RockMyAmadeus

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.

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

hm