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 and to me with total impunity. (Even before I joined, another member, CAP'N STORM, had repeatedly lied, claiming in comments on my blog and others that 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 prejudice 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, Marsden 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 whenever 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 underhand 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.