General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[crassus]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:46 PM, jsilverjanet said:

Punch isn’t a color!  

mods notified 

It depends on what you like in your punch... 

[MrBedrock]

On 9/20/2021 at 3:19 PM, KCOComics said:

 

But I don't see a reason to call skypinkblue a baffoon or any other names. 

I can appreciate the frustration, but there is no reason to be belligerent toward moderators.  It doesn't advance your argument, it just muddies the situation. 

Because I think everyone agrees there needs to be a change in moderation. And the conversation should be about that and not insults. 

 

 

And this is the distinction I make - I never specifically called Sharon a buffoon. I said the moderators as a whole were buffoons. You may say that is splitting hairs but I think it is pretty clear that most folks here are disgusted with the moderation. And for me it has gotten to point that I felt I needed to get belligerent to get the point across. In fact by doing so my position became entirely clear. You may not agree with the means, but we are now at the ends you yourself say you desire.

[porcupine48]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:59 PM, MrBedrock said:

And this is the distinction I make - I never specifically called Sharon a buffoon. I said the moderators as a whole were buffoons. You may say that is splitting hairs but I think it is pretty clear that most folks here are disgusted with the moderation. And for me it has gotten to point that I felt I needed to get belligerent to get the point across. In fact by doing so my position became entirely clear. You may not agree with the means, but we are now at the ends you yourself say you desire.

Do you think there are just a lot of folk that like gwar more than fear?

Spoiler

 

Okay,doggo walk time!Ciao mon amis tout mon couer

[skypinkblu]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:59 PM, MrBedrock said:

And this is the distinction I make - I never specifically called Sharon a buffoon. I said the moderators as a whole were buffoons. You may say that is splitting hairs but I think it is pretty clear that most folks here are disgusted with the moderation. And for me it has gotten to point that I felt I needed to get belligerent to get the point across. In fact by doing so my position became entirely clear. You may not agree with the means, but we are now at the ends you yourself say you desire.

The only post I removed of yours (that I recall, you have to realize "buffoons don't have great memories) was the one where you quoted the naked picture. I hid it, I didn't pull it and put it in "your posts were removed by moderators"  because I didn't want it to cause an issue where you would get points. If I removed it, I would have had to issue a notice (or have the paid mod issue one), I thought it was the simplest way to fix the minor issue without causing any agita. Duh...

I didn't think quoting the naked picture was the best idea, but I certainly didn't think it was a big deal.

There were other posts that I thought might be at issue (not yours) , but as I said it was late and I didn't want to go through the entire thread, because when I do, I try to read things carefully, so I don't make a mistake (you know...not being too bright, it's hard for me to understand things and I'm slow)...but since I had started, I didn't want to leave it visible and half done, so I pulled it intending to finish. When you decided to   open a 2nd thread and I saw you were upset, I figured things were a mess already and that a paid mod should handle the rest.

I've apologized for not being smart enough to stay up later and finish. I am sorry you are so upset. Hopefully,  they will hire new people, you can start calling the new people names instead. Hopefully they will all be 6'12" so you can speak on the same level.

The interpretation that the thread should be pulled because of the price, was not my interpretation.  Did someone misinterpret my note? probably. Did they wait for me to explain after tagging me in a mod thread to ask me? ...no...which is definitely one of the many, many faults in the system. A decision was made probably an hour after the question was posted.

 

As for "vindictive" (which is the word you used before)...If you think making a joke about sandwiches, is going to cause me to want to be vindictive, you have no clue.  I've worked in non traditional jobs my entire life and I've had this non traditional hobby as well. When I saw the comment, I just rolled my eyes.  And even if I were the type of person who loses their temper over nonsense posts, although I'm obviously not too bright, I know enough to know that if I pull a thread, the higher ups can trace it...If I were vindictive...I'd have to try and do research on something much cooler than pulling a thread...I have never considered doing that, so I can't even imagine what that would be. Maybe the Punisher, but he's not real so it wouldn't be too helpful.

As I have tried to say several times, I had NO CLUE that anything would follow that would be this big a deal. My pulling the thread was to clean it up for the pictures and the ensuing comments...it had NOTHING to do with you personally. 

 

Right now,  I'm not sure I want to help out while they look for paid people. I'm sure they can find someone in paid staff to help out instead.  I was not going to post this at all, but I might as well, so I'm not the "face of moderation"...or whatever that means.

 

Also, I'm not a masochist...so I'm not going to try to explain anything else. Please contact the higher ups instead.  They obviously don't care if you call us names, so it won't bother them. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by skypinkblu

[ttfitz]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:19 PM, KCOComics said:

This is the distinction I make.... The thread shouldn't have been pulled for the price in my opinion. They were unique books and as the owner you should be allowed to set the prices.   I personally don't think your prices were out of line given the market we are in and I'm glad to see really cool books offered here. 

 

On 9/20/2021 at 4:43 PM, Bird said:

Mods calling a price a joke is just not worth it in any way shape or form. Aren't we even encouraged to put crazy high BINs on or trade posts to conform with the rules? 

People seem to continue with this notion, but if I read Sharon's explanation of the sequence of events, the "price is a joke" thing was probably a misinterpretation. From what I remember, there was a lot of joking around going on in the thread, which included some problematic posts (a nude drawing?), and she had locked/pulled/whatever-the-proper term the thread to clean it up, but before that all happened Richard reposted (which can get you in trouble all by its lonesome) which made it more work than she was ready to do. And when the paid Admin came along and read her note about "Richard joking around" (not an actual quote, and not really talking about the price at all), it was taken in the wrong way and became the reason for the thread being locked/pulled/whatever.

[crassus]

On 9/20/2021 at 6:05 PM, ttfitz said:

 

People seem to continue with this notion, but if I read Sharon's explanation of the sequence of events, the "price is a joke" thing was probably a misinterpretation. From what I remember, there was a lot of joking around going on in the thread, which included some problematic posts (a nude drawing?), and she had locked/pulled/whatever-the-proper term the thread to clean it up, but before that all happened Richard reposted (which can get you in trouble all by its lonesome) which made it more work than she was ready to do. And when the paid Admin came along and read her note about "Richard joking around" (not an actual quote, and not really talking about the price at all), it was taken in the wrong way and became the reason for the thread being locked/pulled/whatever.

That is how I read it too. Sharon is not responsible for either of the main grievances. 

[MrBedrock]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:05 PM, ttfitz said:

 

People seem to continue with this notion, but if I read Sharon's explanation of the sequence of events, the "price is a joke" thing was probably a misinterpretation. From what I remember, there was a lot of joking around going on in the thread, which included some problematic posts (a nude drawing?), and she had locked/pulled/whatever-the-proper term the thread to clean it up, but before that all happened Richard reposted (which can get you in trouble all by its lonesome) which made it more work than she was ready to do. And when the paid Admin came along and read her note about "Richard joking around" (not an actual quote, and not really talking about the price at all), it was taken in the wrong way and became the reason for the thread being locked/pulled/whatever.

I have quoted it elsewhere where the moderators specifically said the price was a joke in their notification to me when pulling the second thread. I was never notified about the Frazetta drawing with nudity (which to me is much different then a "nude drawing").

Edited September 20, 2021 by MrBedrock

[MrBedrock]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:38 PM, skypinkblu said:

The only post I removed of yours (that I recall, you have to realize "buffoons don't have great memories) was the one where you quoted the naked picture. I hid it, I didn't pull it and put it in "your posts were removed by moderators"  because I didn't want it to cause an issue where you would get points. If I removed it, I would have had to issue a notice (or have the paid mod issue one), I thought it was the simplest way to fix the minor issue without causing any agita. Duh...

I didn't think quoting the naked picture was the best idea, but I certainly didn't think it was a big deal.

There were other posts that I thought might be at issue (not yours) , but as I said it was late and I didn't want to go through the entire thread, because when I do, I try to read things carefully, so I don't make a mistake (you know...not being too bright, it's hard for me to understand things and I'm slow)...but since I had started, I didn't want to leave it visible and half done, so I pulled it intending to finish. When you decided to   open a 2nd thread and I saw you were upset, I figured things were a mess already and that a paid mod should handle the rest.

I've apologized for not being smart enough to stay up later and finish. I am sorry you are so upset. Hopefully,  they will hire new people, you can start calling the new people names instead. Hopefully they will all be 6'12" so you can speak on the same level.

The interpretation that the thread should be pulled because of the price, was not my interpretation.  Did someone misinterpret my note? probably. Did they wait for me to explain after tagging me in a mod thread to ask me? ...no...which is definitely one of the many, many faults in the system. A decision was made probably an hour after the question was posted.

 

As for "vindictive" (which is the word you used before)...If you think making a joke about sandwiches, is going to cause me to want to be vindictive, you have no clue.  I've worked in non traditional jobs my entire life and I've had this non traditional hobby as well. When I saw the comment, I just rolled my eyes.  And even if I were the type of person who loses their temper over nonsense posts, although I'm obviously not too bright, I know enough to know that if I pull a thread, the higher ups can trace it...If I were vindictive...I'd have to try and do research on something much cooler than pulling a thread...I have never considered doing that, so I can't even imagine what that would be. Maybe the Punisher, but he's not real so it wouldn't be too helpful.

As I have tried to say several times, I had NO CLUE that anything would follow that would be this big a deal. My pulling the thread was to clean it up for the pictures and the ensuing comments...it had NOTHING to do with you personally. 

 

Right now,  I'm not sure I want to help out while they look for paid people. I'm sure they can find someone in paid staff to help out instead.  I was not going to post this at all, but I might as well, so I'm not the "face of moderation"...or whatever that means.

 

Also, I'm not a masochist...so I'm not going to try to explain anything else. Please contact the higher ups instead.  They obviously don't care if you call us names, so it won't bother them. 

I appreciate your explanation, Sharon. As I have said on many occasions over the last few days, I am not and was not singling you out. I was calling out the moderation as a whole, of which you are a part of. Unfortunately your actions started the snowball down the hill. It frankly didn't help that you were involved, given your knee-jerk reactions to posts of mine in the past, where you determined that I was 'sexist". But be that as it may, I think you have said the you are also tired of the present moderation system, and that is also my only concern, so we do have that common.

[ttfitz]

On 9/20/2021 at 6:15 PM, MrBedrock said:

I have quoted it elsewhere where the moderators specifically said the price was a joke in their notification to me when pulling the second thread. I was never notified about the Frazetta drawing with nudity (which to me is much different then a "nude drawing").

Yes, I understand that, but I think the point is the moderator who said "the price was a joke" very well may have misunderstood what was put in the note from Sharon.

[CCGmod2]

On 9/20/2021 at 6:05 PM, ttfitz said:

 

People seem to continue with this notion, but if I read Sharon's explanation of the sequence of events, the "price is a joke" thing was probably a misinterpretation. From what I remember, there was a lot of joking around going on in the thread, which included some problematic posts (a nude drawing?), and she had locked/pulled/whatever-the-proper term the thread to clean it up, but before that all happened Richard reposted (which can get you in trouble all by its lonesome) which made it more work than she was ready to do. And when the paid Admin came along and read her note about "Richard joking around" (not an actual quote, and not really talking about the price at all), it was taken in the wrong way and became the reason for the thread being locked/pulled/whatever.

This is, indeed, just about exactly what happened. I'm the one who misinterpreted the reasoning — Sharon is more knowledgeable than I am about comic prices, and I misunderstood this comment about joking as the reason it was removed. After all, to use an extreme: If someone jokingly set a price of a billion dollars for a comic that's worth just a hundred dollars, that "joke" would also be a way of skirting around the rules that state that you must set a price in your thread. Something similar to that was the misperceived infraction that led to that warning and the removal of the second thread.

There's a lot going on in that situation of removals and warnings and repostings and such on the whole, and it's too much to get into in a thread like this — the point most people are talking about is moderation policy overall, and delving into everything in this particular situation distracts from that. But many users keep asking "Why would it be removed for the price being too high?" And there's the explanation — a misunderstanding on my part.

[CCGmod2]

I'll also step in for a moment to note that the volunteer moderators — who assist with moderation, escalate issues to administrators, provide input to administrators, and have any moderation action they take themselves reviewed by administrators later on — have done a wonderful job. I insist that feedback about moderation be pointed at moderation as a whole, or me, or CGC, or anyone who isn't a member of this community volunteering their time to improve it. Many of the statements by MrBedrock and a couple other users replying to him have referred to moderators as imbeciles, buffoons, etc. That language is unacceptable when aimed repeatedly at another member of the community here. The insulting language did not explicitly exclude the volunteer moderators, so many will interpret it as including them — which riles up other users to repeat this same language in a way that is, at least partially, aimed at members of the community who deserve much more respect.

Short version: The volunteer moderators have done a great job, so aim feedback more precisely at moderation policy or the work of paid administrators like me or CGC, whatever that feedback may be.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 9/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, CCGmod2 said:

I'll also step in for a moment to note that the volunteer moderators — who assist with moderation, escalate issues to administrators, provide input to administrators, and have any moderation action they take themselves reviewed by administrators later on — have done a wonderful job. I insist that feedback about moderation be pointed at moderation as a whole, or me, or CGC, or anyone who isn't a member of this community volunteering their time to improve it. Many of the statements by MrBedrock and a couple other users replying to him have referred to moderators as imbeciles, buffoons, etc. That language is unacceptable when aimed repeatedly at another member of the community here. The insulting language did not explicitly exclude the volunteer moderators, so many will interpret it as including them — which riles up other users to repeat this same language in a way that is, at least partially, aimed at members of the community who deserve much more respect.

Short version: The volunteer moderators have done a great job, so aim feedback more precisely at moderation policy or the work of paid administrators like me or CGC, whatever that feedback may be.

Thank you for finally making a statement. Will those who represent CGC, and who publicly blamed the volunteers for the Bedrock episode, be coming forward to apologise to them?

[GACollectibles]

On 9/22/2021 at 10:52 AM, CCGmod2 said:

This is, indeed, just about exactly what happened. I'm the one who misinterpreted the reasoning — Sharon is more knowledgeable than I am about comic prices, and I misunderstood this comment about joking as the reason it was removed. After all, to use an extreme: If someone jokingly set a price of a billion dollars for a comic that's worth just a hundred dollars, that "joke" would also be a way of skirting around the rules that state that you must set a price in your thread. Something similar to that was the misperceived infraction that led to that warning and the removal of the second thread.

There's a lot going on in that situation of removals and warnings and repostings and such on the whole, and it's too much to get into in a thread like this — the point most people are talking about is moderation policy overall, and delving into everything in this particular situation distracts from that. But many users keep asking "Why would it be removed for the price being too high?" And there's the explanation — a misunderstanding on my part.

 

On 9/22/2021 at 11:03 AM, CCGmod2 said:

I'll also step in for a moment to note that the volunteer moderators — who assist with moderation, escalate issues to administrators, provide input to administrators, and have any moderation action they take themselves reviewed by administrators later on — have done a wonderful job. I insist that feedback about moderation be pointed at moderation as a whole, or me, or CGC, or anyone who isn't a member of this community volunteering their time to improve it. Many of the statements by MrBedrock and a couple other users replying to him have referred to moderators as imbeciles, buffoons, etc. That language is unacceptable when aimed repeatedly at another member of the community here. The insulting language did not explicitly exclude the volunteer moderators, so many will interpret it as including them — which riles up other users to repeat this same language in a way that is, at least partially, aimed at members of the community who deserve much more respect.

Short version: The volunteer moderators have done a great job, so aim feedback more precisely at moderation policy or the work of paid administrators like me or CGC, whatever that feedback may be.

Someone going to clue in Zaid on this?

[GACollectibles]

On 9/22/2021 at 12:37 PM, GACollectibles said:

 

Someone going to clue in Zaid on this?

I mean, if the guy is going to be spokesperson for CGC in public forums he should at least know wtf he's talking about.  Amiright?

[sckao]

I saw that Zaid comment RE: Facebook? and it was problematic.

[Dick Pontoon]

I saw it as well. I found it problematical not just in content, but thought the response to GAC had a whiff of entitled, Brulato-esque "What do you collect, sonny?" attitude to it.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Dick Pontoon

[MrBedrock]

On 9/22/2021 at 10:03 AM, CCGmod2 said:

I'll also step in for a moment to note that the volunteer moderators — who assist with moderation, escalate issues to administrators, provide input to administrators, and have any moderation action they take themselves reviewed by administrators later on — have done a wonderful job. I insist that feedback about moderation be pointed at moderation as a whole, or me, or CGC, or anyone who isn't a member of this community volunteering their time to improve it. Many of the statements by MrBedrock and a couple other users replying to him have referred to moderators as imbeciles, buffoons, etc. That language is unacceptable when aimed repeatedly at another member of the community here. The insulting language did not explicitly exclude the volunteer moderators, so many will interpret it as including them — which riles up other users to repeat this same language in a way that is, at least partially, aimed at members of the community who deserve much more respect.

Short version: The volunteer moderators have done a great job, so aim feedback more precisely at moderation policy or the work of paid administrators like me or CGC, whatever that feedback may be.

The users have also done a great job.

[porcupine48]

On 9/22/2021 at 4:42 PM, MrBedrock said:

The users have also done a great job.

Only users lose drugs

Spoiler

I know,I'm begging fer pernts

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 9/22/2021 at 9:52 AM, CCGmod2 said:

This is, indeed, just about exactly what happened. I'm the one who misinterpreted the reasoning — Sharon is more knowledgeable than I am about comic prices, and I misunderstood this comment about joking as the reason it was removed. After all, to use an extreme: If someone jokingly set a price of a billion dollars for a comic that's worth just a hundred dollars, that "joke" would also be a way of skirting around the rules that state that you must set a price in your thread. Something similar to that was the misperceived infraction that led to that warning and the removal of the second thread.

There's a lot going on in that situation of removals and warnings and repostings and such on the whole, and it's too much to get into in a thread like this — the point most people are talking about is moderation policy overall, and delving into everything in this particular situation distracts from that. But many users keep asking "Why would it be removed for the price being too high?" And there's the explanation — a misunderstanding on my part.

This clarification of the sequence of events (which I think many kinda assumed) is very helpful, but the point Bedrock and Sharon both have made is that absentee administration of a message board like this increases the chances of these things happening, and when they happen, the often escalate and take on a life of there own that could have been corrected and diffused if this post had been made more than a week ago when the whole thing first occurred.  People are human, misunderstandings happen, people are fallible. Bedrock, Sharon, and most certainly the faceless sky-beings collectively known as CGCMod 1-11.  From what I've gleaned from this tread, others and FB is that CGC essentially outsources the administration and moderation of this forum, (not unheard of, could be the Web Design or Ad Agency handling all the CGC affiliated sites) and only so many hours of billable time are devoted to the specific task of moderation, and those hours have been reduced considerably. With that, moderation has become uneven,  maybe a little harsh, because some guy is blowing through a queue for the 1-2 hours designated on a timesheet to do the work. That has had a material impact on the boards, the participation, and ultimately that impacts CGCs reputation with it's customers.  I would call that shortsighted, a missed opportunity, some might go so far as to call it "imbecilic"  Sharon, or any other volunteer should not be in the position, whether perceived by others, or internalized by the volunteers themselves to feel like they have to speak on behalf of the actual CGC mods when they are not present. They don't get paid enough naturally for that.  Bedrock is absolutely using his power and influence to escalate the issue to get more time and resource for the boards (and hopefully the craptacular message board hosting, that's an embarrassment too) and more power to him. that befits everyone, not just him. and then the volunteers like Sharon, and others that I've known in the past can operate more as facilitators of the boards, fixing things, setting up things that draw people to the boards and instead instead of driving them away, which has been the trend for 4-5 years. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 9/23/2021 at 10:38 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

the faceless sky-beings collectively known as CGCMod 1-11

That's part of the problem I think, Legion - we don't know who they are. Is CCGmod2 one person, or an account name under which one or more people can post? Scott was Scott, Dena was Dena. We don't know who CCGmod2 is, or who they work for, so it's a bit unfair of them to post here that we should direct moderation related feedback to them. Why CCGmod2 and not 4, 3 or 7? And who is Number One? Prisoner joke, there. How are we all supposed to instinctively know who is 'in charge' of moderation if there is nothing written down to tell us? And on that suggestion of theirs, sending feedback to them directly, what is the point if they never respond? If there is no response, there is no discussion and, therefore, no progress.

I've been watching these events unfold with mild bemusement over the last week. There are two separate elements, for me, although both are rooted in communication failure, something CGC seem to excel at. The first is the volunteers being blamed for the failings in the moderation process in relation to the Bedrock complaint. I have not seen a post from any CGC staff publicly apologising to them, for being blamed publicly by paid CGC representatives. Did I miss it? The explanation here is not an apology, especially coming as it does from a faceless account name.

The second element is the never ending debate from the members here as to the failings of the moderation process. Mr B appears to have set the cat among the pigeons and the suggestion is that change is a coming. Does anyone know what that change involves though? What is the betting that nothing happens - or, more likely - we are not told that anything has happened, if it actually does?

It's great to see CGCmod2 post finally, on this issue, albeit far too late in my opinion for those that were hung out to dry. But what is actually going to change as a result of Bedrockgate*, and will the communication element of moderation improve? On current evidence, unlikely. 

@CCGmod2 - you can either stick to normal procedure and ignore this, or put some meat on the bones for us. Is there is a new commitment from CGC Management to improve moderation? If there is, how about setting the ball rolling by telling us about what is planned, and how it will make everyone's experience better? Or, if that is not in your remit, encourage those that you report to, to make such an announcement? Perhaps they can add into that announcement what they are actually doing to stop the site crashing every day which, ultimately, will drive everyone away regardless of moderation activity.

*Oh, and finally, does anyone know how I can trademark the term 'Bedrockgate' and make lots of money from it? Is an NFT the right route? I don't really understand them, but if I can make a fortune from it, and become a billion dollar comic magnate, maybe I too will be able to bring about business change with a single phone call