This Forum

[DavidXBrunt]

There's some sense in what PJ says. I've always instinctively shied away from webhandles as I didn't think the anonimity would do me any good. The temptaion to be an anonymous jerk would be too great. Using my real name means I feel accountable for my actions.

And yes, I did go through a phase of changing my name every five minutes but only after I'd been here long enough for people to know me, to know that whateverXwhoever was always going to be, I kept the same icon, and I didn't pretend to be anyone else. So ner.

[dweezil2]

Amen to that.

[pauljholden]

"I don't agree with his comments on the prog, or much of anything, but unless he nicked it from Smiths (which he didn't!!!!!) Philt payed £1.90 for that comic he slagged off. "

Nobodies suggesting he should't be allowed to say what he likes about it (whether he nicked it or bought it) the question is should he be allowed to use this forum to do it?

-pj

[Mike Carroll]

There is another problem with the use of profanities: it ensures that this site is blocked by all those cyber-nanny programs.

I occasionally used to direct my own readers here when they showed an interest in 2000 AD, but not any more. Though I'm sure there are some who can access the site, I really don't want their parents and teachers blaming me for directing them to a site laced with all the profanities that we like to pretend the kids don't know.

My readers tend to be aged between 10 and 14, a little too young for 2000 AD right now (there are plenty of profanities - and quite a bit of nudity - in the comic itself), but not too young to read the Dredd case-files or other reprints from the days when 2000 AD could be read by kids.

It might not be a big problem in cosmic terms, but I've loved 2000 AD since I was ten and it saddens me that the comic and this forum are now beyond the reach of current ten-year-olds. They are, after all, the comic-buyers of the future.

-- Mike

[WoD]

I think he should be allowed to say if he didn't like it, but in a resonable way.  

[pauljholden]

I've never used a webhandle (well, aside from PJ and paulj - which aren't really anonymous) - although part of the reason I was online was to try and build a name for myself so I could try and get work for 2000AD.

Knowing it's my name on the post has always made me sit and mull over a post before hitting send (except when I'm drunk, but I'm a pleasant drunk, so usually I'm just very happy then)

[Bad Andy]

I just want to add that many creators come on here and manage to integrate without blowing a spare part.

This forum got me back interested in 200Ad and has maintained my interest in the mag for about four maybe five years now. It may cause a pain in the backside every now and again, but it helps retain readers - that's in my experience anyway. I don't know if it's the same for anyone else.

[Bongo Jack]

I remember how everyone laughed at George Michael pulling his official forum offline when members started talking about his weight.
I imagine they just went elsewhere, having learned their lesson and spoke only of him in the most glowing of terms from thence forth.

Still, Matt has a very good point, as you can belittle work that lets you down through measured critical analysis, but there's no point - beyond vindictiveness - in aiming criticism personally at a creator.  Being as it's on the internet, it's not even bullying, as at least if you bully someone in real life, you have to look them in the eye.
Online critics who are terribly offended by certain writers/artists' shortcomings never seem to show up to conventions to air their grudges.
Can't imagine why.

[LARF]

OK let's set an example.

Name changed.

I'm Spartacus :-)

[pauljholden]

There's a tendency to forget that the people you're criticizing (or, sometimes, just slagging) are reading the posts you're making, and they will take it personally (whether that's the intent or not). You can laugh at the George Michael incident, but imagine coming in to your living room and finding everyone who's told you they're your friend sitting discussing how you've become an overweight git.

I'm pretty sure it would sting.

(And, there's a tendancy for people - all people, no one is immune - to really hear the negative stuff more than the positive, and, as a creator it can be hard to work up the motivation to work when you find yourself at the business end of a slew of slagging posts - not me though, I eat that stuff up.)


-pj

[satchmo]

'Nobodies suggesting he should't be allowed to say what he likes about it (whether he nicked it or bought it) the question is should he be allowed to use this forum to do it?'

Surely there's no point in this message board if he or anyone can't say what they thought of the comic they spent their money on?

It's what he said and how he said it that's the issue. I'm all for a bit of decorum, but maybe there should be an 'edit' function on posts before we talk about shutting the board down!

I try to be constructive in my criticism but I've said things in a bad mood that I've regretted later.

But Jebus H Jovis, has anyone at the Nerve Centre seen the rest of the internet? This place has it's moments but is an oasis of calm and sense most of the time.

[Bongo Jack]

You're not Sparticus, you're Mumpum Marshal.
I think there are good suggestions here that wouldn't harm discourse in the slightest if they were made policy for the forum.  I especially like the no-swearing rule, and I'm no prude - I'm pretty potty-mouthed, even on here.
Could we attach a 'no linking to pics of burds or blurkes in the nuddy' rule, too?

[LARF]

erm...

Link: http://www.2000adonline.com/?zone=fan&page=coc" target="_blank">Code of Conduct

[IndigoPrime]

"I think he should be allowed to say if he didn't like it, but in a resonable way."

Well, yes, but Matt wasn't arguing otherwise. In other words, "2000 AD 1587 was rubbish!" = not good. "I didn't like 2000 AD 1587 because [insert reasoning here]" = fine. And "Creator A is a twat" = bad. "I didn't like the latest Creator A story beacuse [insert reasoning here]" = good.

It's about being constructive and respectful, not about stopping anyone from complaining if they feel they need to.

[SamuelAWilkinson]

Good pair of rules, those.

How would I change my name if I wanted to drop this mask of anonymity?