrome and autism-- or at least claim that they've had. I don't think you can live your online life assuming that everyone has a backstory that puts them at any more of a disadvantage than anyone else's backstory. People come online and take on anonymous identities partly because they want to be on equal footing-- it's not till they offer up and discuss that part of their lives that anyone can (or should) treat them any differently than they would treat that person face-to-face.

It's the face-to-face part that I think we have to keep in perspective. If someone shows up onto these boards and spreads false rumors about myself or my work-- that I'm a "rape-enabler" or a "racist" or a "homophobe"-- I'm going to treat them with the same amount of respect that I'd treat any person who'd walk up to me and say those kinds of lies to my face. I won't regret a thing I've said or how I've treated them. Because that's exactly how I would treat someone who did that kind of horrible thing in public.

If you approach me politely online-- or casually-- you'll find that I respond politely and/or casually back. If you're critical w/o being rude about it, you'll find I'm open to hear what you have to say. If you state something as a "fact" that's not true, I might argue with you-- but as long as you're civil, I'm happy to be civil too. If you talk about something I've written-- and it's clear that you haven't actually read it... Yeah, I might find that silly and enjoy poking you with a stick, because you're talking out of your butt. I think that's fair.

Tuck
05-14-2017, 04:14 PM
I've had fans I've argued with turn out to have conditions like Asperger's syndrome and autism-- or at least claim that they've had. I don't think you can live your online life assuming that everyone has a backstory that puts them at any more of a disadvantage than anyone else's backstory. People come online and take on anonymous identities partly because they want to be on equal footing-- it's not till they offer up and discuss that part of their lives that anyone can (or should) treat them any differently than they would treat that person face-to-face.

Face-to-face, you have much more information available to you, however. You can get a read on a person's general disposition, mental stability, and maturity (beyond the obviousness of dealing with a minor). This is information that is much more opaque in print.

Metamorphosis
05-14-2017, 06:25 PM
You're arguing to NOT give interviews altogether.
There is nothing a person can do or say that can't be twisted if the person who's doing the twisting is motivated enough.
This entire thread branch is going on because you spun something I said-- based on another person's interpretation of a synopsis of what a 3rd person heard-- to imply that I may have said something racist-y. Which is a little on the insane side of things.

A lot of what you say in interviews you probably think is clever, or interesting, or provocative, or funny. "Peter is his own worst enemy" and "Peter has the emotional maturity of a 15 year old" among them.

Thing is, you can't get so bent out of shape when people actually react to or even want to discuss these things you say. That shoe fits on the other foot as well, and people are going to bring their own viewpoints, interpretations and perspectives into it.


And people with agendas and personal vendettas are going to be twisting and distorting them-- and taking bits out of context-- to serve whatever messed up reasons they have.

No particular agenda here, sorry you took it that way. Certainly wasn't implying you're a "rape-enabler", a "racist" or a "homophobe".

I listened to the podcast, and I actually agree with you that Marvel kinda overplayed their hand with all of the "Legacy" character all at once. But calling them the "Funhouse mirror" version over and over is an odd way to phrase it, though. SpOck, yes. Kamala, Sam, Amadeus, Jane, Miles, not so much. They are more individual characters onto themselves like Rhodey or Thunderstrike or even how Ben Reilly once was. SpOck was just a carpetbagger.


I feel for you. That must really suck to have things you've said taken that far out of context and spun terrible ways by "certain people".

I'm not losing any sleep over it. But you seem a bit more irate than usual.

Steven Caldwell
05-14-2017, 08:26 PM
I have read enough of dan slots posts and tweets on Twitter to know that he is absolutely not racist. To suggest he is, is absolutely silliness.

Dan Slott
05-14-2017, 08:50 PM
A lot of what you say in interviews you probably think is clever, or interesting, or provocative, or funny. "Peter is his own worst enemy" and "Peter has the emotional maturity of a 15 year old" among them.
That's fine. A lot of what you say on the internet you probably think is insightful and NOT just things you and the guys at the crawlspace have ritualistically parroted back and forth to each other.


Thing is, you can't get so bent out of shape when people actually react to or even want to discuss these things you say.
I find that when it comes from your specific corner, you and your pals aren't really reacting to what I've actually said.
It's usually a write up, distortion, or cherry-picked extract of what I've said.
And, often times, by the time someone's actually gone to the original audio or video clip, you've already made up your mind to what I "actually" meant, and will force that square peg into the round hole you want it to fit into.

The "emotional maturity of a 15 year old" line from the ECCC panel WASN'T "emotional maturity of a 15 year old".
The question was asked was "How old was Spider-Man?"
And after stating his rough physical age, I added "But emotionally? 15."
It was clearly a joke. And it got a laugh from the room.
But after you and your crawlspace buddies got a hold of it, clinically broke it down, and spun it into the WORST possibly version-- it became a freakin' dissertation on how the current author of Spider-Man felt that Peter Parker possessed the "emotional maturity of a 15 year old."
And that level of distortion speak far more to those doing the distorting than the guy cracking a quick joke on a panel.


That shoe fits on the other foot as well, and people are going to bring their own viewpoints, interpretations and perspectives into it.
Not really. You, Metamorphosis/cheesedique/crawlspace-guy have 1 shoe and 1 perspective: "What's the worst way I can spin this to justify 10 more posts today where I ritualistically sh*t all over this book?"
It's getting so old. So unbelievably old.


No particular agenda here, sorry you took it that way. Certainly wasn't implying you're a "rape-enabler", a "racist" or a "homophobe".
Go back and read your previous post. You were aiming for racist-y. It's not that hard to see.


I'm not losing any sleep over it. But you seem a bit more irate than usual.
Well it must help that you have a really simple playbook. Some really cheap plays to make. And offhandedly implying that someone can be kinda racist doesn't seem to be something you would lose any sleep over. Go figure.

WebLurker
05-14-2017, 09:44 PM
Can you give me a specific example of Slott not treating someone with respect before after they accused him of anything from condoning rape to lying about his or Marvels view?

When I was thinking of when I said that I was not impressed with Slott's online manners, I was thinking of a screaming match that he and some other users got into over on the "Will One More Day Ever be Reversed? (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?92750-Thread-Drift-Will-One-More-Day-ever-be-reversed)" thread some months ago. However, the moderator deleted that whole exchange on the grounds of it being off-topic, so, unless there's a way to access an archive or someone wants to corroborate, that's that for that. As I recall, a key point of contention was Slott's insistence that the site is a unified front that basically attacks anything and everything he does. I do occasionally read reviews and listen to the site's podcast, and, while many of the managers there are not fans of what 616 Spider-Man has become, the reviews themselves are pretty objective. (Slott also as this weird thing of claiming that two separate users are the same person using socks, which strikes me as being disingenuous.

It's just been my experience that he's extremely combative and thin-skinned. I have interacted with pro authors on other forums and I have to say that, even when I got in a heated disagreement with them, they kept things mature on their end of things. That's something that Slott seems to fail at a lot and it's not the kind of person I want to read comics from.


Because all the posters I see here not getting Slotts "respect" is people who have spend time attacking him.

Even if they are treating him badly, should he still sink to their level? At the very least it reflects badly on him. To point, when I first heard that Slott was writing for post-616 OMD Spider-Man and that he had found a favorable audience, I thought that even if I didn't want to read his ASM (given that I don't like the post-OMD setting for Spider-Man stories), I might want to take a look at his other stuff. After seeing how he interacts with fans and critics online, I don't want anything to do with anything he's involved with.

Also, it doesn't reflect well on Marvel. Look, I'm a Marvel fan through and through, however, right now, DC honestly looks like the best comics company to patronize on almost all fronts, and having better PR is one of them.


Not to mention being mad at him for where they think his story is going and then still being mad at him after it did not happen.

As to that, I couldn't say, given that I'm not sure I've witnessed that. However, the man is writing a version of Spider-Man that is, by its very nature controversial. It was never going to be universally popular and flying off the handle because some readers don't like it isn't professional. (Also, if the fans that don't like his stuff are such a small piece of the fandom, as Slott tells us so often, why is he so defensive when they express themselves?


4% of it is his writing and creative decisions, 95% of it is because he's been the most prolific Spider-Man writer since One May Day happened.

The obvious question is how you're figuring that.

I'm not so sure, though. The consistent complaints I hear (beyond how he treats fans online) are that they don't like his characterizations or stories (which are all on him) or technical flaws in his writing (the way he can't stick an ending, stiff dialogue, forcing characters to do things to advance the plot), which are also all on him.


Not really. You, Metamorphosis/cheesedique/crawlspace-guy have 1 shoe and 1 perspective: "What's the worst way I can spin this to justify 10 more posts today where I ritualistically sh*t all over this book?"
It's getting so old. So unbelievably old.

Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that every critic of your work is drinking Crawlspace Kool-Aid. I, for one, came to the conclusion that your version of Spider-Man had nothing to do with what I liked about the franchise all on my own. (Also, FYI, the Crawlspace has been recently running a list of top Spider-Man comic stories and they did select several of yours for it, so they must not totally hate your work.)

Metamorphosis
05-14-2017, 10:55 PM
That's fine. A lot of what you say on the internet you probably think is insightful and NOT just things you and the guys at the crawlspace have ritualistically parroted back and forth to each other.


I find that when it comes from your specific corner, you and your pals aren't really reacting to what I've actually said.
It's usually a write up, distortion, or cherry-picked extract of what I've said.
And, often times, by the time someone's actually gone to the original audio or video clip, you've already made up your mind to what I "actually" meant, and will force that square peg into the round hole you want it to fit into.

The "emotional maturity of a 15 year old" line from the ECCC panel WASN'T "emotional maturity of a 15 year old".
The question was asked was "How old was Spider-Man?"
And after stating his rough physical age, I added "But emotionally? 15."
It was clearly a joke. And it got a laugh from the room.
But after you and your crawlspace buddies got a hold of it, clinically broke it down, and spun it into the WORST possibly version-- it became a freakin' dissertation on how the current author of Spider-Man felt that Peter Parker possessed the "emotional maturity of a 15 year old."
And that level of distortion speak far more to those doing the distorting than the guy cracking a quick joke on a panel.


Not really. You, Metamorphosis/cheesedique/crawlspace-guy have 1 shoe and 1 perspective: "What's the worst way I can spin this to justify 10 more posts today where I ritualistically sh*t all over this book?"
It's getting so old. So unbelievably old.


Go back and read your previous post. You were aiming for racist-y. It's not that hard to see.


Well it must help that you have a really simple playbook. Some really cheap plays to make. And offhandedly implying that someone can be kinda racist doesn't seem to be something you would lose any sleep over. Go figure.

Jesus, did you not see the part where I said I went and actually listened to the podcast and apologized, man?

Dan, are you okay? Anything you need to talk about here?


Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

He's not wrong, I was made to change my name here by TPTB. I still go by Cheesedique over at his favorite website.

Though one of the moderators here is a frequent contributer and message board presence over at Spider-Man Crawlspace. Does that make him a "Crawlspace guy" too? I suspect it's only anyone who dares to be a detractor.

boots
05-14-2017, 11:11 PM
oh look, i did a thread and didn't even know it.

at the end of the day "equal footing" is a bit of a fantasy. there's different power and vulnerability on both sides; the creative has the power of authority that comes with their position. the fan has the power of anonymity.

as to who might be more vulnerable? i agree that the back stories of fans are an unknown entity and it would be nice if we all took a bit more care there just in case (there's a few individuals on this board that i have decided not to engage with for that reason) but i would argue that as a known entity, the creative has as much or possible more on the line; their work, their reputation and their personal life.

and no, choosing to be successful in a public sphere does not mean they asked for it.

as someone who has been subjected to public attacks (someone even took images of me and created a hate website that was not only racist but implied i was a cradle snatcher based on nothing but my ethnicity. i'll never know who it was or why they did it), i empathise more with dan in these instances. there's a blessing and protection that comes with anonymity that dan won't get back.

yeah, i believe creatives should hold themselves to a higher professional standard in these interactions...but...but that's not easy. they're not super powerful, privileged or not, they're people and they can be worn down. or have moments of weakness. or be triggered. or whatever.

same goes for any individual or the internet, but generally speaking, you don't get a group of creatives ganging up on a single fan, taking apart that person's personality and work (fairly or unfairly) and creating rumours, memes, slander, whatever that become viral to the point where they drown out objective truth and original intent. the whole danger with stereotyping and meming or whatever isn't that they're entirely untrue after all, it's that they remove all context around the subject to the point that the dumbed down negative version becomes the entirety of the truth.

it's the same wherever comments tend to collect; youtube videos, facebook article comments, reddit, 4chan... the half truths and slander and hate always tend to sound out the loudest. those posts are less concerned with who is right than with winning. or at least hurting the opposition.

i've gotten to the point where i ignore most of dan's and meta's discussion, despite who i might side with, because it never moves forward. it's on constant rotation. but maybe as comic people we just like the constant cycles and the illusion of change.

though i will say re the comment that the majority of flak dan catches is just for his own personal and creative choices- he does for all that and for fan dissatisfaction for marvel as a whole. it almost seems like he's the architect of OMD. it's interesting that RYV is seen as the "anti slott" haven and used as a battering ram against him when it's quite clear he had a huge hand and in its existence. i really don't understand the hate.

Bor
05-14-2017, 11:16 PM
When I was thinking of when I said that I was not impressed with Slott's online manners, I was thinking of a screaming match that he and some other users got into over on the "Will One More Day Ever be Reversed? (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?92750-Thread-Drift-Will-One-More-Day-ever-be-reversed)" thread some months ago. However, the moderator deleted that whole exchange on the grounds of it being off-topic, so, unless there's a way to access an archive or someone wants to corroborate, that's that for that. As I recall, a key point of contention was Slott's insistence that the site is a unified front that basically attacks anything and everything he does. I do occasionally read reviews and listen to the site's podcast, and, while many of the managers there are not fans of what 616 Spider-Man has become, the reviews themselves are pretty objective. (Slott also as this weird thing of claiming that two separate users are the same person using socks, which strikes me as being disingenuous.

I saw that whole exchange and I think its false to call it a "screaming match". They disagreed but Slott was never outright rude just honest. And I am sorry but have you ever been to crawlspace? That is pretty much a unified hivemind when it comes to Slott and his work. And we have had examples on here of posters being caught using different accounts and handleds to yell at Slott before.

It's just been my experience that he's extremely combative and thin-skinned. I have interacted with pro authors on other forums and I have to say that, even when I got in a heated disagreement with them, they kept things mature on their end of things. That's something that Slott seems to fail at a lot and it's not the kind of person I want to read comics from.

Again: example please. You state things but do not provide example.


Even if they are treating him badly, should he still sink to their level? At the very least it reflects badly on him. To point, when I first heard that Slott was writing for post-616 OMD Spider-Man and that he had found a favorable audience, I thought that even if I didn't want to read his ASM (given that I don't like the post-OMD setting for Spider-Man stories), I might want to take a look at his other stuff. After seeing how he interacts with fans and critics online, I don't want anything to do with anything he's involved with.

Also, it doesn't reflect well on Marvel. Look, I'm a Marvel fan through and through, however, right now, DC honestly looks like the best comics company to patronize on almost all fronts, and having better PR is one of them.

Yeah DC who employés an aritist that tell people to go kill themselves is much better. Sure.... There are bad people from both companies.

As to that, I couldn't say, given that I'm not sure I've witnessed that. However, the man is writing a version of Spider-Man that is, by its very nature controversial. It was never going to be universally popular and flying off the handle because some readers don't like it isn't professional. (Also, if the fans that don't like his stuff are such a small piece of the fandom, as Slott tells us so often, why is he so defensive when they express themselves?

So you would not be defensive when people accuse you of everything form lying to condoning rape? Okay then.

The obvious question is how you're figuring that.

I'm not so sure, though. The consistent complaints I hear (beyond how he treats fans online) are that they don't like his characterizations or stories (which are all on him) or technical flaws in his writing (the way he can't stick an ending, stiff dialogue, forcing characters to do things to advance the plot), which are also all on him.



Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that every critic of your work is drinking Crawlspace Kool-Aid. I, for one, came to the conclusion that your version of Spider-Man had nothing to do with what I liked about the franchise all on my own. (Also, FYI, the Crawlspace has been recently running a list of top Spider-Man comic stories and they did select several of yours for it, so they must not totally hate your work.)

Yeah I am sorry Weblurker but you litteraly did nothing to make me agree with you here.

Metamorphosis
05-14-2017, 11:34 PM
I saw that whole exchange and I think its false to call it a "screaming match". They disagreed but Slott was never outright rude just honest. And I am sorry but have you ever been to crawlspace? That is pretty much a unified hivemind when it comes to Slott and his work. And we have had examples on here of posters being caught using different accounts and handleds to yell at Slott before.

Once again: one of the writer's biggest fans here is also an article contributor to the site and a very frequent presence on the message board, so you're completely wrong here at best, and simply spreading disinformation at worst.

Bor
05-14-2017, 11:46 PM
Once again: one of the writer's biggest fans here is also an article contributor to the site and a very frequent presence on the message board, so you're completely wrong here at best, and simply spreading disinformation at worst.

You have one poster who is not like that. Big deal. I said "pretty much" because I know there are good posters there to. But if you want to pretend that there isnt a general "lets hate on Slott/post OMD Spidey" over there you are kidding yourself. I am not wrong nor am I spreading misinformation.

If you want to pretend that there isnt a whole lot of very loud bashing poster over there you are fooling yourself.

I am nether lying nor spreading misinformation here I am just not defending what I see as appaling ridicules behavour.

If you want to pretend Crawlspace is not full of these then go ahead. But dont expect the rest of us to deny what is right there for everyone to see.

Metamorphosis
05-14-2017, 11:57 PM
You have one poster who is not like that. Big deal. I said "pretty much" because I know there are good posters there to. But if you want to pretend that there isnt a general "lets hate on Slott/post OMD Spidey" over there you are kidding yourself. I am not wrong nor am I spreading misinformation.

If you want to pretend that there isnt a whole lot of very loud bashing poster over there, or you are fooling yourself.

I am nether lying nor spreading misinformation here I am just not defending what I see as appaling ridicules behavour.

If you want to pretend Crawlspace is not full of these then go ahead. But dont expect the rest of us to deny what is right there for everyone to see.

Uh--I wonder if you've ever even been on there, or just repeating the mantras you see here.

They have a multitude of writers on the front page alone who--gasp--actually have their own opinions, think for themselves, and even give Slott Spider-Man good reviews.

It's almost like they're not some kind of malicious hivemind entity that does nothing but evil.

But I guess it's far easier these days to mischaracterize, demonize and parrot false claims than actually know what you're talking about.

Bor
05-15-2017, 12:22 AM
Metamorphosis:

I have. I use to post there for a couple of yeasr several years ago. I still go there from time to time and while I completely acknowledge there are some good posters and good articles the message board in general is, to me atleast, so full of people with a "lets hate just because" mentality. A lot more so then here.

As for that last sentence there: I geuss its easier to disregard how things actual are instead of trying to form a fair view of things.

Bor
05-15-2017, 01:04 AM
I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt Matamorposis and check out Crawlspace. After reading several different threads I maintain what I said before.
There are some good and insightful posts, but a WHOLE lot of it is stuff like saying Slott "interjects himself into online fan discussions,and abuses his authority as a Marvel employee through online bullying,defamation of character and his arrogant and rude behavior towards criticism." or worse stuff about the man, his work or his character. I saw everything from personal attacks directed at his weigh to him supposedly hating MJ and its because of him the marrige is not back yet because he holds ASM "as a hostage" instead of given it to creator who would bring back the marrige for sure.
If you think statements like that are a fair assesment of Slotts interaction with fans then I dont really know what to tell you except I highly disagree and the fact that noone here has been willing to provide a specific example to support their claims tells me all I need to know.

Mister Mets
05-15-2017, 07:02 AM
A professional is a known entity of whom reasonable expectations can be had.

Most everyone else is some random person. They could be a kid, dyslexic, have emotional, mental, or psychological deficiencies. You don't know. But it's good to keep in mind that you don't know who you're interacting with. That poster you're laying into might have a story that will make you feel like a complete heel if you hear it. A professional is someone who is high-functioning enough to have developed a measure of success, but that doesn't mean you know everything about their behavior. Catherine Zeta Jones was a celebrity for decades before she admit she suffered from bipolar disorder. There are some people in comics (not on the Spider-Man books) who have said some really weird stuff online, that later turns out to be due to a disorder/ drug interaction.

While the anonymous people we interact with online might have some kind of issue, you shouldn't feel like a heel for calling them out. Someone may be a stoned teenager who thinks that the government is using mind control rays, but they should still be polite when speaking online.

That said, we should be careful about how we call people out (IE- it can be offputting for someone for whom English is a third language to be corrected on grammar/ typos) and the battles we pick.

WebLurker
05-15-2017, 07:55 AM
I saw that whole exchange and I think its false to call it a "screaming match". They disagreed but Slott was never outright rude just honest.

Okay, I remember it differently. I don't know how to verify which one of us has the better memory (if the truth is somewhere in the middle).


And I am sorry but have you ever been to crawlspace?

Yeah, I read the reviews often on.


That is pretty much a unified hivemind when it comes to Slott and his work.

Okay, kind of important here, are we taking about the website itself, or its forum? I don't visit the forum, just the main site.


And we have had examples on here of posters being caught using different accounts and handleds to yell at Slott before.

The internet is a useful took that's easily abused, huh?


Again: example please. You state things but do not provide example.

Without digging through pages of old postings, that's all I've got, unless something new turns up (I am limiting it to things that aren't hearsay, so that YouTuber's response over Slott's harassing him in regards to a charity run aren't counted). Also, I get the sense from you that you think if a poster is rude to him, he's justified to be just as rude back. I'm not sure of that.

Also, for the record, I've got no motivation to make stuff up about the guy to "justify" my dislike of his writing (my dislike of the writing is enough for that). Also, seeing him on the forum actually rehabilitated him. Off-site, I've heard a lot of horror stories claiming he was an unrepentant cyberbully, who had moderators supporting his side be default, etc. etc. "In person," while I don't think he's especially tactful and a little thin-skinned, he also, as I mentioned before, does have critics who give him unfair crap. The guy's just a writer who's not writing something everyone likes and doesn't react


Yeah DC who employés an aritist that tell people to go kill themselves is much better. Sure....

Forgot I heard about that. Terrible, yeah.


There are bad people from both companies.

Sad to say. However, better prices and the sense that the those in charge put the customers first. Much nicer setup, IMHO.


So you would not be defensive when people accuse you of everything form lying to condoning rape? Okay then.

Honestly, at that point, I think it's the time to stop listening to trollers and walk away. I mean, years of debate and squabbling and has anyone changed their position of anything related to Slott and Spider-Man?


Yeah I am sorry Weblurker but you litteraly did nothing to make me agree with you here.

Okay. At the end of the day, I think that both sides have contributed to the mess we get in on these forums. We should be above this stuff.

Bor
05-15-2017, 08:17 AM
Okay, I remember it differently. I don't know how to verify which one of us has the better memory (if the truth is somewhere in the middle).



Yeah, I read the reviews often on.



Okay, kind of important here, are we taking about the website itself, or its forum? I don't visit the forum, just the main site.



The internet is a useful took that's easily abused, huh?



Without digging through pages of old postings, that's all I've got, unless something new turns up (I am limiting it to things that aren't hearsay, so that YouTuber's response over Slott's harassing him in regards to a charity run aren't counted). Also, I get the sense from you that you think if a poster is rude to him, he's justified to be just as rude back. I'm not sure of that.

Also, for the record, I've got no motivation to make stuff up about the guy to "justify" my dislike of his writing (my dislike of the writing is enough for that). Also, seeing him on the forum actually rehabilitated him. Off-site, I've heard a lot of horror stories claiming he was an unrepentant cyberbully, who had moderators supporting his side be default, etc. etc. "In person," while I don't think he's especially tactful and a little thin-skinned, he also, as I mentioned before, does have critics who give him unfair crap. The guy's just a writer who's not writing something everyone likes and doesn't react



Forgot I heard about that. Terrible, yeah.



Sad to say. However, better prices and the sense that the those in charge put the customers first. Much nicer setup, IMHO.



Honestly, at that point, I think it's the time to stop listening to trollers and walk away. I mean, years of debate and squabbling and has anyone changed their position of anything related to Slott and Spider-Man?



Okay. At the end of the day, I think that both sides have contributed to the mess we get in on these forums. We should be above this stuff.

If you show me any evidence of Slott saying even 1/10 of the stuff thrown against him I will agree with you. And yeah I am talking specificly about the forum. Just like this site has some descent article at times there are certain parts of the forum, cough x-forum cough, that has at various points been pretty much a madhouse.

Mister Mets
05-15-2017, 08:26 AM
When I was thinking of when I said that I was not impressed with Slott's online manners, I was thinking of a screaming match that he and some other users got into over on the "Will One More Day Ever be Reversed? (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?92750-Thread-Drift-Will-One-More-Day-ever-be-reversed)" thread some months ago. However, the moderator deleted that whole exchange on the grounds of it being off-topic, so, unless there's a way to access an archive or someone wants to corroborate, that's that for that. As I recall, a key point of contention was Slott's insistence that the site is a unified front that basically attacks anything and everything he does. I do occasionally read reviews and listen to the site's podcast, and, while many of the managers there are not fans of what 616 Spider-Man has become, the reviews themselves are pretty objective. (Slott also as this weird thing of claiming that two separate users are the same person using socks, which strikes me as being disingenuous.

It's just been my experience that he's extremely combative and thin-skinned. I have interacted with pro authors on other forums and I have to say that, even when I got in a heated disagreement with them, they kept things mature on their end of things. That's something that Slott seems to fail at a lot and it's not the kind of person I want to read comics from.



Even if they are treating him badly, should he still sink to their level? At the very least it reflects badly on him. To point, when I first heard that Slott was writing for post-616 OMD Spider-Man and that he had found a favorable audience, I thought that even if I didn't want to read his ASM (given that I don't like the post-OMD setting for Spider-Man stories), I might want to take a look at his other stuff. After seeing how he interacts with fans and critics online, I don't want anything to do with anything he's involved with.

Also, it doesn't reflect well on Marvel. Look, I'm a Marvel fan through and through, however, right now, DC honestly looks like the best comics company to patronize on almost all fronts, and having better PR is one of them.



As to that, I couldn't say, given that I'm not sure I've witnessed that. However, the man is writing a version of Spider-Man that is, by its very nature controversial. It was never going to be universally popular and flying off the handle because some readers don't like it isn't professional. (Also, if the fans that don't like his stuff are such a small piece of the fandom, as Slott tells us so often, why is he so defensive when they express themselves?



The obvious question is how you're figuring that.

I'm not so sure, though. The consistent complaints I hear (beyond how he treats fans online) are that they don't like his characterizations or stories (which are all on him) or technical flaws in his writing (the way he can't stick an ending, stiff dialogue, forcing characters to do things to advance the plot), which are also all on him.



Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that every critic of your work is drinking Crawlspace Kool-Aid. I, for one, came to the conclusion that your version of Spider-Man had nothing to do with what I liked about the franchise all on my own. (Also, FYI, the Crawlspace has been recently running a list of top Spider-Man comic stories and they did select several of yours for it, so they must not totally hate your work.)

While the artist who told a fan to kill himself on social media was wrong to do so, he apologized afterwards and made a donation to a suicide awareness charity. People can have lapses in judgement, but that is not the thing that defines their worth as a human being.

Bor
05-15-2017, 08:40 AM
While the artist who told a fan to kill himself on social media was wrong to do so, he apologized afterwards and made a donation to a suicide awareness charity. People can have lapses in judgement, but that is not the thing that defines their worth as a human being.

No but it does shown that DC and their staff is in no way free from controversy. Which would also be wierd considering how much overlap there has been between the two companies.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 08:58 AM
I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt Matamorposis and check out Crawlspace. After reading several different threads I maintain what I said before.
There are some good and insightful posts, but a WHOLE lot of it is stuff like saying Slott "interjects himself into online fan discussions,and abuses his authority as a Marvel employee through online bullying,defamation of character and his arrogant and rude behavior towards criticism." or worse stuff about the man, his work or his character. I saw everything from personal attacks directed at his weigh to him supposedly hating MJ and its because of him the marrige is not back yet because he holds ASM "as a hostage" instead of given it to creator who would bring back the marrige for sure.
If you think statements like that are a fair assesment of Slotts interaction with fans then I dont really know what to tell you except I highly disagree and the fact that noone here has been willing to provide a specific example to support their claims tells me all I need to know.

The fact that you cherry-picked a couple of would-be negative posts from over there, while admitting "There are some good and insightful posts", says a lot.

And also: Slott "interjects himself into online fan discussions, and abuses his authority as a Marvel employee through online bullying, defamation of character and his arrogant and rude behavior towards criticism."

Is this not in fact, factual? That he's allowed to berate individuals here, gaslight them and question their mental health if they criticize him, and is often quite rude to people in violation of the board rules, but it is allowed to slide here because of who he is?

I think the fact that he doesn't hold Mary Jane in high regard isn't any kind of secret, either. If it's supposed to be, it's not a very good one.

Tuck
05-15-2017, 08:58 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 09:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo

LOL--thanks Tuck: about to spray my morning coffee all over the screen from laughing while watching that!

Bor
05-15-2017, 09:21 AM
The fact that you cherry-picked a couple of would-be negative posts from over there, while admitting "There are some good and insightful posts", says a lot.

And also: Slott "interjects himself into online fan discussions, and abuses his authority as a Marvel employee through online bullying, defamation of character and his arrogant and rude behavior towards criticism."

Is this not in fact, factual? That he's allowed to berate individuals here, gaslight them and question their mental health if they criticize him, and is often quite rude to people in violation of the board rules, but it is allowed to slide here because of who he is?

I think the fact that he doesn't hold Mary Jane in high regard isn't any kind of secret, either. If it's supposed to be, it's not a very good one.

The fact that you think I had to cherry-pick anything while at the same time offer no example to support your claims kind of tells me I am 100 % right and the fact that you are so defensive tells a lot.

And no what comes afterwords is certaintly not factual. Not unless you confuse reality with that bubble thats been build up over at crawlspace. In the real world it certaintly has not.

Would you please show me that he aftively hates MJ? Or any of the other things I mentioned. Funny how you try to ignore that. Likely because you know its there and there is a whole lot of it.

Funny how you still havent been able to provide an example that shows Slott doing anything that comes close to the stuff I mentioned. You know why you cant? Because then everyone would see that you have nothing that comes close to that.

I did not have to cherry-pick anyhting, its there for everyone to see. If you werent so busy demanding creators to take every kind of abuse thrown their way you would admit that.

WebLurker
05-15-2017, 11:37 AM
I think the fact that he doesn't hold Mary Jane in high regard isn't any kind of secret, either. If it's supposed to be, it's not a very good one.

That's hardly a reason to call him awful, just because he doesn't like a specific character. I self-identity as a Spider-Man fan and I don't like Gwen Stacy very much.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 11:55 AM
Here's a thread from these very boards (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?86623-Would-Stan-Lee-view-Peter-Parker-as-quot-a-villain-quot) where Slott tweeted at a poster on Twitter, and then subsequently Slott's thousands of followers attacked this person. The user in question ends up banned over here.

Slott claims to be cordial and on the level with any one who pays him the same respect. So why does he crap on Mike McNulty aka Stillanerd, who is nothing if not always courteous and respectful when talking with the writer?

He had to be reprimanded himself over at the Crawlspace for the way he berated the very message board he was posting on, and then indignantly asked for his own account to be deleted (http://spidermancrawlspace.com/wwwboard/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6584&p=106802&sid=a5fe301adab5e93c9b2f40370c5c2b40#wrap) (it wasn't, but then he never came back after he figured out that the mods wouldn't cover up his behavior over there).

He famously told someone here on these very boards to "f*** off", before the board reset. That has been tossed down the memory hole.

A lot of his really bad responses to people had to be edited away here.

Really, though, I could provide you with a dozen more examples and it probably still wouldn't break through your predetermined instinct to excuse any and all of his behavior.

So again, there's little point here in trying to convince you of something you refuse to be convinced of.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 11:56 AM
That's hardly a reason to call him awful, just because he doesn't like a specific character. I self-identity as a Spider-Man fan and I don't like Gwen Stacy very much.

He can not like MJ and not be awful (it just makes him wrong, not awful). That was another of the supposed terrible things that someone supposedly said over at SCS that Bor cherry-picked.

Bor
05-15-2017, 12:55 PM
Here's a thread from these very boards (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?86623-Would-Stan-Lee-view-Peter-Parker-as-quot-a-villain-quot) where Slott tweeted at a poster on Twitter, and then subsequently Slott's thousands of followers attacked this person. The user in question ends up banned over here.

Slott claims to be cordial and on the level with any one who pays him the same respect. So why does he crap on Mike McNulty aka Stillanerd, who is nothing if not always courteous and respectful when talking with the writer?

He had to be reprimanded himself over at the Crawlspace for the way he berated the very message board he was posting on, and then indignantly asked for his own account to be deleted (http://spidermancrawlspace.com/wwwboard/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6584&p=106802&sid=a5fe301adab5e93c9b2f40370c5c2b40#wrap) (it wasn't, but then he never came back after he figured out that the mods wouldn't cover up his behavior over there).

He famously told someone here on these very boards to "f*** off", before the board reset. That has been tossed down the memory hole.

A lot of his really bad responses to people had to be edited away here.

Really, though, I could provide you with a dozen more examples and it probably still wouldn't break through your predetermined instinct to excuse any and all of his behavior.

So again, there's little point here in trying to convince you of something you refuse to be convinced of.

So how was Slott anywhere close to what you are accusing him on in that tweet?

And I am sorry but if you want to pretend Stillanerd is always polite thats your own failure to accept hiw he often is. Several times, most noteable during Supperior, he accused Slott of various things because he was sure it was going to happen in the comic, and when it didnt he behind excuses like "well it could have happened". So no I dont agree with that.

And that specific time Slott tolled someone to "f... off" I already mentioned because Slott said sorry afterwords.
Funny how selective your memory on that was here. But hey why accept reaility when the hivemind mentality is so much easier.

Really though I could keep on pointing out stuff like that but you will keep on doing it because it means you dont have to accept things as they actually are and only how you want them to be.

Bor
05-15-2017, 12:57 PM
He can not like MJ and not be awful (it just makes him wrong, not awful). That was another of the supposed terrible things that someone supposedly said over at SCS that Bor cherry-picked.

So I take it at this point the "cherry-picking" line is going to be your new go to instead of acting like a real person?

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 01:02 PM
So how was Slott anywhere close to what you are accusing him on in that tweet?

Why did he have to tweet at the poster? He could just as easily made his point and NOT done that.

Goes right in line with how he gaslights people, accusing them of mental illness if they dare criticize his funny-books.


And I am sorry but if you want to pretend Stillanerd is always polite thats your own failure to accept hiw he often is. Several times, most noteable during Supperior, he accused Slott of various things because he was sure it was going to happen in the comic, and when it didnt he behind excuses like "well it could have happened". So no I dont agree with that.

No excuse for how nasty Slott STILL is to Mike when Mike is more often the far more polite one.

And for the record, Mike did correctly deduce that Otto would return in the form of the living brain for Vol. 3, just as Chris over at Crawlspace correctly figured out the whole premise of Superior before it happened.


And that specific time Slott tolled someone to "f... off" I already mentioned because Slott said sorry afterwords.
Funny how selective your memory on that was here. But hey why accept reaility when the hivemind mentality is so much easier.

Didn't see you mention it, but apology-after-the-fact or not, you asked for examples and that is one.


Really though I could keep on pointing out stuff like that but you will keep on doing it because it means you dont have to accept things as they actually are and only how you want them to be.

Really you are not "pointing out stuff" at all, but trying to obfuscate the fact that you demanded examples and I gave them to you. I think I've made my point.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 01:03 PM
So I take it at this point the "cherry-picking" line is going to be your new go to instead of acting like a real person?

You literally grabbed two posts over there out of thousands. What else are we supposed to go on besides what you said?

CrimsonEchidna
05-15-2017, 01:59 PM
Here's a thread from these very boards (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?86623-Would-Stan-Lee-view-Peter-Parker-as-quot-a-villain-quot) where Slott tweeted at a poster on Twitter, and then subsequently Slott's thousands of followers attacked this person. The user in question ends up banned over here.

Phantom Roxas ended up banned a whole two months after that incident. So I don't get why you're implying a correlation there. Sucks that he got harassed on twitter, but nothing in Dan's reply was actually rude or intentionally inciting his how followers to harass him, unless your argument is the a creator should never respond to an individual on social media ever.

Mister Mets
05-15-2017, 02:14 PM
Four posts were deleted. I can appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, but don't post something just to insult someone else.

And whether another message board has an anti-Slott echo chamber isn't a necessary topic of conversation.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 02:20 PM
He didnt have to tweet but why should he not do it? Funny how Slott should just stay quite and never even say anything negative if it was up to you. I also dot really see how that is in line with what you are saying here. Even more funny coming from someone who just recently asked Slott if something was wring with him. Double standard much?

Why should he not do it? Maybe something about the imbalance of a popular writer with thousands of followers vs. the average internet poster? You don’t see a problem there (of course you don’t)? It’s a grotesquely disproportionate response.

And when Slott gaslights people, insinuating that people who criticize him may have mental health issues, he proves that it WOULDN’T stop him from engaging in that behavior when he IS dealing with someone with mental health issues. So there’s that.



If I had to spend years seeing Stillanard make false presumptions and then acting like that I would see no reason to be more polite then Slott has been. Still does not come close to commenting on his weigh, character or whether or not he is an honest person like they do on your favorite board.

Why is this such a problem? People speculate about their comics all the time, it’s called fan discussion, and to have the writer come down on people like that in such a haughty way has a chilling effect on said discussion.



So in other words when you said it was swept under the rug you where wrong and mistaking. Glad to hear it. Now if you could just get some of your fellow board members to do hide behind screen names when they call Slott various names or attacks his character that would be even better.

It is indeed not a post that can be found after the board reset of 2014. He wasn’t banned or even reprimanded for it as far I know.



You gave no conrete examples that even comes close to some of the behavour you seem fine with and accept from Crawl space members. The only point you have made is that you will accuse others of cherry-picking and then do it yourself to such a degree that it is head scratching.

I’m pointing out specific things, with links. You are making claims with no links and no proof.

You keep making claims about a “hive mind” mentality when I have proven this isn’t the case re: the website.

You’re whole argument is that the professional shouldn’t rise above the standards of the average message board poster, and that is where we disagree.


I dont reslly know what to tell you. You want to ignore how things are over there because you apparently feel its your fellowboard members right to lie about Slotts motives and character while resorting to personal attacks on pretty much every aspect of his character thats your right. But hey calling the man a bully for daring to stand up for himself is just how some people have fun I guess. Although I will say it was fun going over there and seeing several member names from people who have either changed them from when they posted here, or was banned from here bacause of their actions. It was like a wierd walk down memory lane.

There’s standing up for oneself, and there’s going to insane limits to harass people who question you. I think I’ve illustrated the difference. On a message board poster, it’s unfortunate but it’s the reality of sometimes uncivilized internet behavior. On the creator’s part, it’s petty and it’s not a good look. And it does nothing to elevate the discourse.

Also, I realize English probably isn’t your first language, and I am allowing for that in our interaction. But I’m having a hard time figuring out what you’re trying to say in some of these posts.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 02:23 PM
Phantom Roxas ended up banned a whole two months after that incident. So I don't get why you're implying a correlation there. Sucks that he got harassed on twitter, but nothing in Dan's reply was actually rude or intentionally inciting his how followers to harass him, unless your argument is the a creator should never respond to an individual on social media ever.

He could just as easily have made his point without the "@Phantom_Roxas" at the end, could he have not?

Bor
05-15-2017, 02:30 PM
He could just as easily have made his point without the "@Phantom_Roxas" at the end, could he have not?

Great way to ignore his entire point dude instead of admitting that he was right.

Dan Slott
05-15-2017, 02:31 PM
Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?
They're the same person.

He's not wrong, I was made to change my name here by TPTB. I still go by Cheesedique over at his favorite website.
Ta Da!

Jesus, did you not see the part where I said I went and actually listened to the podcast and apologized, man?
Thank you.
Thank you for posting your "opinion" about the comments of a 2nd poster's take on a 3rd poster's summary of a podcast-- to imply that my take on something was racist-y.
Thank you for leaving that up for a day before listening to the podcast for yourself and realizing that it might have been out of bounds.
And thank you for finally showing up here and apologizing.
Thank you so much.

Dan, are you okay? Anything you need to talk about here?
Ooh! Yeah.
Have you seen this cartoon?
It's a hoot!
49391

Though one of the moderators here is a frequent contributer and message board presence over at Spider-Man Crawlspace. Does that make him a "Crawlspace guy" too? I suspect it's only anyone who dares to be a detractor.
This is like watching someone from Fox News claim they're "Fair & Balanced" because they used to have Colmes on with Hannity.
It's adorable that you think that site's not full of some very nasty, toxic sh*t-- stuff that you are very much a part of.

That he's allowed to berate individuals here, gaslight them...
Jesus. A day ago I was racist-y.
Now I'm "gaslighting" people.
You're a very mean piece of work.

I think the fact that he doesn't hold Mary Jane in high regard isn't any kind of secret, either. If it's supposed to be, it's not a very good one.
I would like to apologize to everyone for the Empire State Building sequence in SPIDER-ISLAND, all of the original RENEW YOUR VOWS mini-series, and the time I had MJ don the Iron Spider costume and save Peter in recent ASM issues. Obviously I hate the character of MJ and wish her nothing but ill.
Unless of course, I magically created those issues retroactively to gaslight you all.
I'm a gaslighter now.
(It's something I'm going through after my racist-y phase apparently.)

Lee
05-15-2017, 02:54 PM
You’re (sic) whole argument is that the professional shouldn’t rise above the standards of the average message board poster, and that is where we disagree.

As a message board poster, when you interact with a comics professional do you hold yourself to a lower standard than them?


Also, I realize English probably isn’t your first language, and I am allowing for that in our interaction. But I’m having a hard time figuring out what you’re trying to say in some of these posts.

Doesn't that strike you as a rude thing to say to someone who is clearly fluent in English? Particularly in a thread about online decorum?

Dan Slott
05-15-2017, 02:56 PM
Here's a thread from these very boards[/URL] where Slott tweeted at a poster on Twitter, and then subsequently Slott's thousands of followers attacked this person.
This is BS. I went to that poster's feed after they made the claim "thousands of my followers attacked them". It was 5 people on twitter. 5.
I get worse than that every damn day on Twitter.
I get worse than that on the internet in general.
Surprise: Sometimes from regular visitors from the crawlspace. GO FIGURE.
It's why my Wiki page has a lock on it and only Wiki moderators can make changes, because MULTIPLE crawlspace regulars kept going over there to vandalize it.

Slott claims to be cordial and on the level with any one who pays him the same respect. So why does he crap on Mike McNulty aka Stillanerd, who is nothing if not always courteous and respectful when talking with the writer?
Except for the times when on other boards (guess which ones) where he's talked about causing me physical harm. Wacker called him out on that-- shortly before he was banned on that site.


He had to be reprimanded himself over at the Crawlspace for the way he berated the very message board he was posting on, and then indignantly asked for his own account to be deleted[/URL] (it wasn't, but then he never came back after he figured out that the mods wouldn't cover up his behavior over there).
I asked for my account to be deleted because of the rude, insulting, and toxic behavior from members and mods on that site. Behavior that the mods on there would not clamp down on.
Some of the worst has been deleted. But you won't see Metomorphosis/cheesedique call that out for gaslighting. SHOCKING! I know.


He famously told someone here on these very boards to "f*** off", before the board reset. That has been tossed down the memory hole.
It was the first and one of the only times I have done that. I apologized for it on MANY occasions. (The original poster said something offensive and-- if you want to get technical, I didn't tell him to "f*** off"-- I said "go f*** yourself". After over a decade in the industry, it was the first time I'd ever said that online.)

Here's the thing tho:
Originally, I apologized for it almost immediately.
The PERSON I WAS RESPONDING TO apologized as well and said that he never should have made the original post I was reacting to in the first place.
The mods took it down and BOTH parties (me and the poster) thanked the mods for doing that.

And do you know why it's so "famous"?

Because in the brief time it was up, a crawlspacer took a screen grab and ran a whole crawlspace article on it. And then other crawlspacers ran it around the internet.
It's almost like it's a very toxic and motivated site, right? One whose posters and mods can't wait to stir-the-sh*t. (They are just going to LOVE this thread.)

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 03:02 PM
As a message board poster, when you interact with a comics professional do you hold yourself to a lower standard than them?

I've tried being respectful, as have others, and it's made no difference.


Doesn't that strike you as a rude thing to say to someone who is clearly fluent in English? Particularly in a thread about online decorum?

Wasn't meant as rude at all--clearly there is a language barrier at play, which isn't helping the already muddled arguments from that poster.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 03:11 PM
This is BS. I went to that poster's feed after they made the claim "thousands of my followers attacked them". It was 5 people on twitter. 5.
I get worse than that every damn day on Twitter.
I get worse than that on the internet in general.
Surprise: Sometimes from regular visitors from the crawlspace. GO FIGURE.
It's why my Wiki page has a lock on it and only Wiki moderators can make changes, because MULTIPLE crawlspace regulars kept going over there to vandalize it.

Interesting tactic--flipping it so somehow you are the aggrieved and injured party in that case. It's more than a little transparent.

5 people on Twitter, ok. Do you only have 5 followers on Twitter?


Except for the times when on other boards (guess which ones) where he's talked about causing me physical harm. Wacker called him out on that-- shortly before he was banned on that site.

I seriously doubt this happened, do you have a link?


I asked for my account to be deleted because of the rude, insulting, and toxic behavior from members and mods on that site. Behavior that the mods on there would not clamp down on.
Some of the worst has been deleted. But you won't see Metomorphosis/cheesedique call that out for gaslighting. SHOCKING! I know.

Both you and the person you were arguing with got reprimanded in that case. It's right there in the thread. Why are you making it all about someone else?

You asked me if I was autistic or had aspergers (literally, "what is wrong with you"?) for what you deem as posting here too much. If gaslighting is literally defined as "to manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity" then what exactly would you call it?


It was the first and one of te only times I have done that. I apologized for it on MANY occasions. (The original poster said something offensive and-- if you want to get technical, I didn't tell him to "f*** off"-- I said "go f*** yourself". After over a decade in the industry, it was the first time I'd ever said that online.)

Here's the thing tho:
Originally, I apologized for it almost immediately.
The PERSON I WAS RESPONDING TO apologized as well and said that he never should have made the original post I was reacting to in the first place.
The mods took it down and BOTH parties (me and the poster) thanked the mods for doing that.

And do you know why it's so "famous"?

Because in the brief time it was up, a crawlspacer took a screen grab and ran a whole crawlspace article on it. And then other crawlspacers ran it around the internet.
It's almost like it's a very toxic and motivated site, right? One whose posters and mods can't wait to stir-the-sh*t. (They are just going to LOVE this thread.)

I doubt it--they really don't fixate on you as much as you or some people here like to maintain.

boots
05-15-2017, 03:17 PM
I've tried being respectful, as have others, and it's made no difference.

i think we've all seen you be disrespectful to common posters on this board without it being called for, i just figured it was your "thing".



Wasn't meant as rude at all--clearly there is a language barrier at play, which isn't helping the already muddled arguments from that poster.

but i agree that wasn't one of them. i think it's ok to acknowledge the language barrier and the difficulties that come with it.

i'll add that i'm always impressed by anyone who can converse at length in a second or third language.


and as a general question to the board, not aimed at you, is respectful behaviour dependent on the other person or ourselves?

Bor
05-15-2017, 03:20 PM
i think we've all seen you be disrespectful to common posters on this board without it being called for, i just figured it was your "thing".



but i agree that wasn't one of them. i think it's ok to acknowledge the language barrier and the difficulties that come with it.

i'll add that i'm always impressed by anyone who can converse at length in a second or third language. much respect.


and as a general question to the board, not aimed at you, is respectful behaviour dependent on the other person or ourselves?

I think it should be clear that using phrases like "allowing it.." is disrespectfull no matter how you look at it.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 03:22 PM
i think we've all seen you be disrespectful to common posters on this board without it being called for, i just figured it was your "thing".

Something I need to work on, no doubt.

But when you're talking with someone who has basically stuck their fingers in their ears and is yelling "LALALALA, I can't hear you" because they made a claim that was disproven, and is angry about it, then that poster has their own etiquette to address.

Dan Slott
05-15-2017, 03:32 PM
Interesting tactic--flipping it so somehow you are the aggrieved and injured party in that case. It's more than a little transparent.

I seriously doubt (Stillanerd did this), do you have a link?
Interesting tactic.
Stillanerd apologized to Wacker for it. Ask him. He'll probably be more honest about this than you've been on this thread.


5 people on Twitter, ok. Do you only have 5 followers on Twitter?
Bait, meet switch. You made a false claim, I countered it.


Both you and the person you were arguing with got reprimanded in that case. It's right there in the thread. Why are you making it all about someone else?
Because when you make false claims against someone, you don't get to limit the topic to what you're cherry-picking, Metamorphosis/cheesedique. Sorry.


You asked me if I was autistic or had aspergers
This is a serious concern when it comes to these boards. I've had problems in the past with people online who've suffered from conditions where they're compelled to constantly post the same things repetitiously, or have conditions where they can't control some of the things they say or post. I don't want to run the risk of badgering someone who's incapable of stopping or self-censoring what they were posting.

Dan Slott
05-15-2017, 03:37 PM
I doubt it--they really don't fixate on you as much as you or some people here like to maintain.
That is EXACTLY how that played out.
A crawlspacer took the screengrab.
A crawlspacer ran the article up on crawlspace.
Fellow crawlspacers went to other message boards and provided links.
I'm sorry that what actually happened doesn't sync up with how you feel about your buddies on that site.

boots
05-15-2017, 03:38 PM
I think it should be clear that using phrases like "allowing it.." is disrespectfull no matter how you look at it.

hey bor, it's never up to anyone else (myself included) to define what you or anyone else is offended by; if it affects you then that is that.

BUT, i will say that in this case, i don't think meta is being condescending or patronising when he used the word "allow". it's a common turn of phrase.

boots
05-15-2017, 03:41 PM
Something I need to work on, no doubt.

eh, i work on it everyday. i'm sure we all get #triggered



But when you're talking with someone who has basically stuck their fingers in their ears and is yelling "LALALALA, I can't hear you" because they made a claim that was disproven, and is angry about it, then that poster has their own etiquette to address.

not going to assume who you're talking about here but that happens alot on this and other boards in general. if someone has their fingers in their ears then no amount of communication (of any quality) is likely to get through.

Lee
05-15-2017, 04:23 PM
I've tried being respectful, as have others, and it's made no difference.

How long of a period were you respectful? Were you disrespectful prior to that respectful period? When did the respectful period end?


Wasn't meant as rude at all--clearly there is a language barrier at play, which isn't helping the already muddled arguments from that poster.

Could you explain the problem you're having? He's clearly fluent in the English language. Nobody else is having trouble understanding him. Why would you conclude that English isn't his first language?

Mister Mets
05-15-2017, 06:17 PM
10 posts were deleted. I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, where discussion about specific individuals and their actions are sometimes warranted. However, this can be done without name-calling.

boots
05-15-2017, 06:25 PM
thinking about it, we've seen dan exercise superhuman patience and grace in his online debate with john byrne (who was unrelentingly arrogant)...

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 07:16 PM
Bait, meet switch. You made a false claim, I countered it.

So the individual was bullied by only 5 of your Twitter followers?

Better than dozens or hundreds, I guess? Bravo.


Because when you make false claims against someone, you don't get to limit the topic to what you're cherry-picking, Metamorphosis/cheesedique. Sorry.

Yet you don't deny that you exercised your own "rude, insulting, and toxic behavior" while you were posting at Crawlspace?


This is a serious concern when it comes to these boards. I've had problems in the past with people online who've suffered from conditions where they're compelled to constantly post the same things repetitiously, or have conditions where they can't control some of the things they say or post. I don't want to run the risk of badgering someone who's incapable of stopping or self-censoring what they were posting.

Funny, it's only a concern you level at people who criticize you. And it didn't prevent you from Tweeting @ someone going through some problems.

Dan Slott
05-15-2017, 08:28 PM
So the individual was bullied by only 5 of your Twitter followers?

Better than dozens or hundreds, I guess? Bravo.

1. I don't control what my Twitter followers do. Especially 5 random ones.

2. In those 5 or so posts I saw no more bullying than what some of your own posts here could be called. Or posts that original poster himself has made.
5 people posting to him saying "You know Stan Lee said the same thing" doesn't sound very "bully-ish". Nor does it rise to the level of multiple posts that original poster's made calling me a "rape apologist" in a public forum-- because of something that wasn't even in a comic I wrote.

3. I've seen far worse behavior by yourself and by over a dozen crawlspacers-- if that volume is your new metric. So your faux outrage is a little hypocritical to me.

End of the day, you don't like a Spider-Man comic book that I write and you feel that justifies both your and your friends' incredibly toxic behavior on both this site and others. You have bizarre arguments that you like to parrot over and over again here multiple times a day. It's a very weird hobby you have, to spend that much time hating on something instead of promoting and supporting something you actually like.

Venomous Mask
05-15-2017, 08:43 PM
Since Dan Slott's in the room, this is the perfect time for me to plug my post-Spider-Verse five to six issues miniseries story idea of Spider Carnage vs. Man-Spider.

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 09:31 PM
1. I don't control what my Twitter followers do. Especially 5 random ones.

2. In those 5 or so posts I saw no more bullying than what some of your own posts here could be called. Or posts that original poster himself has made.
5 people posting to him saying "You know Stan Lee said the same thing" doesn't sound very "bully-ish". Nor does it rise to the level of multiple posts that original poster's made calling me a "rape apologist" in a public forum-- because of something that wasn't even in a comic I wrote.

3. I've seen far worse behavior by yourself and by over a dozen crawlspacers-- if that volume is your new metric. So your faux outrage is a little hypocritical to me.

End of the day, you don't like a Spider-Man comic book that I write and you feel that justifies both your and your friends' incredibly toxic behavior on both this site and others. You have bizarre arguments that you like to parrot over and over again here multiple times a day. It's a very weird hobby you have, to spend that much time hating on something instead of promoting and supporting something you actually like.

1. And I don't control what people on a message board do or say, but you lump us all together just the same. Go figure.
2. There you go playing the victim again. Whether it was five or fifty people that responded or flocked to his page after you Tweeted at him, who are you to say whether or not that didn't qualify as some kind of harassment?.
3. Your faux victimhood is what I find very hypocritical here.

PS - how I choose to spend my time online is no less bizarre than the amount of time you spend "badgering" (your very own words) detractors online when you could spend each and every one of those posts interacting with your real fans. That's rather bizarre in and of itself, don'tcha think? :confused:

Dan Slott
05-15-2017, 09:51 PM
ow I choose to spend my time online is no less bizarre than the amount of time you spend "badgering" (your very own words) detractors online...
I honestly don't see you as a detractor.
With the volume of time you spend online sh*t-posting about this book, when you could be doing anything else, I see it as your hobby.
You're not a detractor, you're an internet troll.
You troll on these boards and others.
You do it at a far greater frequency and volume than I could ever respond to-- so feel free to have the last word.
Feel free to have many.
It-- IS-- a bizarre habit.
It's kinda f*cked up.
Whatever.

And I do spend a good deal of my time online having positive interactions with fans-- mainly on my twitter, FB, and instagram accounts.

You usually only see me here on CBR when I counter false assertions-- things that people say have happened in the book that haven't, pointing out some readers who say they haven't actually read the stories they're complaining about for themselves, or people who post incorrect or misleading accounts of the book's sales and/or performance.

Peg me as playing the "victim" card, but you're one of the guys who kinda caused this thread into being with false claims of me having a racist-y opinion. And you're spending a great deal of time defending a person who regularly called me a "rape apologist" online. And, surprise, both of you are regular crawlspace posters. Unbelievable, I know. It's a toxic kind of fandom that you keep promoting. I really wish you'd find something you enjoyed that you could spend time promoting instead of all the sh*t-posting and hating that you do.

WebLurker
05-15-2017, 10:33 PM
Look, Metamorphosis,

As I have said before, I'm not a huge fan of Slot's online behavior as a whole, much less his interpretation of Spider-Man. But I do have to agree that he's being the more civil user at the moment. Maybe we should all just leave this argument (what is it even about now?) on the table and walk away. It's not doing anyone any good, I can't see how it's going to have any practical use, and is getting way out of hand. No matter how much the creative team in charge may be annoying us, at the end of the day, it's just a stupid comic book, (one that I'm skeptical will even have that much effect on the franchise as a whole).


It's a toxic kind of fandom that you keep promoting.

While I haven't had a chance to throughly examine the Crawlspace boards, as a Star Wars fan, I can say Spider-Man is not the most toxic fandom out there. To be honest, disgruntled fans venting and complaining on forums is pretty small potatoes (not excusing out of bounds behavior, but I've regularly seen a lot worse -- and disgruntled fans venting is an occupational hazard of successful franchises).

Metamorphosis
05-15-2017, 11:31 PM
I honestly don't see you as a detractor.
With the volume of time you spend online sh*t-posting about this book, when you could be doing anything else, I see it as your hobby.
You're not a detractor, you're an internet troll.
You troll on these boards and others.
You do it at a far greater frequency and volume than I could ever respond to-- so feel free to have the last word.
Feel free to have many.
It-- IS-- a bizarre habit.
It's kinda f*cked up.
Whatever.

And I do spend a good deal of my time online having positive interactions with fans-- mainly on my twitter, FB, and instagram accounts.

You usually only see me here on CBR when I counter false assertions-- things that people say have happened in the book that haven't, pointing out some readers who say they haven't actually read the stories they're complaining about for themselves, or people who post incorrect or misleading accounts of the book's sales and/or performance.

Peg me as playing the "victim" card, but you're one of the guys who kinda caused this thread into being with false claims of me having a racist-y opinion. And you're spending a great deal of time defending a person who regularly called me a "rape apologist" online. And, surprise, both of you are regular crawlspace posters. Unbelievable, I know. It's a toxic kind of fandom that you keep promoting. I really wish you'd find something you enjoyed that you could spend time promoting instead of all the sh*t-posting and hating that you do.

And I don't even see you as a bully, just a wannabe bully. Not a very convincing one.

One who spends his own inordinate amount of his time online--berating, badgering and browbeating people. Dividing and degrading people that voice an opinion you don't like. Painting people with a very broad brush, singling out posters you deem troublemakers. Carrying insane grudges.

I speak for myself, not for any other poster, not for any other website. But when I floated the idea to you of burying the hatchet with SCS, you were the one that waved it off.

Why? I kinda think you must enjoy baiting people from your very limited position of power. What else could it be?

You've spent a lot of your own time demonizing fandom, but have proven that the "professional" can be anything but that and just as toxic. And you've spent a lot of effort in driving segments of fandom away partly with your antics.

And from here on out, I don't have anything else to say to you on the matter.

boots
05-15-2017, 11:49 PM
While I haven't had a chance to throughly examine the Crawlspace boards, as a Star Wars fan, I can say Spider-Man is not the most toxic fandom out there. To be honest, disgruntled fans venting and complaining on forums is pretty small potatoes (not excusing out of bounds behavior, but I've regularly seen a lot worse -- and disgruntled fans venting is an occupational hazard of successful franchises).

wasn't there a female SW author who had to more or less "leave" the internet? i've heard similar stories across different groups. even the vitriol aimed at the latest ghostbusters cast makes me wonder about people

Prof. Warren
05-16-2017, 03:28 AM
And I don't even see you as a bully, just a wannabe bully. Not a very convincing one.

One who spends his own inordinate amount of his time online--berating, badgering and browbeating people. Dividing and degrading people that voice an opinion you don't like. Painting people with a very broad brush, singling out posters you deem troublemakers. Carrying insane grudges.

I speak for myself, not for any other poster, not for any other website. But when I floated the idea to you of burying the hatchet with SCS, you were the one that waved it off.

Why? I kinda think you must enjoy baiting people from your very limited position of power. What else could it be?

You've spent a lot of your own time demonizing fandom, but have proven that the "professional" can be anything but that and just as toxic. And you've spent a lot of effort in driving segments of fandom away partly with your antics.

And from here on out, I don't have anything else to say to you on the matter.

Hahaha, this post is rich.

It's hilarious that the most divisive, belligerent, bullying poster on these boards sees himself as a wounded victim.

I've never once seen Slott "berating, badgering and browbeating people." Defending himself in a civil way and standing his ground? All the time.

"Berating, badgering and browbeating people," on the other hand, does describe the Metamorphosis/Cheesedique approach to a T.

As does "dividing and degrading people that voice an opinion you don't like."

As does "painting people with a very broad brush."

And as does "carrying insane grudges." Slott has every reason not to feel friendly towards people who make a hobby of berating him, day in and day out. That's not an insane grudge to have. It's a legitimate reaction that anyone would have towards people who spend their time attacking them. And even with all that, he's still civil.

People who relentlessly attack a comic book writer because they don't like that writer's approach to a character? Now that's insane.

It's also insane to attack someone and then act like the aggrieved party when that person actually acts to defend themselves.

Nothing wrong with disliking a writer's work. Not every writer is for everyone. But once you've read enough of that writer to know that their work doesn't appeal to you, it's better to let it go rather than to carry on a tiresome vendetta.

Dan Slott
05-16-2017, 04:53 AM
But when I floated the idea to you of burying the hatchet with SCS, you were the one that waved it off.
I find a lot of your spin doesn't quite match up well with reality.
I didn't "wave off" your suggestion.
When you suggested I do this, I explained to you that in the past a representative from that site asked me to cooperate in a piece he was doing, and I helped out. I figured why not give them a second chance-- despite their harsh/insulting treatment of both myself and people I've worked with. And outside of a handful of "Hey, he was a good sport for doing this" comments, everything quickly snapped back to how it was.
As the saying goes, "Fool me once..."

oldschool
05-16-2017, 06:20 AM
wasn't there a female SW author who had to more or less "leave" the internet? i've heard similar stories across different groups. even the vitriol aimed at the latest ghostbusters cast makes me wonder about people

You are correct on both counts. I realize this isn't a newsflash for anyone but the sad reality is that the anonymity of the internet has cause people's behavior to degenerate badly; it has also shone a spotlight on people that just want to stir things up and tear down creators; I can remember hanging around my LCS waaayyyy back before the Internet broke and discussing controversial storylines and creative teams that some of us disliked and there was none of the behavior I see regularly each time I log on to a random comic (or other sports/entertainment) page. None.

RD!
05-16-2017, 06:38 AM
Enough is enough. There's too much wrong in the world, the issues raised in this thread don't rank up there.

I know that for me at least, this forum is a chance to unwind, let off steam and talk about Spider-Man -- something I can't do as often in my offline life. It's probably the same for all of you. It's ok not to like Slott's work - I myself am not keen on some points of it -- but there's no need to dislike the guy. Conversely, Slott you have written the most consistently successful comic if the past decade. Two anniversary issues, over 100 regular issues. You've got the dream job of every person on this board. Be proud of that, you can't please everyone but you certainly seem to please a lot of people. Let bygones be bygones.

We are all fans of Peter Parker so we must relate to him on some level. Peter certainly wouldn't like this arguing or allegations/misinterpretations of bullying. Friendly debate on our favourite book =ok. Arguing = not ok.

Metamorphosis
05-16-2017, 07:21 AM
Hahaha, this post is rich.

It's hilarious that the most divisive, belligerent, bullying poster on these boards sees himself as a wounded victim.

I've never once seen Slott "berating, badgering and browbeating people." Defending himself in a civil way and standing his ground? All the time.

"Berating, badgering and browbeating people," on the other hand, does describe the Metamorphosis/Cheesedique approach to a T.

As does "dividing and degrading people that voice an opinion you don't like."

As does "painting people with a very broad brush."

And as does "carrying insane grudges." Slott has every reason not to feel friendly towards people who make a hobby of berating him, day in and day out. That's not an insane grudge to have. It's a legitimate reaction that anyone would have towards people who spend their time attacking them. And even with all that, he's still civil.

People who relentlessly attack a comic book writer because they don't like that writer's approach to a character? Now that's insane.

It's also insane to attack someone and then act like the aggrieved party when that person actually acts to defend themselves.

Nothing wrong with disliking a writer's work. Not every writer is for everyone. But once you've read enough of that writer to know that their work doesn't appeal to you, it's better to let it go rather than to carry on a tiresome vendetta.

Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't share your clearly unbiased, totally objective view of things here Prof. Especially when you've had more than your own share of axes to grind with people around these parts.

Prof. Warren
05-16-2017, 08:39 AM
Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't share your clearly unbiased, totally objective view of things here Prof. Especially when you've had more than your own share of axes to grind with people around these parts.

Hold on. Everybody who HASN'T waged a relentless war on these boards with a creator, taking it well into crazy town over and over even when given EVERY opportunity to stop, please take one step forward.

Oh!...not so fast, Metamorphosis!

I've got no axes to grind. But I do call 'em as I see 'em. And if you were able to have even an ounce of self-reflection, your behavior on these boards would be quite different, I'm sure.

Metamorphosis
05-16-2017, 08:47 AM
You do it at a far greater frequency and volume than I could ever respond to-- so feel free to have the last word.

..Wait for it..


I find a lot of your spin doesn't quite match up well with reality.
I didn't "wave off" your suggestion.
When you suggested I do this, I explained.....


Hold on. Everybody who HASN'T waged a relentless war on these boards with a creator, taking it well into crazy town over and over even when given EVERY opportunity to stop, please take one step forward.

Oh!...not so fast, Metamorphosis!

I've got no axes to grind. But I do call 'em as I see 'em. And if you were able to have even an ounce of self-reflection, your behavior on these boards would be quite different, I'm sure.

But is it "crazy town banana pants" level of crazy? ;)

Guess you could say I'm calling them as I see 'em as well, Prof Warren; you just don't like how I'm calling it. That's fair. But as I watch you raking me over the coals here based on your perception of my behavior, I can't help but wonder when that "ounce of self-reflection" comes into play regarding your own often very rude comments to me and other people here.

People in glass houses, etc.

Dan Slott
05-16-2017, 09:01 AM
And from here on out, I don't have anything else to say to you on the matter.
...wait for it...

People in glass houses...
49432

Lee
05-16-2017, 09:25 AM
Guess you could say I'm calling them as I see 'em as well, Prof Warren; you just don't like how I'm calling it. That's fair. But as I watch you raking me over the coals here based on your perception of my behavior, I can't help but wonder when that "ounce of self-reflection" comes into play regarding your own often very rude comments to me and other people here.

People in glass houses, etc.

Several people have suggested that you take a step back and re-evaluate your attitude in this thread alone. Why do you think that is?

Metamorphosis
05-16-2017, 09:33 AM
Several people have suggested that you take a step back and re-evaluate your attitude in this thread alone. Why do you think that is?

Getting a lot of questions from you lately Lee--you seem to have formed your own opinion on the matter, so why do you think it is?

It does seem here that people are lot less willing to overlook what they deem "bad behavior" when they don't like the message that comes with it.

Bor
05-16-2017, 09:59 AM
Getting a lot of questions from you lately Lee--you seem to have formed your own opinion on the matter, so why do you think it is?

It does seem here that people are lot less willing to overlook what they deem "bad behavior" when they don't like the message that comes with it.

My god man please stop. I know I have been one of the most vocal oppenents of your views in this thread but at this point even I am embarrassed on your behalf. If you werent so busy alinating everyone here you might actually see how rude you are being towards pretty much every single poster. You make hyberbole statements like "1000s of posters" and when corrected you ignore it and instead provide even more rudeness. You say its something you are working on changing but it seems quite clear you are not working that hard.

Prof. Warren
05-16-2017, 10:05 AM
Guess you could say I'm calling them as I see 'em as well, Prof Warren; you just don't like how I'm calling it. That's fair. But as I watch you raking me over the coals here based on your perception of my behavior, I can't help but wonder when that "ounce of self-reflection" comes into play regarding your own often very rude comments to me and other people here.

People in glass houses, etc.

No one, including myself, cares that you don't like Slott's Spider-Man, or that you're a fan of the marriage.

Everyone has their own opinions and discussion is welcome. Tirades, attacks, toxic negativity and monotonous assaults, not so much.

The only reason anyone has ever "raked you over the coals" is because of your belligerent, hostile attitude.

And it's not about anyone's perception of your behavior, it's about your actual behavior, the sort that you've engaged in time and again - even though many people on these boards have politely suggested again and again that you might want to try a different tact.

Like, Lee, for instance:


Several people have suggested that you take a step back and re-evaluate your attitude in this thread alone. Why do you think that is?

...Only to have you respond with a complete lack of self-awareness and a total resistance to the idea that, hey, people are trying to tell me something - maybe I should listen.

Metamorphosis
05-16-2017, 10:07 AM
My god man please stop. I know I have been one of the most vocal oppenents of your views in this thread but at this point even I am embarrassed on your behalf. If you werent so busy alinating everyone here you might actually see how rude you are being towards pretty much every single poster. You make hyberbole statements like "1000s of posters" and when corrected you ignore it and instead provide even more rudeness. You say its something you are working on changing but it seems quite clear you are not working that hard.

And you aren't helping your own case with these kinds of posts, Bor. While I can acknowledge that my behavior is something I need to address, no one here sees any trace of that kind of self-realization on your very own behalf. When I pointed out things you said that were wrong yesterday, you continually chose to respond in anger.

So what you're constantly saying to me just as much could apply to yourself, think about it.

Bor
05-16-2017, 10:38 AM
Here's a choice cut (http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?95319-Amazing-Spider-Man-27-(SPOILER-WARNING)/page2) from one of your own very recent posts here:



I've seen you interact with people in decidedly very actual rude ways yourself over time here. Never said I was perfect, but once again, you have your own fair share of rude behavior to take stock of.

How does that qoute even come close to you making up numbers of social media "attackers" and implying a poster was banned because of Slott even though that clearly was not the case? Or the string of rude behaviour towards something like 6 different posters in this thread alone? Notice how no one is jumping in to defend you?

Prof. Warren
05-16-2017, 10:40 AM
I've seen you interact with people in decidedly very actual rude ways yourself over time here. Never said I was perfect, but once again, you have your own fair share of rude behavior to take stock of.

That comment is not rude in any way. It's not even in the ballpark.

Addressing a complaint about one character's near death escape with a quippy comment pointing out what a common comic book trope such improbable escapes are is not rude.

And the fact that you think that's even slightly comparable to the pages of actual rude, aggressive behavior you've engaged just in this thread alone (a thread that had to be created in the first place because you took the initial thread off into its own tangent) is hilarious.

Mister Mets
05-16-2017, 12:25 PM
We seem to be unable to have this discussion without getting personal, so I'm shutting this down.

A handful of posts were deleted.