Constructive criticism

[Zathyr]

Yes, every once in a while someone posts a long rant based on their own assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions are provably wrong; sometimes they have some support from a certain perspective but no solid evidence. These things generally don't go over well, because someone will point out they're making assumptions, and for some reason angry ranters tend not to like that. I'm not saying Morgaln's comments here are an angry rant, but it is a little similar, in critiquing based off assumed ideas. Really I'm thinking more generally - pointing out things that have happened in the past, where folks come in and the community seems to instantly rally against them. They may or may not have some connection to the BWW - I don't know.

But yes, Herbert runs a game in the Goblins' universe. This is known. Anything beyond that about the nature of the game Herbert's running or the universe the comic takes place is an assumption. Even if it is all one big table-top RPG, it could have multiple GMs. Or maybe it is its own living universe Herbert has access to information about, and that the PCs enter when they play their game. It is not known.

Also, I feel the need to point out that the artist's name is not Hunt. His name is Tarol Stevens, and he also goes by Thunt.

[Invariel]

Yes, every once in a while someone posts a long rant based on their own assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions are provably wrong; sometimes they have some support from a certain perspective but no solid evidence. These things generally don't go over well, because someone will point out they're making assumptions, and for some reason angry ranters tend not to like that.

I haven't taken a look around, but people don't post speculation threads here? You know, assumptions about the future instead of the present or the past?

I'm not saying Morgaln's comments here are an angry rant, but it is a little similar, in critiquing based off assumed ideas.

Without Thunt stepping forward and laying down exactly everything in his head with respect to the whole of Goblins, you can only reasonably critique against what has been provided in terms of plot, framing, or backdrop. In this case, the backdrop is that of a game of Dungeons and Dragons, with which Morgaln's comments have merit.

But yes, Herbert runs a game in the Goblins' universe. This is known. Anything beyond that about the nature of the game Herbert's running or the universe the comic takes place is an assumption. Even if it is all one big table-top RPG, it could have multiple GMs. Or maybe it is its own living universe Herbert has access to information about, and that the PCs enter when they play their game. It is not known.

Or maybe the entire thing, Goblins, Herbert, PCs, and all, are the imaginings of a small child. Far more reasonable, however, is the assumption that this is a tabletop game of Dungeons and Dragons, with one GM, a number of players, and NPCs given class levels that are wandering the realm. Since the role of NPCs is generally handled by the GM, the commentary about the Goblins not having agency within the story (as their actions are, therefore, controlled by the GM) is valid and relevant. You may choose not to read the comic that way. That does not change the fact that people do read the comic that way. And, arguing that your viewpoint has more merit than someone else's ... is simply saying that your assumption is more valid than someone else's.

Also, I feel the need to point out that the artist's name is not Hunt. His name is Tarol Stevens, and he also goes by Thunt.

His birth name is Tarol Hunt, his married name is Tarol Stephens, and his Twitter handle, @Thunt_Goblins, lists his name as Tarol Hunt/Stephens.

[Zathyr]

I haven't taken a look around, but people don't post speculation threads here? You know, assumptions about the future instead of the present or the past?

Sure, happens all the time. Well, only occasionally in separate threads. We speculate all over everything here.

And presenting a case for assumptions is one thing, but getting annoyed or angry about assumptions you have made is another matter entirely. That was the point I was addressing. Once upon a time there was someone who went on in this huge rant about how we were supposed to believe that this was all an actual game based on real die rolls that happened and he just couldn't believe it. Apparently he was under the impression that Thunt had made that claim at some point, but it was a misinterpretation of something else. There have been other, similar rants over the years. People get an idea lodged in their heads and sometimes it really makes them angry, regardless of whether it's true or not.

[Morgaln]

I'm not just posting baseless assumptions; I'm putting forth a theory on the nature of the Goblins universe that, to the best of my knowledge, fits all the known facts. It's certainly not the only interpretation, but it is the simplest one within the facts we're given and thus seems most likely to me.
Many of you argue Goblins as a existentialist piece of work in which part of the creation breaks free from the control of its creator. However, the GAP just recently met representatives of the universe of their creator in Minmax and Forgath. If the GAP had broken free of Herbert's control, it would have been obvious in that situation and should have been a world-shattering experience for the players. Since nothing like that happened, the simplest explanation is that Herbert is still in full control and the game proceeds as planned.

Of course I could be dead wrong here. The only one who can make absolute statements about the comic is Hunt himself (Note: I refuse to call him Thunt. He is not my friend and never will be, and thus I don't feel I have any right to call him by a nickname). He can come in here and give us a definite answer (which I would have to accept, whether I like it or not), but as long as that doesn't happen, I will consider my view a valid interpretation.

[thinkslogically]

I feel a bit like your criticisms could be levelled at any piece of fiction though, because there is always an author who decides what happens to the characters. I understand that explicitly acknowledging that author in the story might be immersion-breaking, but for me it's not a big deal. It's just a joke from the beginning of the comic, and it otherwise doesn't really come up enough that it bothers me. AS far as I'm concerned, Herbert is just another deity and a nod to the D&D setting.

I also find that goblins (and other monsters in the comic) are written much more like "real people" to me, while the PCs (for me at least) are a lot less interesting. Maybe it's because they fit the tropes we expect them to and it's taking MinMax and Forgath a while to mature, but that's just my take on it. I'm a GAP fan, but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the other story arcs.

[nikohl]

(Note: I refuse to call him Thunt. He is not my friend and never will be, and thus I don't feel I have any right to call him by a nickname).

What's your name? By that logic, I shouldn't address you as Morgaln, so I need something else to go by.

[Krulle]

Thunt is his INet handle/nick.
Chosen to be used by the anonymous online masses...

[Wolfie]

Thunt is his INet handle/nick.
Chosen to be used by the anonymous online masses...

Indeed. THunt is used because it is a mashup of his unmarried name Tarol Hunt.. T Hunt... THunt. Which is also how he signs his comics. It's not really an intimate nickname only his good friends get to use.

The forum has even had conversations on which version of his nickname is more appropriate: Thunt or THunt. We've determined that either is acceptable.

[Invariel]

And it is exactly that kind of groupthink mentality that gets people wondering (as the OP asks at the beginning of this thread) if you are a cult or not. You have these pre-approved practices (do not criticize the comic, be happy you get a comic and don't think about the quality of what is presented, refer to the creator only in the way we decided at some point in the past) that you expect everybody to live by, and you are critical of people who go against these tenets.

And, without wanting to press the point home too much, shortening someone's name in a recognizeable manner is kind of a thing you do 'round these parts, [Edit:] though I don't think it's Morgaln's intention to insult.

[Zathyr]

It may be groupthink, but it's far beyond the scope of this forum. In American and Canadian culture in general it's a little rude to simply call someone by their last name without a title (Mr. in this case) unless you're in the military. If it's a last name that isn't even theirs anymore, that's just kind of weird.

[nikohl]

...refer to the creator only in the way we decided at some point in the past....

Wolfie didn't say "Only Thunt or THunt is acceptable", Invariel. She said people had sat and debated, out of the two, which was more technically correct to use (because we like debating all sorts of stuff, even whether to capitalise an H or not), and the conclusion was that neither was more correct than the other.

[Invariel]

It may be groupthink, but it's far beyond the scope of this forum. In American and Canadian culture in general it's a little rude to simply call someone by their last name without a title (Mr. in this case) unless you're in the military. If it's a last name that isn't even theirs anymore, that's just kind of weird.

• Shakespeare
• Shatner
• Turing
• Pratchett
• Obama

...refer to the creator only in the way we decided at some point in the past....

Wolfie didn't say "Only Thunt or THunt is acceptable", Invariel. She said people had sat and debated, out of the two, which was more technically correct to use (because we like debating all sorts of stuff, even whether to capitalise an H or not), and the conclusion was that neither was more correct than the other.

As to this point, that discussion doesn't apply to the name Morgaln chooses to use, because it is neither of the options that were up for debate. You know who is being referred to, Morgaln knows who is being referred to, everyone is aware of the subject of that conversation. Saying, "We use this name/these names over here" does not change the fact that Thunt still recognizes Hunt as a last name that applies to him, nor does it confuse who is being discussed.

[Zathyr]

This is getting silly.

There's people here from all over the world. Culture clash happens. I was just trying to be helpful by giving some general information, and now that I've said it I intend to drop the matter. Call him what you like, I suppose. If you keep calling him Hunt, I'll keep thinking it's a weird thing to do but I'll think that quietly to myself, and yes I'll know who you're talking about. Carry on.

[Morgaln]

(Note: I refuse to call him Thunt. He is not my friend and never will be, and thus I don't feel I have any right to call him by a nickname).

What's your name? By that logic, I shouldn't address you as Morgaln, so I need something else to go by.

Ah, but I don't give you any other choice. If that helps any, I do consider Morgaln my "official" name among the web, and the replacement for a real name that I do not share. Those who want to give me a nickname usually shorten it to Morg.

If Hunt is not acceptable to you for whatever reason, I can offer the following options. Pick one:

Stephens
Mr. Hunt
Mr. Stephens

Until you have made up your mind (feel free to discuss it among yourselves first so everyone is fine with the choice), I will refer to him as "the creator of the comic".

[nikohl]

...refer to the creator only in the way we decided at some point in the past....

Wolfie didn't say "Only Thunt or THunt is acceptable", Invariel. She said people had sat and debated, out of the two, which was more technically correct to use (because we like debating all sorts of stuff, even whether to capitalise an H or not), and the conclusion was that neither was more correct than the other.

As to this point, that discussion doesn't apply to the name Morgaln chooses to use, because it is neither of the options that were up for debate. You know who is being referred to, Morgaln knows who is being referred to, everyone is aware of the subject of that conversation. Saying, "We use this name/these names over here" does not change the fact that Thunt still recognizes Hunt as a last name that applies to him, nor does it confuse who is being discussed.

I was responding to your intimation that we as a group "won't allow" people to use other names, since you replied to Wolfie's post about the "Thunt/THunt" discussion as if those were the two options presented to you.

We use Thunt or some variation thereof, because that's the name he uses. That's all. To ignore his choice seems a bit churlish. Like me saying "Sure, your screen name's Invariel, but I'm going to call you something else" - not quite the same, as I don't know your real name to substitute in the way that you know Thunt's, but the point still applies. We didn't decide his name at some point in the past... he did :/

And I need to address this from another part of your original post: do you think calling us a cult is going to engender open and polite communication, which was apparently the goal of this thread? It's a loaded term that's just going to keep getting people's backs up and will probably keep people annoyed and touchy around you and others from the BWW, and it will hinder this whole discussion.

To quote one of those annoying inspirational posters that my old school friends keep posting on Facebook (ugh!), "you can disagree without being disagreeable" - we're just kinda nice here. It doesn't mean we don't have our own critiques of the comic, its schedule, the bits of the story or plot we don't like, or any number of other things; it just means we're generally more polite about it than you're probably used to. We're critical of people not who disagree, but who are disagreeable about it. One of the posters over on BWW said something relevant; they re-framed their existing critique from a "standard BWW post" to more "Goblins Forum" language, posted it here, and found it well-received. They seemed to be annoyed about that rather than pleased, because their opinion (if I understand it correctly) is that the message is more important than the tone, but it suits my point quite well. We do place some value on tone here, because - y'know, nice.

If Hunt is not acceptable to you for whatever reason, I can offer the following options. Pick one:

For me, it would seem marginally less like a subtle sign of disrespect if it at least featured a Mr., because then it's clear that you've chosen to use his "Real Name" rather than his "Internet Name", and bothered to include the standard prefix. But, having said that, I wasn't one of the ones who minded.

[Invariel]

I was responding to your intimation that we as a group "won't allow" people to use other names, since you replied to Wolfie's post about the "Thunt/THunt" discussion as if those were the two options presented to you.

Those were the two options presented.

We use Thunt or some variation thereof, because that's the name he uses. That's all. To ignore his choice seems a bit churlish.

And that is a far more reasonable response than, Zathyr's, "Also, I feel the need to point out that the artist's name is not Hunt. His name is Tarol Stevens, and he also goes by Thunt."

Like me saying "Sure, your screen name's Invariel, but I'm going to call you something else" - not quite the same, as I don't know your real name to substitute in the way that you know Thunt's, but the point still applies. We didn't decide his name at some point in the past... he did :/

I have acquired other nicknames and shortforms of Invariel over the years, this is the name I choose to go by on the internet. A few seconds of Googling would reveal that my given name is also attached to this screenname, and you could certainly use that if you wanted to. My choosing to use the name 'Invariel' online does not prevent other people from calling me other things, particularly names that I actually have on legal documents.

And I need to address this from another part of your original post: do you think calling us a cult is going to engender open and polite communication, which was apparently the goal of this thread? It's a loaded term that's just going to keep getting people's backs up and will probably keep people annoyed and touchy around you and others from the BWW, and it will hinder this whole discussion.

I did not call you a cult, I said that it is this sort of behaviour which suggests that term.

To quote one of those annoying inspirational posters that my old school friends keep posting on Facebook (ugh!), "you can disagree without being disagreeable" - we're just kinda nice here. It doesn't mean we don't have our own critiques of the comic, its schedule, the bits of the story or plot we don't like, or any number of other things; it just means we're generally more polite about it than you're probably used to.

Isn't that one of those generalizations about people that we're trying to avoid in this conversation? You don't know where I hang out on the internet, or how polite I am in other company. Borderline ad hominem right there.

We're critical of people not who disagree, but who are disagreeable about it. One of the posters over on BWW said something relevant; they re-framed their existing critique from a "standard BWW post" to more "Goblins Forum" language, posted it here, and found it well-received. They seemed to be annoyed about that rather than pleased, because their opinion (if I understand it correctly) is that the message is more important than the tone, but it suits my point quite well.

I don't recall Hates-Fun being disappointed that people liked the rearranging of the panels, I do, however, recall the takeaway of that particular conversation being an exchange along the lines of, "i stand by my point in general, which was that even though you say some valid stuff, you say it in a way that makes me not agree with you." which was responded to with, "And then seperate of that is your assertion that how we say things makes you disagree with valid points, that is to say, points that have a sound basis in logic and fact, which is what valid means. Is this perhaps supposed to be an interpretation that you are content with being irrational if the rational points are presented in a way you don't find pleasing?"

That is, you are critical of the disagreeableness to the point that you disagree with what you yourself called "valid points"? That, I believe, is where the annoyance comes from.

We do place some value on tone here, because - y'know, nice.

As well you should, but it should be the tone of the message you place value on, and not the tone of the voice you hear while you read. Text is a difficult medium that way, and everyone could stand to learn to be better at it.

[nikohl]

I was responding to your intimation that we as a group "won't allow" people to use other names, since you replied to Wolfie's post about the "Thunt/THunt" discussion as if those were the two options presented to you.

Those were the two options presented.

Wolfie was talking about a previous discussion weighing the comparative merits of those two options, not saying they were the only two. If you can't interpret the post in any other way than that despite my twothree attempts to enlighten you, then I can't help you further. I am sorry.

And I need to address this from another part of your original post: do you think calling us a cult is going to engender open and polite communication, which was apparently the goal of this thread? It's a loaded term that's just going to keep getting people's backs up and will probably keep people annoyed and touchy around you and others from the BWW, and it will hinder this whole discussion.

I did not call you a cult, I said that it is this sort of behaviour which suggests that term.

Using the term is not conducive to friendly happy chat-times. Really, this isn't something I should have to spell out... It is by nature quite inflammatory. It's been said several times in-thread so this isn't just for you, I'm just putting my thoughts on the phrase out there; it's divisive.

To quote one of those annoying inspirational posters that my old school friends keep posting on Facebook (ugh!), "you can disagree without being disagreeable" - we're just kinda nice here. It doesn't mean we don't have our own critiques of the comic, its schedule, the bits of the story or plot we don't like, or any number of other things; it just means we're generally more polite about it than you're probably used to.

Isn't that one of those generalizations about people that we're trying to avoid in this conversation? You don't know where I hang out on the internet, or how polite I am in other company. Borderline ad hominem right there.

You came from BWW. Nothing ad hominem about it; BWW's style is no holds barred, ours is not. Hence, we're quite likely to be more polite in our critique than you may be used to.

We're critical of people not who disagree, but who are disagreeable about it. One of the posters over on BWW said something relevant; they re-framed their existing critique from a "standard BWW post" to more "Goblins Forum" language, posted it here, and found it well-received. They seemed to be annoyed about that rather than pleased, because their opinion (if I understand it correctly) is that the message is more important than the tone, but it suits my point quite well.

I don't recall Hates-Fun being disappointed that people liked the rearranging of the panels, I do, however, recall the takeaway of that particular conversation being an exchange along the lines of, "i stand by my point in general, which was that even though you say some valid stuff, you say it in a way that makes me not agree with you." which was responded to with, "And then seperate of that is your assertion that how we say things makes you disagree with valid points, that is to say, points that have a sound basis in logic and fact, which is what valid means. Is this perhaps supposed to be an interpretation that you are content with being irrational if the rational points are presented in a way you don't find pleasing?"

That is, you are critical of the disagreeableness to the point that you disagree with what you yourself called "valid points"? That, I believe, is where the annoyance comes from.

You've skipped past the part I'm referring to: "I've hit a quandry... As soon as I framed my argument outside of the BWW language, it was immediately acceptable criticism and there was a lot of agreement ... There seems to be this idea that because we're assertively assholish in our reviews, our critiques hold little value or are not useful." <-- that was the part that I interpreted as Hates-fun being disappointed/annoyed at, finding lots of agreeing rather than disagreeing in our environment. And that's the part I feel gives weight to my "disagreeing without being disagreeable" point; lots of us have things we don't like, and we like talking about things we don't like just as much as things we do like. We just don't really enjoy talking to people who stamp and yell.

As far as the remainder of that exchange: I can agree with people's points without agreeing with them as people. "That thing you said is pretty much true but you're being a jerk" is a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold

We do place some value on tone here, because - y'know, nice.

As well you should, but it should be the tone of the message you place value on, and not the tone of the voice you hear while you read. Text is a difficult medium that way, and everyone could stand to learn to be better at it.

This I very much agree on. We could all be better at delivery AND reception, but it's difficult.

(Phew... I just noticed how late it was. Bedtime for me. Sorry for the wall-o-quotes!)

[Invariel]

I was responding to your intimation that we as a group "won't allow" people to use other names, since you replied to Wolfie's post about the "Thunt/THunt" discussion as if those were the two options presented to you.

Those were the two options presented.

Wolfie was talking about a previous discussion weighing the comparative merits of those two options, not saying they were the only two. If you can't interpret the post in any other way than that despite my twothree attempts to enlighten you, then I can't help you further. I am sorry.

This is going to come off as snarky, because I do not have the ability to project my intention or tone across a wall of text. It is not intended to be snarky, merely intended to be a timeline of what transpired.

• Morgaln refers to him as "Hunt" and states a preference to not use "Thunt" due to lack of friendship and familiarity.
• Zathyr responds, "Also, I feel the need to point out that the artist's name is not Hunt. His name is Tarol Stevens (sic), and he also goes by Thunt."
• I point out that his birth name is Tarol Hunt, his married name is Tarol Stephens, and that his Twitter name is listed as Tarol Hunt/Stephens.
• Krulle reaffirms that Thunt uses Thunt online.
• Wolfie responds, "The forum has even had conversations on which version of his nickname is more appropriate: Thunt or THunt. We've determined that either is acceptable."

Or, "When using Thunt's nickname, that is to say, 'Thunt', we have determined that either 'Thunt' or 'THunt' is acceptable." Or, "If you are going to refer to Thunt using Thunt's nickname, these are the two options that are presented to you." You may choose to note that throughout I have referred to the man as "Thunt", out of a desire to communicate, and there is good communication happening here.

And I need to address this from another part of your original post: do you think calling us a cult is going to engender open and polite communication, which was apparently the goal of this thread? It's a loaded term that's just going to keep getting people's backs up and will probably keep people annoyed and touchy around you and others from the BWW, and it will hinder this whole discussion.

I did not call you a cult, I said that it is this sort of behaviour which suggests that term.

Using the term is not conducive to friendly happy chat-times. Really, this isn't something I should have to spell out... It is by nature quite inflammatory. It's been said several times in-thread so this isn't just for you, I'm just putting my thoughts on the phrase out there; it's divisive.

How, then, do you propose that I refer to the question from the original post, without being incredibly verbose? "That statement is one of the reasons, in my opinion, that people pose the initial question."? "Going back to the thesis question posed four pages ago, the behaviour demonstrated in this post is some of the reasoning behind that judgment."?

To quote one of those annoying inspirational posters that my old school friends keep posting on Facebook (ugh!), "you can disagree without being disagreeable" - we're just kinda nice here. It doesn't mean we don't have our own critiques of the comic, its schedule, the bits of the story or plot we don't like, or any number of other things; it just means we're generally more polite about it than you're probably used to.

Isn't that one of those generalizations about people that we're trying to avoid in this conversation? You don't know where I hang out on the internet, or how polite I am in other company. Borderline ad hominem right there.

You came from BWW. Nothing ad hominem about it; BWW's style is no holds barred, ours is not. Hence, we're quite likely to be more polite in our critique than you may be used to.

No, I merely registered and posted there before registering and posting here. On the same day, no less. I ended up there looking for information about G:AR and Evertide, having no interest in Goblins at all, due to issues from the past. I ended up here because this is a very interesting conversation to watch develop, and I posted there to correct your assumption that people extended a bridge over here to encourage discussion and then escaped back over there to call you names, noting that the namecalling happened before the attempt at conversation over here had happened. Suggesting that I come "from" BWW indicates that I have some form of allegiance, which at present I do not.

We're critical of people not who disagree, but who are disagreeable about it. One of the posters over on BWW said something relevant; they re-framed their existing critique from a "standard BWW post" to more "Goblins Forum" language, posted it here, and found it well-received. They seemed to be annoyed about that rather than pleased, because their opinion (if I understand it correctly) is that the message is more important than the tone, but it suits my point quite well.

I don't recall Hates-Fun being disappointed that people liked the rearranging of the panels, I do, however, recall the takeaway of that particular conversation being an exchange along the lines of, "i stand by my point in general, which was that even though you say some valid stuff, you say it in a way that makes me not agree with you." which was responded to with, "And then seperate of that is your assertion that how we say things makes you disagree with valid points, that is to say, points that have a sound basis in logic and fact, which is what valid means. Is this perhaps supposed to be an interpretation that you are content with being irrational if the rational points are presented in a way you don't find pleasing?"
That is, you are critical of the disagreeableness to the point that you disagree with what you yourself called "valid points"? That, I believe, is where the annoyance comes from.

You've skipped past the part I'm referring to: "I've hit a quandry... As soon as I framed my argument outside of the BWW language, it was immediately acceptable criticism and there was a lot of agreement ... There seems to be this idea that because we're assertively assholish in our reviews, our critiques hold little value or are not useful." <-- that was the part that I interpreted as Hates-fun being disappointed/annoyed at, finding lots of agreeing rather than disagreeing in our environment. And that's the part I feel gives weight to my "disagreeing without being disagreeable" point; lots of us have things we don't like, and we like talking about things we don't like just as much as things we do like. We just don't really enjoy talking to people who stamp and yell.

Except that the part you quoted does not invalidate the parts that I chose to highlight, which are the parts that Hates-Fun chose to highlight: you admitted that the criticisms were valid, and then you said that you disagreed with them because of their tone. That is not "I agree with what you are saying but I disagree with the way you say it," it is "If you had chosen to use my language instead of the language you used, I would agree with your point."

As far as the remainder of that exchange: I can agree with people's points without agreeing with them as people. "That thing you said is pretty much true but you're being a jerk" is a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold

Yes, the thing in quotes there is an acceptable opinion to hold. You are grossly misusing the term "agree" in the previous sentence though, because the notion of agreement indicates holding the same viewpoint, the same idea, the same opinion about a subject. If you admit that points made are valid, then you agree with the points. You may choose to distance yourself from the phrasing, or you may prefer that the argument be phrased differently, but it cannot undermine the fact that you agree with the viewpoint. The statement that you made originally indicates that you disagree with the viewpoint because of the nature of the words chosen, and that led to the response about cognitive dissonance, and the frustration.

We do place some value on tone here, because - y'know, nice.

As well you should, but it should be the tone of the message you place value on, and not the tone of the voice you hear while you read. Text is a difficult medium that way, and everyone could stand to learn to be better at it.

This I very much agree on. We could all be better at delivery AND reception, but it's difficult.

It is.

(Phew... I just noticed how late it was. Bedtime for me. Sorry for the wall-o-quotes!)

Sleep well. And likewise, re: quotewall, but your points are worth responding to.

[Davis8488]

If Hunt is not acceptable to you for whatever reason, I can offer the following options. Pick one:

Stephens
Mr. Hunt
Mr. Stephens

Until you have made up your mind (feel free to discuss it among yourselves first so everyone is fine with the choice), I will refer to him as "the creator of the comic".

If you refuse to refer to him by his artistic name, Mr. Stephens, Stephens, or even Tarol would be the correct ways to refer to him. If you wouldn't refuse to refer to a woman by her married name, then you shouldn't refer to him as "Hunt" or "Mr. Hunt".

Tangential point:

► Show Spoiler

I do feel though, that refusing to call Tarol Stephens "Thunt" is akin to insisting we use the name "Nicolas Coppola" when referring to the star of the film National Treasure. People might know who you mean, but it's odd, especially if you are discussing his body of work as an entertainer.

[BootToTheHead]

Responding to this part:
" Is this perhaps supposed to be an interpretation that you are content with being irrational if the rational points are presented in a way you don't find pleasing?"
That is, you are critical of the disagreeableness to the point that you disagree with what you yourself called "valid points"? That, I believe, is where the annoyance comes from."
----
I cannot speak for everyone, but this is how I feel. Yes, you can interpret the exchange as you have, but I honestly do not believe that that is the intention of anyone here.
If someone were to present me with an review that was rude in tone or from someone I knew was prone to writing disagreeable things, I would not read it. I don't have the desire to read rude things. And if I start reading something and right away I can tell that it's insulting, then I will stop reading it. Therefore, no matter how great the message might have been, I simply did not read it.
I don't believe it's fair to say I (or anyone else) is irrational for not listening to someone that's being rude or insulting to them or something they don't like. Since said person didn't listen, then they obviously cannot gain from the message that was wrapped inside the insulting package.
You can argue that we should be more thick skinned or whatever, but I think it's every person's right to not want to be insulted. In the same way, it's their right to not read something they don't want to. In the same way you might not want to read somebody's gushing review of Goblins as soon as you see that it's obviously going to be full of 'blind praise' or whatever. That gushing person might have some legitimate message about why Goblins is a good webcomic, but you might not ever get to that part if you stopped reading before they got to it.
(Sorry if I'm not making as much sense as I'm trying)


It kind of proves my point that people were agreeable to the drawing criticism once it was presented nicely. We read the criticism and people generally agreed with it. The message was received, read, and deemed a valid critique.




-
(edited to try to make the spacing less confusing, sorry)

[BootToTheHead]

About the name stuff, as long as everyone knows who is being talked about, I don't think it's super important. Specifically pointing out that you are calling him something because you don't like him is kinda weird to me. If you just called him Hunt and left it at that, I doubt people would have cared much. (but I could be wrong)

My thoughts on it:
I think the author is most widely known as Thunt or THunt, but several other names would be acceptable. As he refers to himself as Thunt (I forget if it's with the capital H), that is likely why most people call him that. If I were to ask someone to call me 'Boot' and they called me 'Boo' instead, it would be weird and it might be insulting depending on the circumstances. Not necessarily because the word is insulting, but because I asked for said person to call me one thing and they explicitly ignored that request.
Calling him by his real name is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. (Mr. Stephens, Stephens, Tarol Stephens) It might sound more formal, but I don't think it would bother anyone.
Calling him his unmarried name would be a bit weird imo and calling him by first name would be strange as well imo since it feels more personal (but that might just be me). Then again, you said you didn't want to be personal, so that's probably out haha. Calling him either doesn't bug me personally, but I would think it was strange.
Whenever people call him something different, I think some people would assume you didn't know what to call him and would try to correct you on that by telling you that the author goes by Thunt. I don't think that anyone would do this out of 'hivemind'/you can't call him anything different, but rather because they thought you didn't know and were trying to be helpful.



*shrugs*

[Zathyr]

I already had a little conversation with Invariel about this over PM, but for everyone: my comment about his name was simply meant as an "incidentally" or "by the way" kind of comment, not to make a big deal of it. The name "Tarol Hunt" still shows up around the site, but he changed his last name to Stephens. That's all I wanted to say. I could've (and in hindsight should've) phrased it better. I certainly wasn't expecting this much conversation about it. So, my apologies.

[Generic]

If people complaining would have been silenced here, I would not be able to post anymore. I mostly complain.

People might be telling me that I am wrong from time to time, but that is just ordinary forumites and not moderators. There has been a few 'give the guy a break' instances, but mostly when Thunt has been sick. The tone overall is nice, with very few insults and swears. No. This forum is alright.

[thinkslogically]

do you think calling us a cult is going to engender open and polite communication, which was apparently the goal of this thread? It's a loaded term that's just going to keep getting people's backs up and will probably keep people annoyed and touchy around you and others from the BWW, and it will hinder this whole discussion.

Soooo..... you're saying we're NOT a cult? Dammit guys, I was up all night knitting us cult robes! I even made a banner!

[Wolfie]

Responding to this part:
" Is this perhaps supposed to be an interpretation that you are content with being irrational if the rational points are presented in a way you don't find pleasing?"
That is, you are critical of the disagreeableness to the point that you disagree with what you yourself called "valid points"? That, I believe, is where the annoyance comes from."
----
I cannot speak for everyone, but this is how I feel. Yes, you can interpret the exchange as you have, but I honestly do not believe that that is the intention of anyone here.
If someone were to present me with an review that was rude in tone or from someone I knew was prone to writing disagreeable things, I would not read it. I don't have the desire to read rude things. And if I start reading something and right away I can tell that it's insulting, then I will stop reading it. Therefore, no matter how great the message might have been, I simply did not read it.
I don't believe it's fair to say I (or anyone else) is irrational for not listening to someone that's being rude or insulting to them or something they don't like. Since said person didn't listen, then they obviously cannot gain from the message that was wrapped inside the insulting package.
You can argue that we should be more thick skinned or whatever, but I think it's every person's right to not want to be insulted. In the same way, it's their right to not read something they don't want to. In the same way you might not want to read somebody's gushing review of Goblins as soon as you see that it's obviously going to be full of 'blind praise' or whatever. That gushing person might have some legitimate message about why Goblins is a good webcomic, but you might not ever get to that part if you stopped reading before they got to it.
(Sorry if I'm not making as much sense as I'm trying)


It kind of proves my point that people were agreeable to the drawing criticism once it was presented nicely. We read the criticism and people generally agreed with it. The message was received, read, and deemed a valid critique.

I think you explained it pretty well. Opinions are always easier to digest when their packaging leans more towards neutral than either of the extremes.

On one of the other points: moderators being overbearing and "No you can't speak of that", etc.... We try to not be that way. In fact we've have many conversations in how to not be that way. This forum tends to self moderate and we don't often have to step in. When we do, it's usually because things have either gotten way out of line or we believe they will. Do we handle every situation perfectly? Nope. But we do have a series of checks and balances that the rest of the forum doesn't see to make sure that we try to handle each situation to the best of our ability. Does it always work? No. Murphy likes us too much. But it does work most of the time.

We try. We are not perfect. Personally, I resent that we are laughed at and picked apart for liking a comic and it's author. I've read through the BWW thread and it irritates me that so many people "hate" Goblins so much that still follow the comic just to pick it apart and laugh at it. It's like bullies at lunch in Elementary School. If you think the comic and the author are so bad, why read it at all? Why not just not read it at all and go elsewhere on the internet to something you actually do enjoy? Why tear something apart?

I'm seriously interested in the answer. No judgement, no rawr ME ANGRY MOD I really wanna know.