Friday, 8 November 2013

CRIVENS! COMICS, COMMENTS AND CONTROVERSY - THE UNEDITED TRUTH...



WARNING:  If you prefer not to read about controversy and
disputes, then it's probably best if you ignore this post.  Just skip it
if it's not the type of topic in which you're interested and either wait
for the next one or browse through previous posts.  No point in
complaining afterwards - you were tipped off in advance.

******

Talk about bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted!
Recently, and for a short time, I was a member of a site devoted
to U.K. comics.  Apparently my reputation as a controversial comics
critic had preceded me and a record number of members weren't too
happy that I was allowed to join.  I was constantly baited, with one
particular member - DEREK G. MARSDEN - making many
outrageous and insulting comments about me.

In fact, he seemed to have been given complete licence by two
moderators to say whatever he liked about me with total impunity.
(Even before I joined, another member had repeatedly lied, claiming
I had been banned from the site - even 'though I had never been a
member and had never previously applied for membership.)

The site owner later admitted to me that it was obvious I was
being baited (a fact recognised by some other members) and that
steps should've been taken to prevent it from the start.  After making a
good-humoured reply to moderator ANDY BOAL's remark about the
misuse of statistics (to which I said: "At which you excel - well done,
m'boy."), the other moderator issued me with a warning which the
site owner later conceded should never have been given.

After responding to a libellous slur by the tediously pompous,
opinionated and self-important Mr. Marsden, I was given another
warning, this time by Mr. Boal, saying that, the next time, I would be
banned.  The site owner, who was away for a few days when both my
warnings were issued, later told me that only four people had ever
been banned, and only after many repeated warnings.
(All four were later allowed to return to the forum.)

It now seems obvious that certain members (including the two
moderators) simply resented my presence in their playground and
were doing their best to force me out by making it appear that I was
the cause of friction on the forum, thus giving them an excuse to ban
me.  The following incident will suffice as an example of the preju-
dice against me to which I refer.  After receiving my first warning
for a completely innocuous comment, I added the following
remark in response:

"(One hoped one would be permitted to indulge in a bit of
humorous banter in order to lighten the mood - apparently not.)"
This in no way altered the meaning of my original remark, it merely
registered my surprise at receiving a warning for it - a warning, as I
just pointed out, that the site owner later confirmed should never
have been issued.  Andy Boal then removed the edit option for
comments on any thread I was involved in - without any word
of explanation (publicly, at least) as to why.

Derek G. Marsden seems to have been tipped off, however, as
when I publicly enquired of the moderators what had happened to
the edit option, he implied it had been removed to prevent me from
retroactively changing my comments in order to avoid being pinned
down in a discussion - something which I hadn't ever actually done.  It
seems clear, 'though, that this was the impression at least one of the
moderators was trying to create as the reason for the edit option's
removal, and thus turn the tide of opinion against me.

Those who were inconvenienced by being unable to edit their
posts would likely be inclined to resent me as the seeming cause of
its removal.  Mr. Boal could simply have asked me to signpost when-
ever I edited a comment (not, I repeat, that any edit ever changed the
original meaning or intent of the content in the face of someone's
response to it), but decided to exploit it in pursuit of his own personal
agenda.  (It's somewhat disheartening to learn that, given the under-
hand methods which he employs, Mr. Boal is involved in Church
work.  A refresher course in the Christian tenets of morality and
ethics he presumably subscribes to is seriously in order.)

Anyway, I have much better things to do with my time than
frequent sites where I'm not wanted, or get involved with such
petty nonsense, so I resigned my membership rather than permit
myself to be the object of childish and spiteful behaviour.  Here's
the kicker 'though - after I had resigned, Mr. Boal permanently
banned my IP address from the site in a vindictive but impotent
act of revenge.  It was later amended to the following:

******

You have been permanently banned from this board.

Reason given for ban:  Account locked due to
notification of withdrawal from site.

******

So, what they're saying is that I've been banned because I no
longer wish to be a member.  Now, I may be stating the obvious,
but you can't be thrown out of a place you've already left.  Spare
us from all those who abuse power in what they regard as their
own private fiefdoms, eh?

******

Although I am a fervent believer in 'naming and shaming', I
should make clear that I have no issue with the site owner (who
was always perfectly decent towards me, and even invited me to
rejoin) or with most of the members - only with a few pathetic
   pillocks who need to take a long, hard look at themselves.   

14 comments:

baab said...

I was on a forum,and realised that the moderators appeared to be surrounding me,along with some of their friends and cohorts.

I recieved a warning for using Rhetoric. (ha)

I decided to withdraw my membership and made an announcement in my last post.

Just then up popped the top dog mod who attacked and banned me .(giving him the last word of course)

As I was not able to comment on the action,the mod got to act like King Mod.

Its a mod thing.

Kid said...

Power corrupts, etc., eh, Baab? Some people are born traffic wardens.

tongalad said...

That darn Rhetoric...it'll get you every time!

Kid said...

That, and death and taxes.

DeadSpiderEye said...

Forums and those cliques that form in them they're a bit beyond me, probably because I'm an unsociable bastard. You do see some quite interesting behaviour though and I admit I've occasionally surrendered to the urge to tell some offender to get the off the bus, only not in so many words. I was born with a short fuse and I've been dipping it in saltpetre ever since. I generally don't bother them but there is a certain fascination about the worst cases that draws you back into 'em, you know? just drop into to lurk around and see what the nutters get up to but it's not an edifying experience when you witness the way some good contributors are treated by those with an axe to grind.

Kid said...

It does occasionally make me despair of the hobby when I see just how many obsessive nutters and social inadequates are interested in the same subject. The forum I joined just had too many people with an axe to grind over my controversial views (expressed on my own blog) of certain U.K. comics to make my membership feasible, really. It was an interesting experiment, but I don't really need to be playing in anyone else's playground - I have a much better one of my own.

Kid said...

Talking of obsessive nutters and social inadequates, going by the number of anonymous comments directed specifically at this post and one other (deleted unread, naturally), it's fairly safe to assume that at least a couple of losers are still trying to attract my attention. Just to deny them their fun, and help them find a more productive way of spending their time than in writing comments that never get read, I think I'll remove the anonymous option. Then they'll HAVE to get a new hobby. Farewell losers!

John Pitt said...

Reading this post I think it's a shame he turned out like that, as he did some bloody good songs when he was with the Pacemakers.

Kid said...

Nice one, JP. I believe he's from Liverpool, so maybe he's related to Gerry Marsden

Scoobie Do said...

I believe that there were loads of banned posters, Kid, who were never allowed back. I remember a particular 'scoobie' who was never abusive to anyone, but still got thrown out for 'trolling' even though he wasn't.

Kid said...

Well, I'm only going from what I was told - from the top. (Why do I have a strange feeling I'm being set up for something?)

Scoobie Do said...

Not setting you or anyone up. Scoobie was banned, simple as. Never to be seen again. Ahem.

I don't care about your fights, I'm not getting involved with that. But I've enjoyed reading the latest goings on with you and that place.

Didn't sound too different from the Scoobie-saga. At least I know you weren't him. There's only one Kid Robson.

Kid said...

A fact for which a lot of people will be grateful, I'm sure. So are you the same Scooby who was banned, or just a 'tribute act'?

Scoobie Do said...

The same.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...