RockMyAmadeus

Wasn't that a protest against the inadequate ignore feature? 15%

You seem to have great difficulty in determining the difference between "outrage" and someone forthrightly disagreeing with your assessment of the situation. You do, however, have a very easy time with threatening people. After all..."non constructive" conversation (with what is, and what is not, constructive of course being up to you) is a violation of policy, and a strikable offense. I really wish you, and whomever it is that is contracted to do this work for the Certified Collectibles Group, would move on to some other company already and let someone else take your place. You really don't seem to be able to handle it when people take issue with the way you do your job. I do hope that wasn't too "outrageous" for you. (thumbs u I respect your opinion, but as an unbiased observer...I completely disagree. I had the exact same reaction as Arch when reading your post; my view about your argumentative style is that you deliberately choose to use quite a bit of inflammatory language. Perhaps you do so for emphasis; I don't know. I think you, like most of us, has a real hard time being criticised. I mean, the eyeroll at the start of your post is just about as perfect an example of what he's talking about, short of a graemlin that's giving the finger. I'm not saying this to argue with you, or to get into a prolonged parsing of your original post, but rather to give you a perspective from someone who hopefully you know doesn't have any antagonism towards you. If you think this should have been done via pm, I apologise. It seems easier this way It really just boils down to the last word with RMA...he's gotta have it. I've not read any arguments made by him that don't antagonize, belittle or otherwise berate in the interest of merely shutting up any contrary opinion. And this, Sal, is a perfect demonstration of the problem. This isn't true, not in a specific sense, nor a broad sense, and yet...this Shootydog feels it necessary to make the discussion about ME, rather than the issue. Despite the fact that, since January of 2012, for reasons that remain my own, I've made...perhaps...50 posts that actually said much of anything at all. No, despite that, it devolves into personal attacks about individuals, rather than talking about the issues. This is about as excellent an example of what is wrong with this board that anyone could possibly have come up with.

You seem to have great difficulty in determining the difference between "outrage" and someone forthrightly disagreeing with your assessment of the situation. You do, however, have a very easy time with threatening people. After all..."non constructive" conversation (with what is, and what is not, constructive of course being up to you) is a violation of policy, and a strikable offense. I really wish you, and whomever it is that is contracted to do this work for the Certified Collectibles Group, would move on to some other company already and let someone else take your place. You really don't seem to be able to handle it when people take issue with the way you do your job. I do hope that wasn't too "outrageous" for you. (thumbs u I respect your opinion, but as an unbiased observer...I completely disagree. I had the exact same reaction as Arch when reading your post; my view about your argumentative style is that you deliberately choose to use quite a bit of inflammatory language. Perhaps you do so for emphasis; I don't know. I think you, like most of us, has a real hard time being criticised. I mean, the eyeroll at the start of your post is just about as perfect an example of what he's talking about, short of a graemlin that's giving the finger. I'm not saying this to argue with you, or to get into a prolonged parsing of your original post, but rather to give you a perspective from someone who hopefully you know doesn't have any antagonism towards you. If you think this should have been done via pm, I apologise. It seems easier this way It was, and is, for emphasis. One is allowed to be unhappy, and express that unhappiness, without someone else reading their unhappiness as inflammatory. Emoticons are used to express emotions. We are not emotionless automatons. I did not "flip the bird" or use any emoticon which could be construed as provocative. It expresses how I think about the situation. And the situation here, despite what Architecht may believe about me and my posting habits personally, is pretty bad, much of the time, in many ways...an opinion shared by very many.

Allow me to address one issue..in real life, people are allowed to defend themselves, present their cases. You do not allow this here. There is no appeal, to anything, a fact you quite plainly state in the terms So to compare moderation here to real life is disingenuous. As for the years ago example...it was an example that disproved your statement that "(read: everyone who ever got a strike or warning) may deeply believe that in your case it was all about injustice. You may even have a point - like our speeder above who was not the fastest one in the pack. But you were still speeding." Again...there was someone who was NOT speeding, yet got caught anyways. These problems that you're saying are dealt with in a manner whereby...if I may paraphrase..."we don't see the whole picture" are so obvious, so ubiquitous, and so pervasive, it is impossible for even the most positive board member to avoid. PS. A very large part of the problem is that you see statements like this: ...as inflammatory. If you look for something in another's words...the odds are very good that you'll find it.

You seem to have great difficulty in determining the difference between "outrage" and someone forthrightly disagreeing with your assessment of the situation. You do, however, have a very easy time with threatening people. After all..."non constructive" conversation (with what is, and what is not, constructive of course being up to you) is a violation of policy, and a strikable offense. I really wish you, and whomever it is that is contracted to do this work for the Certified Collectibles Group, would move on to some other company already and let someone else take your place. You really don't seem to be able to handle it when people take issue with the way you do your job. I do hope that wasn't too "outrageous" for you. (thumbs u

I recently urged him to start posting again hoping that you're exactly right about him changing...and then last week he started. First thread I saw him in was a back-and-forth with Hellblazer where neither would shut up until the other relented. Most of the thread is pulled now, and I quickly realized nothing had really changed that I can tell so far. (thumbs u

I've talked to him numerous times, but I don't continue talking to people who think every discussion is a debate they're uncontrollably compelled to win. I avoid a number of people in most forums for that reason.

Having been subjected to a few years of watching RMA talk I can say that he ALWAYS kicks when he talks. Everyone's. His conversational style is about like that of a overly-excitable pitbull on crack. And that's why he has to hold himself back from talking. If you spent as much time talking TO him as you do ABOUT him, you would know that isn't true.

All the above rests on the VERY flawed premise that every person who got a strike or warning was violating the rules as obviously as when one speeds. Why is it flawed? Because speeding is black and white."You were going 61. The limit is 55. By definition, you were speeding, even accounting for variances in speed detection technology." Moderation HERE, however, depends solely on your OPINION, and the opinions of your team. Unfortunately, when you refuse to moderate according to your own policies, when you ignore your own policies, when you are radically inconsistent in enforcing your policies... Well. Your assertion that "every single person was speeding" doesn't really hold much water, now does it...? For the most part, people aren't stupid here. For the most part. People know when they're being overpoliced. They know when they are being underpoliced. They can see for themselves whether or not things are being handled even-handedly, "confirmation bias" or not. For you to claim that every single person who ever got a strike or warning was clearly and obviously "speeding" is ludicrous, because it would make you perfect! Are you really claiming you have been perfect in your moderation here...? I know you're not, and I only need Diggler's "nipple" strike to prove it. You didn't even give Diggler a CHANCE to explain, you just struck him, that's that, end of story. It took a virtual uprising from everyone ELSE to get you to back down and admit that you had issued a strike IN ERROR. And if that one example puts the lie to your claim that "everyone who got a strike or warning deserved it", what else is there that is not so black and white..? The hubris! No. It's not. Is it tedious? Oh yes. Yes, indeed. Is it HARD? No. You treat everyone the same way, equally, all the time, and you do it within the parameters of your stated rules. You do this so that certain areas of the board...like comics general, like the water closet, like modern comics...don't become cesspools of personality, where everyone is on edge, with a hair trigger outlook, where every single post that CAN be taken wrong IS, where people are taking endless shots at other people, and they don't even know why. Otherwise...you get this never ending cycle...going on for ELEVEN YEARS NOW...of over moderation, then under moderation, then people complaining because you aren't doing your jobs so clearly that it's painfully evident to even the sunniest board member, then you have to...AGAIN...step in to say "moderation is HARD!!" You may be able to convince most of the people, Mr. Oz...but some people are capable of looking behind the curtain, believe it or not.

:shrug:

All these copper slabs. Definitely a tip down memory lane. Congrats if that's a Boardie.

But I could put a reserve on it.... It's a difficult one to call. I would as a seller as the book is untested in the market... but as I potential buyer It's a revalation that Cat Yronwode just wrote any number in there - i.e. "23" just because you'd asked. the implicatons give me a headache That's never how I thought of it. I assumed the copies were all already signed and numbered, and per my request cat simply riffled through the pile and pulled the one I asked for.

I would guess a large portion of the 100 copies were destroyed in the flood that destroyed most of Eclipse Comics' backstock in 1986.

BAM! There's your 9.4. Yeah, about that.... Send me a pm if you know a guy.