Thread Drift: Fans, Professionals and Online Decorum

[Bor]

Just my opinion, but the way he keeps trying to defend himself from criticism on Twitter and forums just makes me cringe. To be fair, I don't like when any creator including ones I like (ie. Waid) do it. It usually comes down to petty bickering and for a professional, I find it pretty embarassing



Not envious but I do think some of us who work in the corporate world find it very odd. I guess there's just different standards in professionalism when compared to the comic book industry where arguing and fighting with consumers is apparently common

Again: could you provide an example? This is not directed at you specificaly but people says stuff like that here all the time and then they either do not provide the example or give the vague notion of "its out there".

I guess for me it comes to that I dont put these creators on any kind of pedistal. Unless they are saying something I find horrible, see a certaint prominent current DC artist, I dont have any expectation of them to just take every criticism without responding. An artist of any kind should not have the same limitations as a elected official when it comes to interacting with the target receivers. And again unlike certain other creative talents I have yet to see Slott act like a terrible humanbeing. Sure he might seem a little childish at times but so what? He is writing comic books for a living not deciding the fate of a country or anything like that.

[The Kid]

Again: could you provide an example? This is not directed at you specificaly but people says stuff like that here all the time and then they either do not provide the example or give the vague notion of "its out there".

I guess for me it comes to that I dont put these creators on any kind of pedistal. Unless they are saying something I find horrible, see a certaint prominent current DC artist, I dont have any expectation of them to just take every criticism without responding. An artist of any kind should not have the same limitations as a elected official when it comes to interacting with the target receivers. And again unlike certain other creative talents I have yet to see Slott act like a terrible humanbeing. Sure he might seem a little childish at times but so what? He is writing comic books for a living not deciding the fate of a country or anything like that.

It has nothing to do with being an elected official. I also never said anything about Slott as a human being. I just find such behavior by comic book writers and artists to be very unprofessional because that's just how it'd be seen in my (and most other) professions.

I think professionals should be held to certain standards and many in the comic book industry never meet them.

[Bor]

It has nothing to do with being an elected official. I also never said anything about Slott as a human being. I just find such behavior by comic book writers and artists to be very unprofessional because that's just how it'd be seen in my (and most other) professions.

I think professionals should be held to certain standards and many in the comic book industry never meet them.

So you dont have an example? Too bad. I know you never said anything about Slott as a human being that is why I said it was not specifically directed at you.

I must disagree with you here.

Different profession have different standards.

I dont expect the same restraint from someone who produces stories featuring a man dressed in spandex with a spider on his chest who fights an enemy made of nazi bees as I do from my elected leaders, bank employe or doctors. I have a job where there are certaint things I should not say and cannot talk about in publich for various moral or legal reasons, but I see no reason to expect every job to have the exact same type of restictions. If Marvel has a problem with how Slott conducts himself online then sure they should say something to him, but it does not seem they have done that a lot so far.

[Mister Mets]

It would be impossible for any writer, artist or editor to anticipate the insane ways that fans will choose to distort and misconstrue the most innocuous comments.

That's not about discussing a creator's words and engaging with them on an honest level, it's about singling out a comment, removing it from context, twisting its meaning, making the worst assumptions about its intent, and then relentlessly haranguing the creator - only to then blame the creator for having the nerve to ever open their mouth in the first place with "It's not my fault! You should've watched what you said!"

There are so many sides here.

I'll note that this is my personal opinion, and not a comment on rules as a moderator.

I want to learn as much about what goes on behind the scenes as possible, so I think it's important to encourage pros to show up. This means that they should be able to make occasional mistakes without people making too big a deal of it. In this case, we know for a fact what these guys do for a living, and that their time is valuable. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be corrected if they err, but that can be done without being obnoxious. If someone isn't being directly quoted, there's always the possibility of something being lost in a game of telephone, so that also has to be kept in mind, before anyone jumps on a professional for the nuance of something in a summary/ paraphrase.

There are some differing views. Some people are partisans, preferring that the professionals they like are treated well, and that professionals they don't like are treated poorly. I think this is a habit that should be discouraged, although I can respect someone who is honest about their views, someone willing to say "Look, due to all of Writer X's accomplishments and contributions, we should treat him with respect. Writer Y is a talentless hack, so if he wants to defend the ways in which he has damaged the characters we love, he damn well better do it perfectly, taking into account the feelings of all the people he has hurt." People rarely are honest about this, though.

There are also going to be some people who would treat all pros with the same level of suspicion. There's an argument that some places should be safe spaces for fans to give their honest opinion without the interruption of a professional who has greater stature, can lie about insider information, and can rally supporters against a less privileged critic. It seems to me that this policy would have to be clearly and unambiguously established lest anyone unaware of the unwritten rules start thinking that the lack of a response is the equivalent of tacit agreement with a particular criticism.

A related view is that professionals have an obligation to be nicer than the people they're engaging with. They are the ones asking for people's money, and they are also the ones who have made the decision to take a job many people would want, so by this argument they should be fine with a higher level of scrutiny, and with occasional obnoxiousness from detractors, who may also be potential customers.

The purest view might be held by those who think that everyone should be held to the same standard, be it a high standard of politeness or anything goes thunderdome. It's not pulled off very often. You would know these people by their willingness to call out everyone equally or at least to praise positive behavior on both sides (although there may very well be situations in which one group acts worse than another, which means the group should be called out more and praised less).

A further complicating factor is the nuances of different communities. One group may be more sensitive to use of terminology than others, and what impresses a poster in that group might not impress those in others.

Many of these views might never be articulated, which makes navigating discussions even more of a minefield.

So, what can we do as individuals? We should be polite, honest and as articulate as possible. We should be willing to praise positive behavior (including well-written arguments) by people we disagree with, and to call out errors in judgement on our side.

[The Kid]

So you dont have an example? Too bad. I know you never said anything about Slott as a human being that is why I said it was not specifically directed at you.

I must disagree with you here.

Different profession have different standards.

I dont expect the same restraint from someone who produces stories featuring a man dressed in spandex with a spider on his chest who fights an enemy made of nazi bees as I do from my elected leaders, bank employe or doctors. I have a job where there are certaint things I should not say and cannot talk about in publich for various moral or legal reasons, but I see no reason to expect every job to have the exact same type of restictions. If Marvel has a problem with how Slott conducts himself online then sure they should say something to him, but it does not seem they have done that a lot so far.

Fair enough. I was just giving my own thoughts on this kind of behavior. All I said was that I find it cringeworthy, not that he should be fired or anything. To me, it doesn't matter where or what you work in. Professionalism is professionalism

[Tuck]

A professional is a known entity of whom reasonable expectations can be had.

Most everyone else is some random person. They could be a kid, dyslexic, have emotional, mental, or psychological deficiencies. You don't know. But it's good to keep in mind that you don't know who you're interacting with. That poster you're laying into might have a story that will make you feel like a complete heel if you hear it.

[Dan Slott]

All the more reason for the pro to watch what they're saying and how they phrase it, really.

You're arguing to NOT give interviews altogether.
There is nothing a person can do or say that can't be twisted if the person who's doing the twisting is motivated enough.
This entire thread branch is going on because you spun something I said-- based on another person's interpretation of a synopsis of what a 3rd person heard-- to imply that I may have said something racist-y. Which is a little on the insane side of things.

People are going to be reading these interviews, parsing them, and taking bits out and discussing them.

And people with agendas and personal vendettas are going to be twisting and distorting them-- and taking bits out of context-- to serve whatever messed up reasons they have.

Eh, the opposite problem is just as true, when someone (and their apologists) becomes so insanely sensitive as to what "certain people" are saying (usually the ones deemed as the troublemakers), that everything they say becomes construed as an insult or slam. So there can't be any actual back or forth of any meaning or value anyway.

I feel for you. That must really suck to have things you've said taken that far out of context and spun terrible ways by "certain people".

A professional is a known entity of whom reasonable expectations can be had.

I'd argue that's not 100% true. While most pros aren't full-blown J.D. Salingers or Steve Ditkos, who've kept most of their public lives private, there's only so much of a public life that any pro is going to offer up online.

Most everyone else is some random person. They could be a kid, dyslexic, have emotional, mental, or psychological deficiencies. You don't know. But it's good to keep in mind that you don't know who you're interacting with. That poster you're laying into might have a story that will make you feel like a complete heel if you hear it.

I've had fans I've argued with turn out to have conditions like Asperger's syndrome and autism-- or at least claim that they've had. I don't think you can live your online life assuming that everyone has a backstory that puts them at any more of a disadvantage than anyone else's backstory. People come online and take on anonymous identities partly because they want to be on equal footing-- it's not till they offer up and discuss that part of their lives that anyone can (or should) treat them any differently than they would treat that person face-to-face.

It's the face-to-face part that I think we have to keep in perspective. If someone shows up onto these boards and spreads false rumors about myself or my work-- that I'm a "rape-enabler" or a "racist" or a "homophobe"-- I'm going to treat them with the same amount of respect that I'd treat any person who'd walk up to me and say those kinds of lies to my face. I won't regret a thing I've said or how I've treated them. Because that's exactly how I would treat someone who did that kind of horrible thing in public.

If you approach me politely online-- or casually-- you'll find that I respond politely and/or casually back. If you're critical w/o being rude about it, you'll find I'm open to hear what you have to say. If you state something as a "fact" that's not true, I might argue with you-- but as long as you're civil, I'm happy to be civil too. If you talk about something I've written-- and it's clear that you haven't actually read it... Yeah, I might find that silly and enjoy poking you with a stick, because you're talking out of your butt. I think that's fair.

[Tuck]

I've had fans I've argued with turn out to have conditions like Asperger's syndrome and autism-- or at least claim that they've had. I don't think you can live your online life assuming that everyone has a backstory that puts them at any more of a disadvantage than anyone else's backstory. People come online and take on anonymous identities partly because they want to be on equal footing-- it's not till they offer up and discuss that part of their lives that anyone can (or should) treat them any differently than they would treat that person face-to-face.

Face-to-face, you have much more information available to you, however. You can get a read on a person's general disposition, mental stability, and maturity (beyond the obviousness of dealing with a minor). This is information that is much more opaque in print.

[Metamorphosis]

You're arguing to NOT give interviews altogether.
There is nothing a person can do or say that can't be twisted if the person who's doing the twisting is motivated enough.
This entire thread branch is going on because you spun something I said-- based on another person's interpretation of a synopsis of what a 3rd person heard-- to imply that I may have said something racist-y. Which is a little on the insane side of things.

A lot of what you say in interviews you probably think is clever, or interesting, or provocative, or funny. "Peter is his own worst enemy" and "Peter has the emotional maturity of a 15 year old" among them.

Thing is, you can't get so bent out of shape when people actually react to or even want to discuss these things you say. That shoe fits on the other foot as well, and people are going to bring their own viewpoints, interpretations and perspectives into it.

And people with agendas and personal vendettas are going to be twisting and distorting them-- and taking bits out of context-- to serve whatever messed up reasons they have.

No particular agenda here, sorry you took it that way. Certainly wasn't implying you're a "rape-enabler", a "racist" or a "homophobe".

I listened to the podcast, and I actually agree with you that Marvel kinda overplayed their hand with all of the "Legacy" character all at once. But calling them the "Funhouse mirror" version over and over is an odd way to phrase it, though. SpOck, yes. Kamala, Sam, Amadeus, Jane, Miles, not so much. They are more individual characters onto themselves like Rhodey or Thunderstrike or even how Ben Reilly once was. SpOck was just a carpetbagger.

I feel for you. That must really suck to have things you've said taken that far out of context and spun terrible ways by "certain people".

I'm not losing any sleep over it. But you seem a bit more irate than usual.

[Steven Caldwell]

I have read enough of dan slots posts and tweets on Twitter to know that he is absolutely not racist. To suggest he is, is absolutely silliness.

[Dan Slott]

A lot of what you say in interviews you probably think is clever, or interesting, or provocative, or funny. "Peter is his own worst enemy" and "Peter has the emotional maturity of a 15 year old" among them.

That's fine. A lot of what you say on the internet you probably think is insightful and NOT just things you and the guys at the crawlspace have ritualistically parroted back and forth to each other.

Thing is, you can't get so bent out of shape when people actually react to or even want to discuss these things you say.

I find that when it comes from your specific corner, you and your pals aren't really reacting to what I've actually said.
It's usually a write up, distortion, or cherry-picked extract of what I've said.
And, often times, by the time someone's actually gone to the original audio or video clip, you've already made up your mind to what I "actually" meant, and will force that square peg into the round hole you want it to fit into.

The "emotional maturity of a 15 year old" line from the ECCC panel WASN'T "emotional maturity of a 15 year old".
The question was asked was "How old was Spider-Man?"
And after stating his rough physical age, I added "But emotionally? 15."
It was clearly a joke. And it got a laugh from the room.
But after you and your crawlspace buddies got a hold of it, clinically broke it down, and spun it into the WORST possibly version-- it became a freakin' dissertation on how the current author of Spider-Man felt that Peter Parker possessed the "emotional maturity of a 15 year old."
And that level of distortion speak far more to those doing the distorting than the guy cracking a quick joke on a panel.

That shoe fits on the other foot as well, and people are going to bring their own viewpoints, interpretations and perspectives into it.

Not really. You, Metamorphosis/cheesedique/crawlspace-guy have 1 shoe and 1 perspective: "What's the worst way I can spin this to justify 10 more posts today where I ritualistically sh*t all over this book?"
It's getting so old. So unbelievably old.

No particular agenda here, sorry you took it that way. Certainly wasn't implying you're a "rape-enabler", a "racist" or a "homophobe".

Go back and read your previous post. You were aiming for racist-y. It's not that hard to see.

I'm not losing any sleep over it. But you seem a bit more irate than usual.

Well it must help that you have a really simple playbook. Some really cheap plays to make. And offhandedly implying that someone can be kinda racist doesn't seem to be something you would lose any sleep over. Go figure.

[WebLurker]

Can you give me a specific example of Slott not treating someone with respect before after they accused him of anything from condoning rape to lying about his or Marvels view?

When I was thinking of when I said that I was not impressed with Slott's online manners, I was thinking of a screaming match that he and some other users got into over on the "Will One More Day Ever be Reversed?" thread some months ago. However, the moderator deleted that whole exchange on the grounds of it being off-topic, so, unless there's a way to access an archive or someone wants to corroborate, that's that for that. As I recall, a key point of contention was Slott's insistence that the site is a unified front that basically attacks anything and everything he does. I do occasionally read reviews and listen to the site's podcast, and, while many of the managers there are not fans of what 616 Spider-Man has become, the reviews themselves are pretty objective. (Slott also as this weird thing of claiming that two separate users are the same person using socks, which strikes me as being disingenuous.

It's just been my experience that he's extremely combative and thin-skinned. I have interacted with pro authors on other forums and I have to say that, even when I got in a heated disagreement with them, they kept things mature on their end of things. That's something that Slott seems to fail at a lot and it's not the kind of person I want to read comics from.

Because all the posters I see here not getting Slotts "respect" is people who have spend time attacking him.

Even if they are treating him badly, should he still sink to their level? At the very least it reflects badly on him. To point, when I first heard that Slott was writing for post-616 OMD Spider-Man and that he had found a favorable audience, I thought that even if I didn't want to read his ASM (given that I don't like the post-OMD setting for Spider-Man stories), I might want to take a look at his other stuff. After seeing how he interacts with fans and critics online, I don't want anything to do with anything he's involved with.

Also, it doesn't reflect well on Marvel. Look, I'm a Marvel fan through and through, however, right now, DC honestly looks like the best comics company to patronize on almost all fronts, and having better PR is one of them.

Not to mention being mad at him for where they think his story is going and then still being mad at him after it did not happen.

As to that, I couldn't say, given that I'm not sure I've witnessed that. However, the man is writing a version of Spider-Man that is, by its very nature controversial. It was never going to be universally popular and flying off the handle because some readers don't like it isn't professional. (Also, if the fans that don't like his stuff are such a small piece of the fandom, as Slott tells us so often, why is he so defensive when they express themselves?

4% of it is his writing and creative decisions, 95% of it is because he's been the most prolific Spider-Man writer since One May Day happened.

The obvious question is how you're figuring that.

I'm not so sure, though. The consistent complaints I hear (beyond how he treats fans online) are that they don't like his characterizations or stories (which are all on him) or technical flaws in his writing (the way he can't stick an ending, stiff dialogue, forcing characters to do things to advance the plot), which are also all on him.

Not really. You, Metamorphosis/cheesedique/crawlspace-guy have 1 shoe and 1 perspective: "What's the worst way I can spin this to justify 10 more posts today where I ritualistically sh*t all over this book?"
It's getting so old. So unbelievably old.

Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that every critic of your work is drinking Crawlspace Kool-Aid. I, for one, came to the conclusion that your version of Spider-Man had nothing to do with what I liked about the franchise all on my own. (Also, FYI, the Crawlspace has been recently running a list of top Spider-Man comic stories and they did select several of yours for it, so they must not totally hate your work.)

[Metamorphosis]

That's fine. A lot of what you say on the internet you probably think is insightful and NOT just things you and the guys at the crawlspace have ritualistically parroted back and forth to each other.


I find that when it comes from your specific corner, you and your pals aren't really reacting to what I've actually said.
It's usually a write up, distortion, or cherry-picked extract of what I've said.
And, often times, by the time someone's actually gone to the original audio or video clip, you've already made up your mind to what I "actually" meant, and will force that square peg into the round hole you want it to fit into.

The "emotional maturity of a 15 year old" line from the ECCC panel WASN'T "emotional maturity of a 15 year old".
The question was asked was "How old was Spider-Man?"
And after stating his rough physical age, I added "But emotionally? 15."
It was clearly a joke. And it got a laugh from the room.
But after you and your crawlspace buddies got a hold of it, clinically broke it down, and spun it into the WORST possibly version-- it became a freakin' dissertation on how the current author of Spider-Man felt that Peter Parker possessed the "emotional maturity of a 15 year old."
And that level of distortion speak far more to those doing the distorting than the guy cracking a quick joke on a panel.


Not really. You, Metamorphosis/cheesedique/crawlspace-guy have 1 shoe and 1 perspective: "What's the worst way I can spin this to justify 10 more posts today where I ritualistically sh*t all over this book?"
It's getting so old. So unbelievably old.


Go back and read your previous post. You were aiming for racist-y. It's not that hard to see.


Well it must help that you have a really simple playbook. Some really cheap plays to make. And offhandedly implying that someone can be kinda racist doesn't seem to be something you would lose any sleep over. Go figure.

Jesus, did you not see the part where I said I went and actually listened to the podcast and apologized, man?

Dan, are you okay? Anything you need to talk about here?

Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

He's not wrong, I was made to change my name here by TPTB. I still go by Cheesedique over at his favorite website.

Though one of the moderators here is a frequent contributer and message board presence over at Spider-Man Crawlspace. Does that make him a "Crawlspace guy" too? I suspect it's only anyone who dares to be a detractor.

[boots]

oh look, i did a thread and didn't even know it.

at the end of the day "equal footing" is a bit of a fantasy. there's different power and vulnerability on both sides; the creative has the power of authority that comes with their position. the fan has the power of anonymity.

as to who might be more vulnerable? i agree that the back stories of fans are an unknown entity and it would be nice if we all took a bit more care there just in case (there's a few individuals on this board that i have decided not to engage with for that reason) but i would argue that as a known entity, the creative has as much or possible more on the line; their work, their reputation and their personal life.

and no, choosing to be successful in a public sphere does not mean they asked for it.

as someone who has been subjected to public attacks (someone even took images of me and created a hate website that was not only racist but implied i was a cradle snatcher based on nothing but my ethnicity. i'll never know who it was or why they did it), i empathise more with dan in these instances. there's a blessing and protection that comes with anonymity that dan won't get back.

yeah, i believe creatives should hold themselves to a higher professional standard in these interactions...but...but that's not easy. they're not super powerful, privileged or not, they're people and they can be worn down. or have moments of weakness. or be triggered. or whatever.

same goes for any individual or the internet, but generally speaking, you don't get a group of creatives ganging up on a single fan, taking apart that person's personality and work (fairly or unfairly) and creating rumours, memes, slander, whatever that become viral to the point where they drown out objective truth and original intent. the whole danger with stereotyping and meming or whatever isn't that they're entirely untrue after all, it's that they remove all context around the subject to the point that the dumbed down negative version becomes the entirety of the truth.

it's the same wherever comments tend to collect; youtube videos, facebook article comments, reddit, 4chan... the half truths and slander and hate always tend to sound out the loudest. those posts are less concerned with who is right than with winning. or at least hurting the opposition.

i've gotten to the point where i ignore most of dan's and meta's discussion, despite who i might side with, because it never moves forward. it's on constant rotation. but maybe as comic people we just like the constant cycles and the illusion of change.

though i will say re the comment that the majority of flak dan catches is just for his own personal and creative choices- he does for all that and for fan dissatisfaction for marvel as a whole. it almost seems like he's the architect of OMD. it's interesting that RYV is seen as the "anti slott" haven and used as a battering ram against him when it's quite clear he had a huge hand and in its existence. i really don't understand the hate.

[Bor]

When I was thinking of when I said that I was not impressed with Slott's online manners, I was thinking of a screaming match that he and some other users got into over on the "Will One More Day Ever be Reversed?" thread some months ago. However, the moderator deleted that whole exchange on the grounds of it being off-topic, so, unless there's a way to access an archive or someone wants to corroborate, that's that for that. As I recall, a key point of contention was Slott's insistence that the site is a unified front that basically attacks anything and everything he does. I do occasionally read reviews and listen to the site's podcast, and, while many of the managers there are not fans of what 616 Spider-Man has become, the reviews themselves are pretty objective. (Slott also as this weird thing of claiming that two separate users are the same person using socks, which strikes me as being disingenuous.

I saw that whole exchange and I think its false to call it a "screaming match". They disagreed but Slott was never outright rude just honest. And I am sorry but have you ever been to crawlspace? That is pretty much a unified hivemind when it comes to Slott and his work. And we have had examples on here of posters being caught using different accounts and handleds to yell at Slott before.

It's just been my experience that he's extremely combative and thin-skinned. I have interacted with pro authors on other forums and I have to say that, even when I got in a heated disagreement with them, they kept things mature on their end of things. That's something that Slott seems to fail at a lot and it's not the kind of person I want to read comics from.

Again: example please. You state things but do not provide example.


Even if they are treating him badly, should he still sink to their level? At the very least it reflects badly on him. To point, when I first heard that Slott was writing for post-616 OMD Spider-Man and that he had found a favorable audience, I thought that even if I didn't want to read his ASM (given that I don't like the post-OMD setting for Spider-Man stories), I might want to take a look at his other stuff. After seeing how he interacts with fans and critics online, I don't want anything to do with anything he's involved with.

Also, it doesn't reflect well on Marvel. Look, I'm a Marvel fan through and through, however, right now, DC honestly looks like the best comics company to patronize on almost all fronts, and having better PR is one of them.

Yeah DC who employés an aritist that tell people to go kill themselves is much better. Sure.... There are bad people from both companies.

As to that, I couldn't say, given that I'm not sure I've witnessed that. However, the man is writing a version of Spider-Man that is, by its very nature controversial. It was never going to be universally popular and flying off the handle because some readers don't like it isn't professional. (Also, if the fans that don't like his stuff are such a small piece of the fandom, as Slott tells us so often, why is he so defensive when they express themselves?

So you would not be defensive when people accuse you of everything form lying to condoning rape? Okay then.

The obvious question is how you're figuring that.

I'm not so sure, though. The consistent complaints I hear (beyond how he treats fans online) are that they don't like his characterizations or stories (which are all on him) or technical flaws in his writing (the way he can't stick an ending, stiff dialogue, forcing characters to do things to advance the plot), which are also all on him.



Why do you keep insisting that those two users are the same person?

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that every critic of your work is drinking Crawlspace Kool-Aid. I, for one, came to the conclusion that your version of Spider-Man had nothing to do with what I liked about the franchise all on my own. (Also, FYI, the Crawlspace has been recently running a list of top Spider-Man comic stories and they did select several of yours for it, so they must not totally hate your work.)

Yeah I am sorry Weblurker but you litteraly did nothing to make me agree with you here.