We want Ralph back!

[Calbeck]

Wow, a 50/50 split...

I'm surprised though. I'm betting the votes for are the people with the same views as Ralph, while the against are those with differing views or the willingness to hear others.

Ralph has jumped in my face at least once, so don't jump to assumptions. I agree with him more than I don't, but I could say that of a thousand mods. Yeah, he's got a short temper, and he is, again, far from the only mod I've known who has one.

From reading the "thread that led to the banning", though, it's pretty clear that Ralph started off stating the obvious: that it's not kosher to open a new thread just to complain about the last one you started being locked. He added that filling a post with insults about the mod is also not kosher. The tone was a bit strong, but nothing out of line with basic standards of mod behavior.

And then, Axel, YOU jump in with the comment that verbal abuse of a mod might just possibly be defensible. Clue check: NO forum allows verbal abuse of a mod under ANY conditions. If you have a complaint about a threadlock, make it politely and through the proper channels. You compounded the error by trying to restart an already-threadlocked discussion. You were, in short, goading him whether you meant to or not.

Was Ralph's response professional? At least as professional as many creator/moderators I've seen in the industry. Let's talk Scott Kurtz sometime --- creator of PvP, one of the most successful webcomics to date. A complete and total tyrant on his board when it comes to people who disagree with him. He does not debate, he bans. And he mocks you if you complain about it. Ralph, at least, gave fair warning that you were stepping on his toes. Scott doesn't.

So I found the next post, from Skull, to be rather amusing in that he began attacking Ralph's professionalism and likelihood of success.

The thread ends with J.A.M. disagreeing in principle with Ralph's position, but Ralph simply takes pains to explain himself at length.

Frankly, Axel, on just about any other forum I frequent, your first post on that thread would have gotten you an IMed warning and the second one would have gotten you a timed ban of at least a week (dissing the mod, followed by resurrecting a mod-terminated topic).

[Calbeck]

Personally, I do see it as an abuse. It wouldn't be if Ralph had not pushed politics into his comic. But since he makes it a badge of honor to do so, he must then be ready to accept political discussion in his forum, including discussion that he doesn't like.

Considering how many times I've made that exact same argument on the forums of liberal comics like Mr. Simpson's...frankly, Ralph's been more tolerant of dissenting views, although his tone when making his own position known is often abrasive. In his statement regarding the lockdown, he doesn't even begrudge anyone their positions --- only that they pursue him with their own differences as though he himself has no right to his own. His opposition, not he, is the side which cannot seem to "agree to disagree", and he's sick of wasting the time constantly repeating himself to those who don't apparently listen to what he has to say in the first place.

That's what I get from a direct, straightforward reading of what he actually had to say in the thread in question.

[Skull]

Thirty percent of that thread was deleted prior to being locked, including one of Mr. Hayes' own, and he seletively edited the other two after the lock. The "whole story" has a rather different feel.

~fin.

Edit: I should also point out that Mr. Kurtz himself admits that his self-described "assholishness" cost him an early publishing deal, and may have cost him a newspaper syndication deal just a year or two ago. It also very nearly cost him his Image Comics deal, and only the intervention of another Image artist smoothed that rift over.

Mr. Kurtz is a success through hard work, dedication and monumental effort, in spite of his being abrasive and obnoxious, not because of it.

[Tom Mazanec]

Simpson's comic is about as liberal as TotQ is conservative...that is, noticably but not obnoxiously so. It was about the time the Democrats got control of Congress that Ralph started with HO and a distinct increase in abrasiveness. If he really hears the same arguments over and over (let's say 42, as that is the number of life, the universe and everything), than he should have made a sticky with a list of 42 rebuttles. Than he could respond to a post "See #13 and #26".
Too late for that now, though, now that he is no longer moderator...

[Atarlost]

The problem, ultimately, is that these forums do not belong here. Since Ralph's comics are frequently political their forums require the same sort of moderating as the comments on a political blog. What is typical for a blog? The moderator has full administrative powers and uses them. Anyone who makes trouble gets banned. If things weren't done that way political blogs would be subject to continuous trolling and flame wars. These forums are the same way, as are the forums for any strongly political comic. TotQ could support a no political discussions policy which would help, but neither of hte others can and none of Ralph's comics can support a no religious discussion policy because of their content.

Let's look at an analogy. It's not exact, but what analogy is? Suppose Ralph is black and lets say he rents a home. Let's say people are coming by and spraypainting skinhead slogans on his fence. Let's say he knows it's neighborhood kids without the ability to do anything more. It's a prank designed to make him miserable not an actual death threat. Is he justified in driving them off? Okay, most of you probably said yes. So he's got a forum he rents. He's Christian. People come and insult his religion generally start flamewars with him. It's not a threat of physical harm unless you count raising his blood pressure. Actually, given that he's had weight problems in the past maybe we should. It is, though, a deliberate campaign (or several independant deliberate campaigns since I don't think it's an orchestrated conspiracy) to make him miserable. Why isn't he justified in driving them off in this context?

[Tom Mazanec]

That analogy would be good except that Ralph began pushing his "blackness". Instead of being a quiet neighbor, he began posting "black power" slogans on his "house" with HO. This is when the forum began to deteriorate. The thing is, Ralph already HAS a pollitical blog. It is his LiveJournal. I don't know what the other two comics are like, but this one is no politics (save free traders VS expansionists) and little religion. Any controversy in the strip could be handled by saying something like "See my LiveJournal entry for December 25, 2525 (we all hope the strip will last that long, don't we ?)).

[Wanderwolf]

Let's look at an analogy. It's not exact, but what analogy is? Suppose Ralph is black and lets say he rents a home. Let's say people are coming by and spraypainting skinhead slogans on his fence. Let's say he knows it's neighborhood kids without the ability to do anything more. It's a prank designed to make him miserable not an actual death threat. Is he justified in driving them off? Okay, most of you probably said yes. So he's got a forum he rents. He's Christian. People come and insult his religion generally start flamewars with him. It's not a threat of physical harm unless you count raising his blood pressure. Actually, given that he's had weight problems in the past maybe we should. It is, though, a deliberate campaign (or several independant deliberate campaigns since I don't think it's an orchestrated conspiracy) to make him miserable. Why isn't he justified in driving them off in this context?

Um, the following analogy is more complete, especially given that not all of the disagreements were religious in nature, and none of them have been "campaigns to make him miserable":

Ralph moves into a new small town (Comicgenesis), run by a mayor (STryker). At first, all goes well.

One day, one of the local loudmouths starts going off about Christianity and its various "offenses" throughout history. He's on Ralph's access road; Ralph starts out by debating with him, but the religious debate goes the way of most religious debates (firmly downhill).

Finally, Ralph runs the loudmouth off his land. (Threadlock/deletion.) The mayor has no problem with this; the public has no problem with this. Everything's fine.

The same thing happens a few more times, to much the same effect... but now, Ralph is completely fed up. He's busy, he's stressed, his finances are strapped, he's not in a good place in his life; he really has no time to spend on people who disagree with him, as far as he's concerned.

He starts by running off people who argue religion; next, he runs off anyone doing something he doesn't approve of; then he runs off anyone talking loudly; then he runs off anyone who disagrees with him. While this isn't always bad (Shadowrun/ToTQ fanfic, etc.), it isn't always good, either (contrary evidence, questions, etc.).

Eventually, it comes back to the mayor (STryker) that Ralph has become a curmudgeon; access through his lands is becoming difficult to impossible, depending on which road (subject) you take. STryker talks to Ralph, who apologizes. He's neither evil nor mean, after all; just stressed and opinionated.

Problem is, Ralph is still stressed. He's in no mood to argue with anyone, and could care less for "evidence" and "documentation"; don't people understand he has better things to do than listen to them? Eventually, he's back to his curmudgeonly ways. (Is "curmudgeonly" even a word?)

Finally, to resolve the problem, the mayor removes control of the access roads from Ralph's ownership; until he assigns a new owner, the City Council will manage them.

Now, Ralph no longer has to track his access roads; they're not his problem, they're the city's. People have full access to the roads, albeit under city oversight. And the Mayor has resolved the issue.

For the most part, this is a win/win for all concerned. Ralph can stop riding herd on the fora and concentrate on things he actually enjoys; posters can speak freely, without concern for getting a backside full of rock salt for saying the wrong thing; and STryker receives fewer complaints.

Does that make more sense?

Yours truly,

The explicatory,

Wanderer

[Wanderwolf]

What did you expect from this, BTW? A resounding vote for Ralph? That does not seem to be happening. And even if it had, what did you expect from that? The administrator to go "Gadzooks, I have done Ralph a grave injustice! I must make ammends and promote him back to moderator, nay, a fellow administrator!" Or would "So Ralph is getting shyal_malkes to fight his battles for him, eh? I'll just ban him from even posting! THAT will show him!" Knowing human nature, I know which I would bet on.

Knowing STryker, (he and I used to post to the same newsgroup), the safe money was always on, "Ignore the whole issue and act in accordance with the guidelines and personal experience". He's a former Usenet Oracle, y'know.

Yours with a wave from the werewolves,

(alt.horror.werewolves)

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[BoKiana]

I just find it amusing that the moment Mr Hayes is taken down from his Mod status, that the TotQ forum suddenly explodes with OT and/or politically based threads, when before TotQ was the least OT and Politically based forums of the three.

I can remember some time ago a forumite from here went to the Nip & Tuck forum, and started a political discussion. It quickly got into a heated argument, not a flamewar mind you, but it was more heated than it should be, and the forumite then said they would be returning to their home forum and wouldn't touch the Nip & Tuck section at all, since their home forum was virtually political argument free.

Just an odd observation from me.

[Skull]

I joined only a few weeks ago, just after Mr. Hayes posted the second Onions strip.

I have not visited the other forums, but in here, when I joined, there was at least one already-locked political thread, and no fewer than three multi-page religious or political threads running. In the two weeks or so I've been visiting, some three to five more have been either locked or deleted entirely, though not all of those are or were religious/political threads.

A look back several page-months shows several more such multipage threads, including some locked. All of which took place weeks before the ban.

To the contrary, it seems that it was hardly the moment Mr. Hayes was removed as mod; rather, it seems quite clear there was an already-extant if low level ongoing sociopolitical debate in here, which appears to have boiled over at the same time Mr. Hayes posted the first sociopolitical Onions strips.

Gee, I wonder why. Mystery of the Universe, there.

In the other thread, Mr. Hayes expresses incredulity that people are arguing religion and politics in the forums dedicated to his political and religious comic strips.

Is this really that big a mystery?

~fin.

[Tom Mazanec]

BoKiana
That is partly my fault. I just got used to this being a forum where religion and politics could be discussed. I do not follow the other two fora, because I do not follow the other two comics. So when I wanted to discussed those two topics recently, I went here. I will try to minimize and even avoid this in the future...I realized at work yesterday (see my comment on the God Delusion book thread) that I was going a little too far.

[Deckard Canine]

Simpson's comic is about as liberal as TotQ is conservative...that is, noticably but not obnoxiously so.

You must be talking about "Ozy & Millie." His other comic, "I Drew This," is almost always political and almost always strongly liberal.

[Tom Mazanec]

Correct. But Simpson does not post IDT in the O&M website. It was when Ralph did the equivalent of this several times with his HO in a brief span that I got worried that TotQ would become even rarer. I am glad to see that HO has effectively stopped (at least for now) and we had 2 TotQ last week...Ralph is only one strip behind on my challenge, by my count.

[Aurrin]

Considering how many times I've made that exact same argument on the forums of liberal comics like Mr. Simpson's...frankly, Ralph's been more tolerant of dissenting views, although his tone when making his own position known is often abrasive.

Who said anything about Simpson? I avoid Simpson's forums because I know he has that reputation. This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. (Had I known up front that Ralph was that way, I doubt I'd ever have come here to start with.)

In his statement regarding the lockdown, he doesn't even begrudge anyone their positions --- only that they pursue him with their own differences as though he himself has no right to his own.

A right here defined as 'Shut up and agree or else!' ? Or 'once I make my point known, the discussion is over' ? He may feel persued, but it is only because he boldly throws out his opinion (either on the forums or in his comics) and dares the world at large to say otherwise. When you issue a challenge like that, you forfeit your right to complain when people take you up on it.

His opposition, not he, is the side which cannot seem to "agree to disagree", and he's sick of wasting the time constantly repeating himself to those who don't apparently listen to what he has to say in the first place.

Again, we come back to this strange notion that once he's made his opinion known, discussion should end. The thing is, in all the arguments, only once has he ever "agreed to disagree", at least in the couple of years I've been here. Usually, he just screams about how stupid anyone is who would dare disagree with him. Oh, and 'agree to disagree' means that you don't keep repeating yourself to other people, and they don't have to listen.

Ralph can't seem to just let a topic pass by. Even when he isn't asked or called out, or insulted, or anything, he butts into a discussion to interject his opinion, and then acts outraged when anyone says something against it. Just because it's on this forum, doesn't mean he has to personally respond to it. You can't butt into a topic like that, yell at half the participants, and then claim you were pursued by people who didn't like you. Sometimes people do go in and 'call him out'. But more often, he just can't restrain himself from letting everyone know in a very belligerent manner just exactly what he thinks about the topic and about them.

If he's reading this, let me simply say this:
Don't respond to those topics. Let them go. You don't have to have the last word to be right. These forums are not the council of arbitration for global policy, so what does it matter? It will save you a lot of stress.

(It took me a while to realize that myself.)

[Troutnoodler]

I voted no.

1. He can now concentrate on putting out the comic. Taking care of "trolls" is now, officially somebody else's problem.

2. Other can participate in discussions without fear of an arbitrary reprisal.

3. Ralph himself can participate in discussions as an equal instead of an overlord.

I'd like to think my decision was entirely professional, thinking only of the comic and the other forum denizens, but I'd only be fooling myself. I was one of those who got nixed in an "arbitrary reprisal", and more than once too.

So yes, there was probably a small bit of reciprocity in my vote.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. Ralph may own the idea of the forums here, but he doesn't own the real estate upon which they reside. He's a tenant, dwelling here at the indulgence of the landlords, whom he has annoyed more than once; to his detriment.

The poll will not affect their decision. But perhaps it might give Ralph a clue as to just how people feel about the issue. And now that he can no longer squash dissent, maybe he'll actually catch that clue this time.

[Calbeck]

A right here defined as 'Shut up and agree or else!' ? Or 'once I make my point known, the discussion is over' ?

Which, to my experience and understanding, he has not done even ONCE. Ralph has NEVER said that YOU don't have a right to hold different views. Nor have I ever seen or heard evidence to indicate that he would lock or delete a thread ONLY because someone else disagreed with him.

So forgive me if I take the position that you're overstating your case for dramatic effect, barring any actual proof.

He may feel persued, but it is only because he boldly throws out his opinion (either on the forums or in his comics) and dares the world at large to say otherwise.

Sounds like your average forumite, after trimming out your needlessly dramatic prose.

When you issue a challenge like that, you forfeit your right to complain when people take you up on it.

That's assuming he made any "challenge" at all, of course. Or, if you're merely promoting the standard cop-out line, what you just said amounts to "anyone posting a substantial comment to a forum deserves what they get".

His opposition, not he, is the side which cannot seem to "agree to disagree", and he's sick of wasting the time constantly repeating himself to those who don't apparently listen to what he has to say in the first place.

Again, we come back to this strange notion that once he's made his opinion known, discussion should end.

Which is, of course, not what I said. Is it? Or is that seriously what you believe "agree to disagree" means? Or do you believe, for some reason, that constantly badgering someone until they agree with YOU is a good idea?

The thing is, in all the arguments, only once has he ever "agreed to disagree", at least in the couple of years I've been here.

That would suggest he actually had the ability to end the argument by doing so. In my experience, it's impossible to agree to disagree unless BOTH sides are willing to do so. Can you list the number of times Ralph's opponents have extended invitations to "agree to disagree"?

Usually, he just screams about how stupid anyone is who would dare disagree with him.

Not according to what I've seen. Oh, he DOES mock people who ignore established facts --- as opposed to his personal opinions --- but that's far different from insulting someone merely on basis of disagreement.

Oh, and 'agree to disagree' means that you don't keep repeating yourself to other people, and they don't have to listen.

No, it doesn't. It means exactly what it says --- that you and he are simply not going to agree on one or more subjects, and leave it at that. It doesn't prevent either of you from discussing the same exact thing with someone else.

Ralph can't seem to just let a topic pass by.

Well, God forbid, I hadn't heard that he exceeded his Allotted Opinion Quota. Thanks for letting me know.

Even when he isn't asked or called out, or insulted, or anything, he butts into a discussion to interject his opinion

Like just about any other forumite I know.

and then acts outraged when anyone says something against it.

Again with the dramatic overstatements. Yes, Ralph is opinionated, and yes he's been abrasive on many occasions, but "outraged"? What I'm getting from all this is that YOU are personally pissed off at something Ralph said or did, and you feel justified in overstating your case. But after 20 years plying the Internet, I'm not impressed.

[Tom Mazanec]

I have reached an epiphany on this topic. Nothing is going to change. The admin will not put Ralph back as moderator, Ralph will not change how he does his strips or posts on the forum. The admin did the right thing because now Ralph can no longer lock a thread (after having the last word). He can just comment occasionally like the rest of us and not have to waste his time trying to control the forum. This will be someone ELSE's job, and Ralph can now concentrate on the strips. All these debates are doing is getting us hot under the collar.