Get Marwood & I

Naughty boy Mike. I see what you did there

The like button is a wonderful, telling contraption isn't it

Thanks for the clarification. I don't like the increase, no. Some of the art looks lovely in its way, and would be nice as a poster or print, but I don't think it's art that sits well with the medium myself.

What would a pence thread look like on Facebook I wonder?

Is it though? Aren't we, the participating members, the real owners? We put 99% of the content up. Mostly carp I grant you, but do you see my point?

Not uncommon, and nothing to take personally. Admin are stretched, hence all the rambling in this thread! And they don't work weekends

Whoops, I didn't stick to that did I. Anyway, @FSF, your thread has taken off good and proper. Be pleased! And do come back and give us your thoughts

It's almost too realistic, like a photo.

No, he's still about. I was told dena is the first point of call now in admin for routine stuff.

No worries. If you need to know how to do anything, drop a question and I or others will help. The new place takes a bit of getting used to, but it's worth it once you've mastered the software.

Agree. The whole thing's been bollockized in my opinion.

Serious answer? Dunno Yeah, that's what Bababooey was saying earlier. Some characters only work on the page don't they. And I can't see how any superhero could maintain a secret identity in the modern world. Comics were of their time. Agreed. Variants just feel like blatant money making schemes to me, often with little artistic merit. 49 ASM v3 relaunch covers anyone? 47 suck.

Then you are not welcome here! Only kidding, fill one of these in and they'll merge you back to your old self https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/forum/80-account-merge-requests/ Or send Scott or Dena a pm.

See, while I can see that that is a good piece of art, perfectly well rendered, to me it has nothing to do with the comic. That's not how I see Felicia in my mind. That's just someone who has painted a picture of a good looking woman in a semi pornographic pose, and stuck Black Cats mask on her. So I hate it, really, as it has no place being on the comic. No connection.

I mentioned some posts back how I thought that Charlotte Ritchie was a better actress than Jodie (in the New Year special) and that she would likely have been a better choice for the Doctor. Since then, she's been turning up in everything. An unknown, with talent, emerging to become a household name. I understand that Chibbers only went for Jodie after Olivia Coleman, the only other actress he's ever worked with on Broadchurch, turned him down. Good for Charlotte I suppose, that she was never in the running. Being saddled with Chibnall Who would likely have killed the flourish.

I do. I think most members do actually. But I also like, occasionally, to test the appetite to have some of them removed. The obstacles that is. Only one way to find out...

Be fair, he does change her hair colour

Can I play Chuck? The value is simple for me - interaction with other people. If I post something, and someone interacts, I enjoy that, and usually regardless of how they respond. They have to be pretty unpleasant, or wholly unfair, for me to really take real offence. I joined to interact with people with whom I have a shared interest - a love of comics. I like to share my thoughts and research, and get feedback on it. I also like to have a bit of fun, play devils advocate, and make suggestions as to how things could be better here. It's all done with a good spirit, I like to think. But if I do all that, and get no reaction, no interaction, then there is no value for me. It's like standing in a crowd of people in a pub and everything you say they ignore. No fun. So interaction, surely, is why we are all here. No one wants to post in a vacuum, do they? Having established that, there has to be a level playing field. If things are seen to be unfair, then that doesn't promote value. If someone posts extensive detailed information about comics and gets their due reward for it from those that appreciate it - thanks, recognition, respect, input - that's all good. But if they then fall victim of what I would call a 'hunting with the hounds' scenario whereby a few people who disagree with them chase them down constantly leading to increased moderation activity, then that is not fair. There are clear patterns of activity which result in threads being locked etc, and moderation and admin appear to do nothing constructive about it. So we have the perception that the playing field isn't fair. I will continue to post while I enjoy doing so, and feel that I am being treated fairly in the process. If people stop interacting with me, or the 'powers that be' treat me unfairly, I may stop one day (stop now! the masses cry!). It won't be the end of the world, just a personal choice. Or, they enjoy it (the interaction) but the failures of moderation swing the balance away from them staying. They must do. Who would do this for nothing?! Correct me someone of I'm wrong, but I presume CGC contract out the moderation and administration of this site to third parties. The mods, Arch, Scott etc are not CGC staff, correct? So if they are paid to provide a skeleton / minimum service, this is what we get. It's not their fault if so. How much better would it be to have a full time person(s) with a deep understanding of comics, conflict resolution, people management, procedures, problem solving etc, paid for by a subscription. Tailor the site to its audience, not the other way around. Work with the members, not in isolation of them. Look at what Brittany does for the CGC brand - she creates more positivity than the average ten people and makes people feel that their views are important. Imagine a similar person running these boards on a daily basis. Imagine someone with vision, who could take the board forward into new territories - eat into the GCDs space maybe, a proper selling function. So Rock's notion earlier is correct - the only way to make such a thing happen would be to write to CGC leadership team direct, not the mods / admin. In my experience in life, the people at the top often don't know what is going on as the people in the middle don't tell them what the people at the bottom are saying / feeling. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I can say that whenever I contact CGC direct, they answer.

I agree. This does link in a little to the spirit of my post, the old school charm vs the more modern realism. Some comic characters don't translate well into reality. They look, frankly, silly. So ultra realism may be at odds with the original medium. Yes, they all seem to use the same models as reference points don't they! Anyway, I'll keep quiet until FSF frames his question a little clearer, maybe with some pictorial examples and his own initial guiding thoughts.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood where you were going with it. Put me on the right track?

Great art is great art. Some of the covers are beautiful, and would look good framed or as a print. That said, I find that they somehow detract from the contents though, as they stand alone from it, unconnected. If I see a comic with a key scene from the book, I may go "Wow, Spidey gets unmasked in this one", or "Spidey fights the Hulk in this one, I've got to buy this!". Or at least would have as a kid. If I see an - admittedly - beautifully drawn 'pose' cover, the only reason I would want that is because the cover looked nice (unless I was a run collector, or a fan of the cover artist). So if the only reason I want it is because the cover looks nice, then the comic has become secondary to the cover. Personally, and at the risk of sounding like one of those 'tired old guys', I prefer comics that look like this... ...to ones that look like this (alright, I know it's a variant): That's just a personal preference though. My own view is that comics have evolved - they are no longer what they were and have become to a degree showcases for certain 'hot' artists work. I used to collect ASM, and there was a spell where every cover was just Spidey in a pose. Nothing connected to the story. So I have no idea now, what the comic contains. Here's what I mean - five consecutive issues that tell me nothing: Now, I know what happens in these ones... But they do seem 'old fashioned' now don't they? Maybe that is because comics have moved on. It's a matter of personal preference whether they are better, worse, or just different now. And my preference, whilst I can appreciate a lovely piece of unconnected art, is that the old books with their story telling narrative / key event cover spoilers, are more in line with a medium that makes sense. That is, to tell a story and to entice the buyer to want to read it.

I, witness... In HORROR.. A very scary cover Odd cover isn't it. New to me, I saw it on eBay recently. The faces in the background seem competent - great even. But the central Superman image? What on Earth / Krypton....?

That goes back to our points about getting what you pay for. They don't have time. I sent one such mail once and the mod did a detailed reply and noted that it had taken them 2 hours to construct it. They aren't actually as technically competent with the board software as we are, as they don't use it. So the mod was annoyed, as I'd effectively wiped his day out. We shared replies, each time with me making what I thought were clear and a factually accurate points in support of my case and the mod each time would gloss over those points. So it was a waste of both our times on that occasion. On the flip side, I have had points overturned. I have always had mixed feelings about this subject. One day I don't give a damn, the next I feel that sense of moral indignation. One day I'm on the mods side - let's face it, what a job, moderating us lot - the next I want to scream when moderation actions blatantly 'fail' (in my opinion of course). Online is no different to real life. If a guy upsets you in the pub, you react, however calm and dignified you may be. If the guy on the phone at the company who has mucked you about won't listen to reason, it drives you nuts. And you react. So that's why some of the most prolific boardies, and me, are here in this thread discussing a topic which some might say we should all get lives over. I have humped the button about three of four times in the two and a bit years I've been here. Two were retaliatory, and two were to test the process. I felt petty each time. So its not something I think I'll ever do again. Until we get a full time admin person on here, who can add the value I outlined in earlier posts, we're stuck with this system. So best we get on with it. The resource isn't equipped to assess each button hump in a contextual way. The rules are clear enough, so if the mod sees they've been broken they'll likely act. They don't have time to say "oh, it's greggy, so that's an in joke". They probably don't know who greggy is even. Who does? The main issue with the process as I see it is that it is inherently unfair. As I said earlier, if person A masks swearing ten times, and no one reports, they get away with it. If person B swears once, and gets reported, they get moderated. So it is possible to get someone banned by reporting their every transgression. Hence people like lizards2 starting to back away for fear of a total ban. Lizards2 is a great, long time poster here. It would be a sad day indeed if he were banned. And others like him. So the mods need to look for the patterns, to see if people are being 'ganged up on'. But they don't have time, do they. And admin, in the main, fail to intervene preferring instead to put their faith in the process. The cheap, poorly conceived, inaccurately administered, unfair process. So to conclude, the only way to improve things is to ramp up the resource. Hence my suggestion of an annual fee to pay for a full time administrator who's sole focus is to make this place as fair and effective as it can be. It'll never happen of course, as who aspires to excellence nowadays, when the bare minimum gets them by? And if a few valued contributors fall foul, hey, it's a chat forum. No one died.

Yep. The 'new' process as it is laid down isn't followed, and never has been, and the admin team display no interest in that when it is put to them. For the reasons we've all already pointed out, probably. I commented on this earlier. I did a change request or whatever they were called when the new boards went live to have an appeals channel opened up for that very reason. You can't request a moderation review until after your suspension ends. Good job we don't have the death penalty here isn't it! Arch did respond to it, to be fair, but still declined to pursue it.

Please Dufresne, sorry, refrain from all the Shawshank references.