The "Newsstand Edition" Phenomenon 5 5

[Logan510]

3 hours ago, comix4fun said:

My one piece of advice would be to cease the condescension. "Bravery"? "into the light"?  That language sets you up as these things and these other people as, what exactly? Is that constructive? 

I've actually just received an email from RMA. He's NOT hiding in the shadows or lacking bravery after all, it turns out he's actually been suspended from the boards. The suspension came from someone actually CALLING the CGC offices to complain that they were "cyber bullied" by him in this thread, on this topic. So the lack of bravery and/or operating "in the light" might be on whomever didn't engage in the debate here, but instead short circuited the debate by having one party removed from it. 

For the sake of following your example of "bravery" and "operating in the light", whomever made those complaints should state so clearly and openly along with their specific reasons for doing so. 

People can agree or disagree with how others choose to tackle debates or differences of opinion. People can agree or disagree with how RMA chooses to frame commentary and discussion. What isn't acceptable is removing one half of the discussion in a peremptory manner, especially given the banality of the discussion contained here. 

This new information, regarding the suspension, and how it came to occur in the first place casts a new shadow over what RMA has or has not "chosen" to do regarding commentary and followup. 

So, does this mean he's now banned from the boards? Because the narrative he'd been pushing for a while is that he was a marked man and that his strikes didn't come off the books and one more incident would result in his permanent ban.

[comix4fun]

2 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

So, does this mean he's now banned from the boards? Because the narrative he'd been pushing for a while is that he was a marked man and that his strikes didn't come off the books and one more incident would result in his permanent ban.

It was a short email but he said he got a "warning" that came with a three week suspension. Odd that a warning comes with any type action, but that's what happened.

[Logan510]

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It was a short email but he said he got a "warning" that came with a three week suspension. Odd that a warning comes with any type action, but that's what happened.

I suppose a "warning" isn't the same thing as a "strike", though if they took the cyber bullying claim seriously enough to give him a 3 week vacation it makes me wonder what the actual difference is.

[revat]

3 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

11 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It was a short email but he said he got a "warning" that came with a three week suspension. Odd that a warning comes with any type action, but that's what happened.

I suppose a "warning" isn't the same thing as a "strike", though if they took the cyber bullying claim seriously enough to give him a 3 week vacation it makes me wonder what the actual difference is.

Maybe it was a suspension with a 'warning' about penalties for future potential infractions

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

I suppose a "warning" isn't the same thing as a "strike", though if they took the cyber bullying claim seriously enough to give him a 3 week vacation it makes me wonder what the actual difference is.

The whole thing is weird. Honestly, I read what was written here there was no bullying. From the email the complaint was made over the phone to CGC. To go OUTSIDE of the moderation function on the boards and call CGC directly, to me, smacks of attempting to exert extraordinary influence over the process and have words and actions that were pretty innocuous be treated incongruously to what their actual content justified. 

Frankly, from what I read here, there was NOTHING that two adults couldn't work out on their own. 

[revat]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

5 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I suppose a "warning" isn't the same thing as a "strike", though if they took the cyber bullying claim seriously enough to give him a 3 week vacation it makes me wonder what the actual difference is.

The whole thing is weird. Honestly, I read what was written here there was no bullying. From the email the complaint was made over the phone to CGC. To go OUTSIDE of the moderation function on the boards and call CGC directly, to me, smacks of attempting to exert extraordinary influence over the process and have words and actions that were pretty innocuous be treated incongruously to what their actual content justified. 

Frankly, from what I read here, there was NOTHING that two adults couldn't work out on their own. 

I agree, I didn't read anything in the thread that seemed to rise to the level, especially when everyone is an adult.  BUT there is at least a chance of PM discussion maybe that the public isn't privy to?  That's just speculation.  From what I've seen publically, RMA is generally quite careful to produce a very specific tone when he argues.  And I get that the tone might rub some the wrong way, but I'm not sure if I've ever thought of it in the 'bullying' realm, and I already think of myself as fairly sensitive (cried during Lion King, and Swing Kids [for those who remember that movie]).

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

The whole thing is weird. Honestly, I read what was written here there was no bullying. From the email the complaint was made over the phone to CGC. To go OUTSIDE of the moderation function on the boards and call CGC directly, to me, smacks of attempting to exert extraordinary influence over the process and have words and actions that were pretty innocuous be treated incongruously to what their actual content justified. 

Frankly, from what I read here, there was NOTHING that two adults couldn't work out on their own. 

As I said before, being called a liar and a fraud publicly isn't the best starting point for working things out 

To be fair, nothing said rang of cyber bullying to me either...I've seen much worse than that on these boards, but I am not CGC and they felt it was 

Just curious, is there any difference in your mind between calling CGC directly or sending a higher up at a grading company an email complaining about other members?

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

As I said before, being called a liar and a fraud publicly isn't the best starting point for working things out 

To be fair, nothing said rang of cyber bullying to me either...I've seen much worse than that on these boards, but I am not CGC and they felt it was 

Just curious, is there any difference in your mind between calling CGC directly or sending a higher up at a grading company an email complaining about other members?

 

One wonders if a regular moderation request would have been treated the same way. 

Not sure about the email. What's the context? General Complaints? My biggest problem is with someone circumventing the moderation process, with questionable motives and details of events, to cause a punitive outcome. 

From what I see here this complaint drastically exaggerated events and twisted facts to get to a desired conclusion. There was no cyberbullying, that's a false claim. I don't blame CGC for acting on a complaint that seemed sincere. However, if someone would have looked closely before acting on the complaint, they would have seen (at best) an overreaction or (at worst) someone intentionally misleading them towards a desired result. 

 

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

 

One wonders if a regular moderation request would have been treated the same way. 

Not sure about the email. What's the context? General Complaints? My biggest problem is with someone circumventing the moderation process, with questionable motives and details of events, to cause a punitive outcome. 

From what I see here this complaint drastically exaggerated events and twisted facts to get to a desired conclusion. There was no cyberbullying, that's a false claim. I don't blame CGC for acting on a complaint that seemed sincere. However, if someone would have looked closely before acting on the complaint, they would have seen (at best) an overreaction or (at worst) someone intentionally misleading them towards a desired result. 

 

How do we know they didn't investigate after the phone call and made a judgement for themselves? I doubt it's as easy as making a phone call to get that kind of action, otherwise everyone on CAL's infamous list would be gone.

As far as the context of the e-mail question...we can just say if you believe in karma, this would be it.

[comix4fun]

Just now, Logan510 said:

How do we know they didn't investigate after the phone call and made a judgement for themselves? I doubt it's as easy as making a phone call to get that kind of action, otherwise everyone on CAL's infamous list would be gone.

As far as the context of the e-mail question...we can just say if you believe in karma, this would be it.

Because, if they investigated and read what was written here the last thing anyone would have deemed it was cyberbullying, that's from a reasonable person standard, objectively. 

As for the email, did someone demand you be disciplined by exaggerating your posts? 

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

Because, if they investigated and read what was written here the last thing anyone would have deemed it was cyberbullying, that's from a reasonable person standard, objectively. 

As for the email, did someone demand you be disciplined by exaggerating your posts? 

How do you know that's what actually happened? As far as I know you have one side of a story.

 

And no, as far as I know, no emails were sent about me specifically, but I know that emails have been sent and phone calls have been made about others that demanded action.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Logan510

[comix4fun]

4 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

How do you know that's what actually happened? As far as I know you have one side of a story.

 

 

We have his posts. We have his discipline.

His posts are what was used to create his discipline. 

Also, I've seen RMA be argumentative and adversarial in a debate, but  the one thing I've never seen him do, is lie. 

[Logan510]

Just now, comix4fun said:

We have his posts. We have his discipline.

His posts are what was used to create his discipline. 

Also, I've seen RMA be argumentative and adversarial in a debate, but  the one thing I've never seen him do, is lie. 

Doesn't change the fact you have one side of a story.

We don't know if the phone call actually took place and if it did what was said. We don't know if CGC took the alleged callers word for it blindly or did their own investigation. 

No one is accusing him of being a liar.

Though the whole narrative of one more incident = perma ban, which caused a heck of a lot of drama, comes into question.

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

Doesn't change the fact you have one side of a story.

We don't know if the phone call actually took place and if it did what was said. We don't know if CGC took the alleged callers word for it blindly or did their own investigation. 

No one is accusing him of being a liar.

Though the whole narrative of one more incident = perma ban, which caused a heck of a lot of drama, comes into question.

I have two sources of information....I have RMA's account, and I have the publicly available information on this board...which led to the suspension. 

I am hoping that CGC did only a cursory check and handed out discipline. If they actually looked at the posts and still handed out discipline then it's far more troubling as one is a simple oversight and the other is a serious misunderstanding and miscalculation. 

 

[Logan510]

Just now, comix4fun said:

I have two sources of information....I have RMA's account, and I have the publicly available information on this board...which led to the suspension. 

I am hoping that CGC did only a cursory check and handed out discipline. If they actually looked at the posts and still handed out discipline then it's far more troubling as one is a simple oversight and the other is a serious misunderstanding and miscalculation. 

 

It's also possible that posts may have been removed by moderation, though I don't know this because I have only a single side of the story relayed second hand.

Or it's possible that his past transgressions on the board caught up with him 

[ygogolak]

37 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

How do you know that's what actually happened? As far as I know you have one side of a story.

 

And no, as far as I know, no emails were sent about me specifically, but I know that emails have been sent and phone calls have been made about others that demanded action.

Don't make me use this....

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, ygogolak said:

Don't make me use this....

[joeypost]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 3:46 PM, comix4fun said:

I don't think I said anything positive or negative about the critique. I am talking about the responses to it the critique. 

My commentary about how people choose to interact and respond is pretty much universal. I don't see anything in any of these posts that can't be solved between the parties involved. 

 

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 2:37 PM, xcomic said:

I'm still new at these boards but you can find the post from Thursday 5:36 PM on page 5 of this thread.  For the crime of choosing to end communications with this individual, I was publicly called a liar and fraud on these boards as you will see below; I'll copy/paste:

"That moves you from a being legitimate scholar and researcher to a liar and a fraud" ... and ... ""Rare Comics" is just another fraudulent blog, attempting to deceive people, no doubt to manipulate the market in his favor. Such a shame, all that effort for fraud."

A false impression was given as to why I ended communications with the person.  I felt the need to share my side of the story.  For a further idea of why I no longer wanted this individual as a guest in my home (my blog is like my online home), consider the same poster's comments from Thursday 5:59 PM dragging Jon McClure's name through the mud.  Jon McClure and I (plus four others) collaborated on a recent project together.  If a guest in your house behaved this way would you let them stay?  Here is a copy/paste out of what they wrote about Jon -- calling him a liar too [at least I'm in good company].

"Why does the serious scholarship, research, and quest for the facts get shoved aside in favor of hype, nonsense, and lies? Answer: $$$."

- Ben p.s. please note the "joined" timestamp on TLDR's posting handle.  As I mentioned, CGC confirmed to me that a working email address is the only hurdle to establishing a new and completely anonymous handle here.

Call me "dopey", but it appears he broke his own rule of not making it personal.

 

p.s. Are you from Long Island Ben?

[bababooey]

[comicdonna]

3 hours ago, comix4fun said:

It was a short email but he said he got a "warning" that came with a three week suspension. Odd that a warning comes with any type action, but that's what happened.

I guess he was posting too many words again.