VintageComics

There is much truth in this. Much. Too much, in fact. Every single person individually has an opportunity to take something negative and turn it around. It's how the Internet tends to work... anonymity brings out the worst in some people. It hasn't always been like that around here, and I've seen other forums where it isn't like that. You can see the worst of that attitude in video game forums, probably because many of the posters are teenagers. RMA isn't wrong that moderation can fix it, but I've not personally seen a forum from a small company like CGC that did any better job. Well-moderated forums have two things in common that I've seen--they're not tied to companies, and moderation status is given to active users. Only active participants in a forum can moderate that forum as tightly as he's reaming Arch for not doing. It's tough for a small non-Internet company to identify unbiased and objective moderators within the community. I've seen Internet companies find good moderators for their forums--I like the Cracked.com forums and they've done a good job of it--but for companies like CGC, the web site is a peripheral entity and the boards are something they've mostly outsourced. There are some active community members who are objective enough to moderate they could probably get to help a bit. It's not likely they'll do that, but it's worth considering. I'm not sure I would if I were making that decision, but I'd think about it. The moderation here is outsourced, although CGC employees do have moderation capability as well (as most people know). It really boils down to disagreement over how much effort moderators want put into a given site vs. what it takes to keep people here. Whoever said "it's just a comic book chat forum" is right. It's easier for moderators to "hit the squeeky wheel with some grease" than it is to sift through rivalries that are weeks, months or even years old in some cases, to figure out "who is right". Some of these rivalries are a decade old and have carried over from other places. God, how do you deal with that as an outside observer who is supposed to be impartial? If I had to guess, I'd say that these moderators have other jobs to do beyond just moderating a bunch of grown men on a comic book chat forum. They're probably programmers, data entry, whatever (I don't know enough about IT to say) but I'm betting they are not "just" moderators. Ultimately, it always comes down to the group dynamic - whether in public or in a private group such as this one. The ones that stick their heads up enough times get hit with the water hose in the face. You just hit the guy that stands out above the crowd and the rest learn from someone that person's mistakes and punishment. Sometimes RMA is the "hot topic" because he's dicing hair so fine you'd need to find a new species to match the hair to. He's free to do it. Sometimes I am because I have an "agenda". Sometimes Cal is because he's stubborn and difficult to talk to. Sometimes someone else is (my buddy Ogami, you're the flavour of the day! ). My own observation is that most people have a tough time knowing when to stop arguing. I'll include myself in that group, nay, I am the king of it, having had my share of massive debates and feeling like the victim (I may have deserved it, I may not have). Ultimately if no agreement can be made it always comes down to one side walking away to keep the peace. It is the group - the dynamic, living, breathing group of individual people (humans - not anonymous chat forum identities) that is personally responsible for how things turn out on this forum. One person's post can and does affect many others. I've seen this place swell up like a dead sewer rat in recent months. New members pouring in by the dozens every week - and don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with new members. Unfortunately, they are taken up by the group dynamic and will reflect whatever the group is projecting. Used to be a time you could log in once a day and get the gist of what was going on. Now it's just frenzy all the time. It's one of the main reasons I personally decided to pull back. I don't need the hassle or distraction of trying to figure out what is going on and I don't want to add to it. In every relationship, whether it's marriage, neighbours, co-workers etc, It is usually the "other person" and it's always "she was a person_without_enough_empathy" or "he was an individual_without_enough_empathy" placing blame on anyone but themselves. This place is no different. It's a group of people with a bunch of different relationships existing at once. What is most interesting is that just like in real life, groups of people form based on their proximity, interests or personal relationships. If a group of people know each other personally outside of this forum, they tend to "band together" in general agreement on board issues and stick up for each other (well, except for Mark1 and sufunk! ) - but partisan politics is sometimes to the detriment of the board. It most often comes down to an external moderator needing to make the decision whether it's in the form of a police officer, an attorney, a bailiff or just a chat forum moderator. Why? Because it's expected that the external moderator will take the time and effort to dissect the problem with a fine toothed comb and get to the root of the problem...only they rarely do because both sides won't be honest about what is actually going on. So moderators (police, attorneys, etc) just see what people allow them to see, they moderate on that limited information and someone gets punished. All that does is drive the negativity deeper, not eliminate it. Eliminating negativity needs to come from within each individual. There is no other way to do it. Zero. None. Nada. That only happens when someone stops talking about other people and what "they are doing wrong" and starts talking about themselves. It's rare to honestly hear someone say "I take responsibility for what happened" but ultimately self moderation eliminates the need for external moderation. This forum is a product of it's members, and whether everyone sees it or not, each and every person has an effect on the entire forum.

Thanks for having my back, OG. But I'd like the focus..positive or negative...not to be on any individual. That's the problem. People around here can't discuss things without making every issue about the people discussing the issue, rather than the issue itself...and it is this problem that eats away at the board, which the moderation team won't address. It's not the boobies, it's not the swear words, it's not the "PG-13" issues that are the problem. It's the toxicity that motivates a person to make threats against someone else, regardless of the reason, the toxicity that jumps all over noobs for the most innocuous questions, the toxicity that inspires people to provoke people they don't like with snide commentary, the toxicity that allows peopll to openly hate one another instead of trying to resolve differences, or, at worst, not interacting with them at all. That's the problem, that's what the mods, and the mods alone, can control, and that's what is being ignored. There is much truth in this. Much. Too much, in fact. Every single person individually has an opportunity to take something negative and turn it around.

Most tools don't realize they're tools. Yes, I realize some of you will find my post ironic...but will you find the irony in the irony?

Another great point I hadn't really thought about! Without super-heroes, would there be anything beyond a niche (well... even nichier) core of collectors out there, say along the same lines as BLB collectors today. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason BLBs are so minimally collected today, isn't so much because of the format being unpopular among collectors, as it is that there are so few super-hero titles to be found in them. I think if 2 or 3 dozen super-heroes had crossed over into BLBs, they might have a different collecting landscape today... Tim, you've been skirting the point all along without realizing that you'd said it .

Likely because the human body always gravitates towards doing things with less effort. If it's easier to watch a show than read about one, the masses will gravitate towards the show. I have terrific kids, but I would only call on a 'reader'. She reads non-stop - the rest are 'doers'...she is too mind you, she loves doing stuff, but the rest choose it over reading. Video games, sports, etc. She's a reader to her core...whenever there is a spare moment, she's reading something. You'll never lose the reader but you do lose those that have other avenues to pursue. Yup, have to agree. I came to that conclusion after Tim's post last night.

I think you just may have hit another nail on the head - the collector was not the target market, it was the reader. Again, I think that a timeline with best selling comics would show which comics were being bought and read on a monthly time line. Is it possible that many readers of non fantasy stuff (funny animal, humour, etc) did not become collectors, mainly because the funny stuff seems to have a "one off" story while fantasy was more intricate and detailed, and had cohesion from issue to issue very possibly causing people to want to collect them. Readers became collectors. Is it possible that fantasy readers became fantasy collectors more often than non fantasy readers becoming non fantasy collectors? I can't answer that for sure as I wasn't there but it makes me think that the answer is a definite maybe. If in fact fantasy collectors dominate the hobby that would definitely give the perspective in hindsight that fantasy was more popular, when in fact Disney and other titles could have outsold them - those readers just weren't around to compare notes as collectors.

West, these are two very different things. 1st, I don't think this discussion really has anyone disagreeing that superheroes were the driving force of the past 50 years - that's pretty much a given - but the past 50 years also have very little bearing on the origins of the American comic book. 2nd, I think it's impossible to know what will be popular 50 years from now. It could be disco. Again.

Nope. They were not the main force in the 1800s. They were not the main force in the Platinum Age. They were not the main force in the 1930s, nor the 40s, nor the 50s. They were coming along in the 1960s, but probably were not even then the main force. From the '70s on... yes, they are the main force. Although I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as most of you guys, I too was under the impression that superheroes did not carry comics alone, and my understanding mirrors Bookery's and BLB's that in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950,s (was unsure about the 1960's) that Superheros were popular but not the most popular comics. I thought that was a given. I was under the impression that the humour titles (Disney, Archie, etc) outsold superheroes during the Golden Age...and Superman was clearly outsold by Captain Marvel. Todd, I thought sales figures would be an accurate measuring stick because for one, it's unbiased, meaning they are numbers not opinions. It shows what was hot during each respective time period, and would also show which vector or direction readership would have taken through the years. Obviously if there is a pattern of high sales and popularity over a series of either titles or publications those were take precedent over those that were either flops or near forgotten.

That is all you came away with from my last post? One can "imagine" all one wants to if one chooses to, but, Bill, that statement is simply silly on the face of it, simply by examining the published evidence of well over a century of comic book production. Bob, you are the one lacking in imagination. You are so busy connecting the dots that you can't see the forest for the trees. So to speak. Fast forward it 100 years. What will be remembered then? You don't reply to the facts and direct observations in my posts, so why should I return the favor. You keep calling me, or my position silly, that may be true about me, but not my position. Stop thinking I am blinded by superhero bias. My collection is only about 25% superhero so that argument doesn't hold water. You and I are contemporaries for the most part, so we have observed the market for roughly the same amount of time. Thus equally qualified to comment on it. Does anyone have a timeline illustration or graph clearly showing a comparison of sales numbers for many of these publications? (ie. Buster Brown, Action #1, Obadiah, etc).

I get the same feeling as well. Very similar warning bells going off. This feels like the old Comic-keys auctions all over again.

Which part? Sar. Kazaam.

Unusual theme for a comics book.

Me too.

Any particular eras?

That's racist.

Nah, they put in new labels and micro chamber paper. So it has to be encapsulated again. I think they stopped using microchamber paper. I thought that was public knowledge. I've seen people here comment on it and the last 5 or 6 books I've cracked didn't have it in them. I've never seen a book missing microchamber paper on both ends. Sometimes it's missing on the back end, sometimes it's on a 2nd page as opposed to behind the cover. I've seen a few missing one page but having the other. Usually moderns or coppers IIRC.

That's is exactly the way ComicKeys/Dupcak auctions used to go. Very strong bidding.

I saw that. Interestingly enough she's registered to the same town (Massapequa Park, NY) as Daniel Dupcak...and she sells killer high grade books. It threw a few flags for me.

Will you have the time?

If only I placed the bet for March and not New Years. You would still lose. 2014?

If only I placed the bet for March and not New Years.

Wow, now that is special.

Good communication, quick pay. I'd recommend dealing with Herman!

Love it. What is the motif behind the oversized Superman costume on at least 2 paintings? That was the first thing to catch my eye on your site. The cemetery painting is absolutely mesmerizing. I back onto one and love it.

Holy crapola, Mr. sartre