Constructive criticism

[American Dork]

Hi there. My name is American Dork. I'm from the Bad Webcomics Wiki, and I came here to, well, just ask something of you here.

I'm not here to troll, despite what you may be thinking. I've heard that the Goblins forum has over-protective moderators that will delete anything running contrary to positive thoughts about the comic. I've read the rules and there was nothing about "This is Mr. Hunt's hugbox, anything seen as negative will be deleted", so I wanted to ask about it on the general forum and see for myself what I was told was a "cult" is really true, or if it's just a big exaggeration.

As far as I know, there's no thread on here for constructive criticism, but is that because no one's come up with the idea yet or one has been deleted?

That's all, I promise.

[WearsHats]

Hi there.

No, we're not a cult. We have not deleted threads over constructive criticism. We don't silence people. There have been people who have raised critical points about the story or characterization or art style or what have you in the appropriate threads.

What we are is a group of people who enjoy the comic enough that we signed up for the forum, and that's always going to be somewhat self selective.

Much of what I've seen from Bad Webcomics Wiki, on the other hand, is factually wrong. When we point out to people who have come here that they have their facts wrong and explain why, they have generally not taken it well. That has, at times, gotten tiresome for us.

But then, when you have a group of people who come together at a site whose purpose is to trash the works of others, well, that's going to be somewhat self selective, too.

In short, stick to the rules, be respectful of others, refrain from personal attacks, and basically use common sense, and you'll be welcome here, even if you have an unpopular opinion.

[American Dork]

Hi there.

No, we're not a cult. We have not deleted threads over constructive criticism. We don't silence people. There have been people who have raised critical points about the story or characterization or art style or what have you in the appropriate threads.

What we are is a group of people who enjoy the comic enough that we signed up for the forum, and that's always going to be somewhat self selective.

Much of what I've seen from Bad Webcomics Wiki, on the other hand, is factually wrong. When we point out to people who have come here that they have their facts wrong and explain why, they have generally not taken it well. That has, at times, gotten tiresome for us.

But then, when you have a group of people who come together at a site whose purpose is to trash the works of others, well, that's going to be somewhat self selective, too.

In short, stick to the rules, be respectful of others, refrain from personal attacks, and basically use common sense, and you'll be welcome here, even if you have an unpopular opinion.

Really? Wow, I was honestly expecting thread locked/poster banned. Do tell, what is "factually wrong" about the Bad Webcomics Wiki, at least on the Goblins page, which I presume you are mostly referring to? I won't take it badly, I promise.

Secondly, BWW isn't just "trashing the works of others", they do offer criticism on why it's bad and talks about ways it can be fixed. The "community of trolls and haters" statement is wildly inaccurate.

[WearsHats]

We've only ever banned two people (not counting the spambots), and we went out of our way to give them chances. Both were repeat offenders who made a point of saying they didn't respect moderator authority and didn't care about warnings.

It's been a while since I've read the BWW Goblins article. I'm not really in the mood to sift through it again at the moment. Last I looked, off the top of my head:

1. It claimed we'd bought Thunt a house. False. We chipped in to raise the down payment on a house.

2. It claimed Thunt never delivered the promised rewards for that. False. Every package was sent. Every reward was fulfilled. The only thing that still causes confusion is that, after donations closed, Thunt said he was blown away by the support he'd received and intended to thank us by drawing an extra two pages of the Tempts Fate story. We got the four he'd promised while donations were open, and they do tell a complete story. He just never finished the two page epilogue that he'd never promised in the first place. All rewards from all previous Tempts drives have been delivered.

3. It claimed that Thunt was the creator and primary beneficiary of the Goblins card game Kickstarter. False. As has recently been highlighted, Thunt licensed the name to a game developer, who then failed to deliver. Thunt himself got a small commission for doing the art for the cards, but never saw the bulk of the money. And yet he's still tajen it upon himself to personally finish development of the game and see that backers get at least something for their trouble, even at his own expense as he's trying to recover from a severe breakdown and the loss of income resulting from the break.

4. It claimed Danielle (Thunt's wife) did the shading. False. The way the process works, Thunt does the inking, then passes completed panels to his wife, who does flat colors (just to save him some time while he inks the rest of the page), generally he does some more detail work with the colors. That gets posted as soon as it's ready so people can read the new page. Then, he goes back and does the shading, adding depth and detail. Sometimes this makes a big difference, sometimes it's subtle, sometimes very little actually gets changed. The panel in the BWW article mocking the process deliberately chose one of the least shaded panels. Thunt generally leaves both versions of the page on his site for at least a couple of days so people can compare if they want.

There were more, but those are the ones I remember.

As for my description of the site... I suppose it's a matter of perspective. I admit I haven't spent too much time there. But the main purpose is to highlight and criticize "bad" comics. "Trashing" may be too strong a word, or it may be perfectly accurate. Depends on your definitions and point of view. That said, the articles I looked through seemed to go out of their way to say the worst and harshest things, and the proposed ways to improve the comics generally amounted to "burn it to the ground." Not exactly constructive. Not to mention the personal attacks on the creators. There may well be more to it, but that's what I encountered, and, frankly, I don't enjoy it.

That said, I did read Regretsy avidly for a while. I thought it was funny. I was turned off by the more mean-spirited comments, but the community also did a lot of positive things.

Likewise, I've enjoyed the reviews on Television Without Pity for some shows. Again, they were funny. (And the reviewers weren't afraid to talk about what they were genuinely enjoying, too.) The community there, though... They put it in bold on the rules list that the mods would come down on you if you started a post with "Uhm..." because they felt it made people seem like jerks. They do have a point, but... Yeesh. Talk about over moderation! By the time I finished reading the rules I felt like I was in a police state.

Point is... I get that things can have more depth than it first appears and that it can be fun to mock what you don't like. But BWW... It's not for me.

[Sessine]

So. Hello! I'm not a moderator here, though I am one elsewhere. Since you are not here to troll, I am wondering why you are here, then? Your initial post doesn't make that very clear. What were you hoping to find out? If it was just a simple, "I was told this is a cult. Is it?" then I guess you have your answer: no, it is not. The people here are sensible, polite, and friendly, and we tend to vie with each other to be the first to spot interesting details in each new page. I participate in a number of webcomic forums and comment sections. It's pretty standard stuff here -- it has more in-depth analysis than most.

One important point to know: The story was already written years ago before the comic began. Thunt's storytelling skills have improved over the years, but he has always known what story he wants to tell. We're the people who are hooked because we want to find out what happens next!

Of course there's not going to be just one thread for constructive criticism. There are many of them, as occasion arises, usually interspersed in the general discusssion thread about a particular page, but sometimes it will be a dedicated thread when someone wants to talk about a more general issue.

We're self-selected fans here, in it for the story -- and you're not. This is fine. Nobody says you have to like what we like.

[Hates-fun]

I have a confession to make, I myself am originally from the BWW forum, in case any suspicions had not already been aroused.

Quite a regular user in fact, but I would like to answer your question as to why we are here, and why we even felt we should bother. A day ago our own forum was approached by someone from over here. They were very civil and made some very thought provoking as well as valid points that yelling within our own forum is nothing but a feedback loop of derogatory rage, and I happen to agree. But the thing is, a lot of people over there don't hate Goblins, or at least didn't start out that way. A lot of us liked where this comic could have gone, the potential it held, and the characters within it. A lot of us moved to the BWW out of disappointment from what the comic eventually became. There's a lot of discussion on ways to improve Goblins over there, but it is, more often than not, quickly drowned out by what looks like nonconstructive flaming.

This sort of defaming is not the intention of the BWW, at least, it is not mine within the BWW. I have every intention and every hope that useful and thorough critiques can lead to improvement, even if the tones of those critiques are not positive. With all that said, when that goblins user came and said that we were not at all being useful, I had to concede they had a point, and thus the idea was raised that we create a forum over here to potentially meet each other half way. Where real concerns with...uh...'miss steps within the comic can actually be talked about within the community, and maybe provide some useful feedback. That was my intention when I first came here, unfortunately I never felt that sort of discussion could be safely breached within this forum. I hope this can change. I hope we can all change.

[RocketScientist]

I'm also curious as to why you (you as in the OP) feel the need for an entire thread for criticism, constructive or otherwise. We're not really here to criticize, although like Wears and Sessine said, it comes up when it comes up. Thunt does appreciate criticism that *is* actually constructive, though. So if you have some, by all means go with it. Just, you know, don't with the insulting, slamming, kill-it-with-fire kind.

FWIW, I've noticed that we usually get the ZOMG, OVERBEARING MODS!!1!!!1!!!ELEVENTY!!!! accusations from people who get warned after they repeatedly break the posted rules, insult the creator, the moderators/admins, the other forum members, etc.

Also, I don't think I've ever deleted anything that wasn't a spambot. If something is particularly offensive and rule-breaking, I usually just hide it behind a spoiler tag and give the poster an in-line warning. And in case you're wondering, I don't eat babies. Even though I'm an atheist.

[Hates-fun]

FWIW, I've noticed that we usually get the ZOMG, OVERBEARING MODS!!1!!!1!!!ELEVENTY!!!! accusations from people who get warned after they repeatedly break the posted rules, insult the creator, the moderators/admins, the other forum members, etc.

When it comes to discussion about the moderation within the community, specifically this community, I've found the 'overbearing mods' complaint isn't so much the problem as it is far too many mods and not nearly enough users. When it comes to looking through this forum, a singular warning can be turned into several misinterpretations of that warning from other mods which leads to the 'disrespect' that you see; the clash of interpretation. A lot of time the warning of the Mods is at once both vague and also over reaching. Things like "This does not pertain to the comic, don't talk about it" seem to work in that they prevent reachign that point of no return, but they also prevent any actual meaningful complex discussion. This was particularly egregious when it came to the 'breasts event.' I'm going to go ahead and post the example that ended up on our own forums

The moderators don't even seem to agree on their rulings.

This was the actual first post about this:

I only just realised - what's up with Idle's chest? She's either transsexual or gender mixy-uppy due to the "kinda normal"...Or her breasts are very pointy indeed and point outwards, which is deeply hilarious.

This was the moderator notice that followed:

I don't see why talking about a character's breasts are important. There is essentially never discussion like that surrounding male characters and what's in their pants.... so why is this considered good conversation? "Notice:" I'd recommend that it just gets ended right here.

That's a pretty clear "don't mention breasts here, we only want ball jokes".

Now after getting called out on stopping a discussion that might actually be relevant to what's in the comic, this is suddenly their stance:

The "stop discussion" request was pertaining to the relevancy of Idle's breasts to the comic discussion regarding trans. Discussing that her chest area looks different than other female characters Thunt has drawn previously would be ok; making fun of them or making fun of breasts in general is not.

That is decidedly not what the first moderator notice said, and they guy who got banned specifically objected to being told they can't discuss breasts and all. So they make rulings, ban people for disagreeing with them and then tell people the ruling wasn't actually made in the way the banned person disagreed with. Nice abuse of power there, I should take notes for my own forum, I guess...

Now, I'm not going to talk about the guy who got banned. Dude got weird and was a pretty awful ass about it, but this many vague warnings and then contradictions isn't a good sign, and paints a picture of a modding force that isn't entirely on the same page. As unfounded as you may find the concerns to be, they are still concerns that a community must address to move forward.

EDIT: Also! Worth Noting!
We over that the BWW don't want to give you the wrong idea, that we're only here to destroy and defame or otherwise bash Hunt. I would imagine anyone who'd like to do that would stay in the BWW forum and not even bother coming over here. But this forum, in and of itself, is something I guess you could use to talk to us directly, and we could talk to you, and you'll know where everyone is coming from. To call it 'Constructive Criticism' is I guess just what the OP did.

[nikohl]

Okay, I'm on my phone three minutes before work, but Pell got banned after years of actively breaking rules, not because he talked about a character's breasts. That was stated in-thread several times. I just want to say it again. He didn't get banned because he disagreed about boobs.

I don't have time just now to address what I feel is the misconception re: 'no tits here pls, only ball jokes', but I think Wears covered it pretty well in the initial thread, for what it's worth.

[Glemp]

We over that the BWW don't want to give you the wrong idea, that we're only here to destroy and defame or otherwise bash Hunt.

Ahem!

GiantDouche.jpg WARNING: The creator of this webcomic is a giant douche, even by internet standards. Their behavior may include, but is not limited to: Rampant displays of racism, sexism, homophobia and/or other forms of bigotry and douchebaggery. May spew invective at critics and fans alike. Avoid real-life interaction as much as possible.

A personal attack if ever I've seen one, in highlighted text in a giant red banner at the very top. I acknowledge that everything has its critics as much as its proponents, and that criticism is necessary to improve - that is the point of constructive criticism, after all. But BWW just come across as -pardon my language- massive dicks who go for shock value and sensationalism over analysis and advice. They have legitimate points, but they're made in such an aggressive and frankly bullying manner that they come across as people that want to see others fail, not improve.

[Sessine]

In my experience it is not a good idea for members of one online community to join another as 'representatives' of the first. In the first place, this is the internet. Individuals are individuals. They aren't authorized to speak for a whole diverse group. And then, by announcing that they are not really part of the other group, they're just asking for someone in the second group to interpret this badly. Since the second group is also made up of individuals, this is, regrettably, more likely to happen than not, and then before you know it rash words are written, the mods have to step in, and it does not end well.

So... whoever from this forum initially approached BWW: I, personally, am sorry they did that, even though they were civil and rational about it. However, what's done is done. Let's all try to keep on being civil and rational.

What I hear you both saying is that you would like discussions about Goblins here to be more like (some of) the ones on BWW?

I don't think that's going to happen. Not because of the mods, at all, but because it seems to me the two sites embody very different views of a webcomic artist's relationship to fans, and people have self-sorted themselves to match. I'm not sure I'm the best one to articulate the common feeling about that here, but I'll take a stab at it. Or rather, I'll just say what I think myself, and others can chime in to fine-tune or contradict.

In my view, then, a webcomic artist is first and foremost a creator of art (which I here define, very broadly, to include both the writing and the visual portion). Art is not a democracy. It is not a group project -- or even when it is, it's always a very small, select group of collaborators. Fans are not included. We do not get to tell the artist how to create. Useful criticism focuses not on how the comic ought to change to be a better comic, but on the fan's own personal reactions, positive or negative. The artist is under no obligation to listen to any of it, but if/when they are undecided and looking for a direction to try to improve (which is NOT always the case!), "I thought," or "I felt" is far, far more useful than "You should."

If a comic is not what you would have made if you were creating it, you can say that, of course. But you always need to remember that you are not creating it. That hypothetical other comic that you would have produced... well, it's just not reasonable to expect the artist to abandon their vision of the project and create yours instead! Now, it's probably a lot of fun to construct these imaginary other versions of Goblins, but it sounds like some people on BWW have been throwing screaming fits because Thunt isn't making his comic their way!

What I say is, you always need to respect an artist's right to make their own comic as they choose. If some of their choices make you wince (Misfile, I'm looking at you!), then you get to ask yourself, "Does the good here outweigh the bad? What's keeping me here in spite of the parts I don't like?" If the answer is ever "Not enough," then you stop reading.

[Hates-fun]

We over that the BWW don't want to give you the wrong idea, that we're only here to destroy and defame or otherwise bash Hunt.

Ahem!

GiantDouche.jpg WARNING: The creator of this webcomic is a giant douche, even by internet standards. Their behavior may include, but is not limited to: Rampant displays of racism, sexism, homophobia and/or other forms of bigotry and douchebaggery. May spew invective at critics and fans alike. Avoid real-life interaction as much as possible.

A personal attack if ever I've seen one, in highlighted text in a giant red banner at the very top. I acknowledge that everything has its critics as much as its proponents, and that criticism is necessary to improve - that is the point of constructive criticism, after all. But BWW just come across as -pardon my language- massive dicks who go for shock value and sensationalism over analysis and advice. They have legitimate points, but they're made in such an aggressive and frankly bullying manner that they come across as people that want to see others fail, not improve.

We over that the BWW don't want to give you the wrong idea, that we're only here to destroy and defame or otherwise bash Hunt. I would imagine anyone who'd like to do that would stay in the BWW forum and not even bother coming over here. But this forum, in and of itself, is something I guess you could use to talk to us directly, and we could talk to you, and you'll know where everyone is coming from. To call it 'Constructive Criticism' is I guess just what the OP did.

Please do not remove my words from their original context and then use them in an attempt to make a liar out of me. There's a reason that entire paragraph is behind that sentence. The review's tone is what it is, I wont deny it, I had little part in writing it, but as part of the community, I stand behind it. However, I came to this forum from a good place and you wont see me calling Hunt any names here, that's something you've now brought into this thread. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea about what exactly this threads purpose is. The initial idea behind it was not to come in, guns blazing and shit throwing in some attempt to ruin your day. As far as seeing things improve, rather than seeing things fail, here we are. Let's see how far we can move forward.

In my experience it is not a good idea for members of one online community to join another as 'representatives' of the first. In the first place, this is the internet. Individuals are individuals. They aren't authorized to speak for a whole diverse group. And then, by announcing that they are not really part of the other group, they're just asking for someone in the second group to interpret this badly. Since the second group is also made up of individuals, this is, regrettably, more likely to happen than not, and then before you know it rash words are written, the mods have to step in, and it does not end well.

So... whoever from this forum initially approached BWW: I, personally, am sorry they did that, even though they were civil and rational about it. However, what's done is done. Let's all try to keep on being civil and rational.

In an attempt to break this down into something I can digest and continue being civil, I'm going to say what I think you're trying to tell me here, and if it is incorrect, feel free to say so. You're under the impression that someone from here came as some ambassador from the Goblins fandom(as such, speaking for everyone here) to make some attempt at communication, and you feel that this was a bad idea. The first part of this notion is untrue. I do not know what that person's intent was, contacting us, it actually seemed to be an attempt at defending the comic and the right for it to exist as it is, not speaking on behalf of all Goblinites. In fact, one of their first words were that they could not speak for the Goblins forum. The second part of that notion, that this may have been a bad idea, remains to be seen. Coming on to this forum seemed to be an idea that rose from the ashes of the visit, not so much a direct result.

What I hear you both saying is that you would like discussions about Goblins here to be more like (some of) the ones on BWW?

This is not at all what I would like. I would like a dialogue. A sort of conversation between those who like a thing, and those who do not, and an ability to think critically about what exactly makes something not work with people and hammering that out to what exactly to do about it, even if the conclusion ends up being 'nothing at all.' Such conversations, I feel, are always worth having.

I don't think that's going to happen. Not because of the mods, at all, but because it seems to me the two sites embody very different views of a webcomic artist's relationship to fans, and people have self-sorted themselves to match. I'm not sure I'm the best one to articulate the common feeling about that here, but I'll take a stab at it. Or rather, I'll just say what I think myself, and others can chime in to fine-tune or contradict.

In my view, then, a webcomic artist is first and foremost a creator of art (which I here define, very broadly, to include both the writing and the visual portion). Art is not a democracy. It is not a group project -- or even when it is, it's always a very small, select group of collaborators. Fans are not included. We do not get to tell the artist how to create. Useful criticism focuses not on how the comic ought to change to be a better comic, but on the fan's own personal reactions, positive or negative. The artist is under no obligation to listen to any of it, but if/when they are undecided and looking for a direction to try to improve (which is NOT always the case!), "I thought," or "I felt" is far, far more useful than "You should."

If a comic is not what you would have made if you were creating it, you can say that, of course. But you always need to remember that you are not creating it. That hypothetical other comic that you would have produced... well, it's just not reasonable to expect the artist to abandon their vision of the project and create yours instead! Now, it's probably a lot of fun to construct these imaginary other versions of Goblins, but it sounds like some people on BWW have been throwing screaming fits because Thunt isn't making his comic their way!

What I say is, you always need to respect an artist's right to make their own comic as they choose. If some of their choices make you wince (Misfile, I'm looking at you!), then you get to ask yourself, "Does the good here outweigh the bad? What's keeping me here in spite of the parts I don't like?" If the answer is ever "Not enough," then you stop reading.

Very true! I agree with just about everything you said. I will not stand here and say that an artist must cater their vision to a crowd, or compromise their ideas, but those ideas are only as good as their delivery, and it is well within the realm of criticism to analyze that delivery and decide whether or not it was well done. That is how I prefer to critique. If something fails on a technical level, I have no problem with admitting such. I do not criticize ideas. Ideas are abstract and nebulous things that are beyond my scope of judgement. I can only agree or disagree with ideas. What I criticize is art. I read it, I watch it, I look at it and I judge whether it works. Some of that is subjective, like if it resonates with me specifically on some emotional or thoughtful level, or some of that can simply be objective technical criticism, like placement, pacing or, once again, delivery.

And here is where I cut through all our mash to try and understand your point again. Your idea seems to be that we should not criticize art we did not make, simply by virtue that we did not make it. Once again, correct me if I am wrong. This is an idea I do not agree with. I will say that Art is a group project. That it is a collaborative work, that fans are most definitely included within that collaboration, as well as critics. Art without an audience is nothing. It means nothing it can do nothing and it is worth nothing and all those ideas or vision within it are so much dust in the wind without people around to see and judge it. How can you be a fan of anything, how can you be a fan of Goblins, and not think you contribute to its creation? It exists because you exist. Do you think this comic would have even gone on as long as it has if you all were not here? If we over at the BWW were not there?(this one may be debatable, but it's a debate I'll have if you wanna get into it) Recognize yourself as part of the whole that is Goblins. Everything that happens within or to Goblins is because of you. You support him through his trials and tribulations in any case and you don't think you are some contributor to his art? I don't care about any script or plan that was made ages ago and will be adhered to. The plan does not matter, the plan is an idea that would not have a complete delivery outside of a single mind without you and people like you. And it's okay to talk about it a little. You are not Hunt's boss, but Hunt would not be doing what he does without people like you or, once upon a time, like me.

[nikohl]

I don't get what you actually -want-. I shall qualify that with an addendum: that you don't already have.

You can and do critique and/or enjoy. We can and do enjoy and/or critique, usually in those orders. There's technically no barrier preventing a dialogue between the two camps (aside from the "BWW" sign you held up, which I guess is a little divisive by its very nature) - so, um, why did we need a big long "we just want to talk" thread? Why not just talk? We love talking! We do tons of it and we're happy to have you join us.

I guess what I'm saying is that I find the actual introductory formal request for parlay thing to be just another source of friction, another line in the sand between "us and you" - which we're (lol see) doing too - and an us and you mentality isn't usually going to promote a nice healthy long term conversation.

[Glemp]

We over that the BWW don't want to give you the wrong idea, that we're only here to destroy and defame or otherwise bash Hunt.

Ahem!

GiantDouche.jpg WARNING: The creator of this webcomic is a giant douche, even by internet standards. Their behavior may include, but is not limited to: Rampant displays of racism, sexism, homophobia and/or other forms of bigotry and douchebaggery. May spew invective at critics and fans alike. Avoid real-life interaction as much as possible.

A personal attack if ever I've seen one, in highlighted text in a giant red banner at the very top. I acknowledge that everything has its critics as much as its proponents, and that criticism is necessary to improve - that is the point of constructive criticism, after all. But BWW just come across as -pardon my language- massive dicks who go for shock value and sensationalism over analysis and advice. They have legitimate points, but they're made in such an aggressive and frankly bullying manner that they come across as people that want to see others fail, not improve.

We over that the BWW don't want to give you the wrong idea, that we're only here to destroy and defame or otherwise bash Hunt. I would imagine anyone who'd like to do that would stay in the BWW forum and not even bother coming over here. But this forum, in and of itself, is something I guess you could use to talk to us directly, and we could talk to you, and you'll know where everyone is coming from. To call it 'Constructive Criticism' is I guess just what the OP did.

Please do not remove my words from their original context and then use them in an attempt to make a liar out of me. There's a reason that entire paragraph is behind that sentence. The review's tone is what it is, I wont deny it, I had little part in writing it, but as part of the community, I stand behind it. However, I came to this forum from a good place and you wont see me calling Hunt any names here, that's something you've now brought into this thread. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea about what exactly this threads purpose is. The initial idea behind it was not to come in, guns blazing and shit throwing in some attempt to ruin your day. As far as seeing things improve, rather than seeing things fail, here we are. Let's see how far we can move forward.

You have my apologies. I assumed that you meant that the BWW, as it is represented by the review, does not want to bash Thunt.

[American Dork]

We've only ever banned two people (not counting the spambots), and we went out of our way to give them chances. Both were repeat offenders who made a point of saying they didn't respect moderator authority and didn't care about warnings.

It's been a while since I've read the BWW Goblins article. I'm not really in the mood to sift through it again at the moment. Last I looked, off the top of my head:

1. It claimed we'd bought Thunt a house. False. We chipped in to raise the down payment on a house.

2. It claimed Thunt never delivered the promised rewards for that. False. Every package was sent. Every reward was fulfilled. The only thing that still causes confusion is that, after donations closed, Thunt said he was blown away by the support he'd received and intended to thank us by drawing an extra two pages of the Tempts Fate story. We got the four he'd promised while donations were open, and they do tell a complete story. He just never finished the two page epilogue that he'd never promised in the first place. All rewards from all previous Tempts drives have been delivered.

3. It claimed that Thunt was the creator and primary beneficiary of the Goblins card game Kickstarter. False. As has recently been highlighted, Thunt licensed the name to a game developer, who then failed to deliver. Thunt himself got a small commission for doing the art for the cards, but never saw the bulk of the money. And yet he's still tajen it upon himself to personally finish development of the game and see that backers get at least something for their trouble, even at his own expense as he's trying to recover from a severe breakdown and the loss of income resulting from the break.

4. It claimed Danielle (Thunt's wife) did the shading. False. The way the process works, Thunt does the inking, then passes completed panels to his wife, who does flat colors (just to save him some time while he inks the rest of the page), generally he does some more detail work with the colors. That gets posted as soon as it's ready so people can read the new page. Then, he goes back and does the shading, adding depth and detail. Sometimes this makes a big difference, sometimes it's subtle, sometimes very little actually gets changed. The panel in the BWW article mocking the process deliberately chose one of the least shaded panels. Thunt generally leaves both versions of the page on his site for at least a couple of days so people can compare if they want.

There were more, but those are the ones I remember.

Most of those have been fixed for a while (including shading, which it doesn't say Danielle did but was poorly done nonetheless). Where it talks about the fans of Goblins is somewhat unflattering, it does say this:

And they're very free with their money. Thunt was able to buy a house in large part due to donations (more on this below). And that's money that they're just straight-up giving him, on top of merchandise sales and ad revenue.

The latest Tempts Fate drive was even more successful than the first ten put together, bringing in over $37,151.67 (also not a typo). This is how Thunt was able to afford a down payment on his house, and he was understandably grateful to his fans, but apparently not grateful enough to finish the relevant comic as of this writing, even after he promised to do so twiceand it's been nearly three years since then (and if the "I Quit" newspost is anything to go by, he probably never will).

Was that comic ever finished? You tell me, but three years is far too long for that sort of thing. And as far as I know, no Kickstarter backer got their prizes or even a refund.

So. Hello! I'm not a moderator here, though I am one elsewhere. Since you are not here to troll, I am wondering why you are here, then? Your initial post doesn't make that very clear. What were you hoping to find out? If it was just a simple, "I was told this is a cult. Is it?" then I guess you have your answer: no, it is not. The people here are sensible, polite, and friendly, and we tend to vie with each other to be the first to spot interesting details in each new page. I participate in a number of webcomic forums and comment sections. It's pretty standard stuff here -- it has more in-depth analysis than most.

One important point to know: The story was already written years ago before the comic began. Thunt's storytelling skills have improved over the years, but he has always known what story he wants to tell. We're the people who are hooked because we want to find out what happens next!

Well, my point was more than finding out if the Goblins forums were really this hotbed of insane fansÔÇöand trust me, there are forums with insane fansÔÇöwhich I think is an exaggeration, otherwise you'd be eating me alive right now.

Ok, so the "story's already written" thing. I have some real doubts about that, especially since Thunt's storytelling is still pretty bad from what I could here, and they're making jokes when there's drama going on, introducing new characters at a pretty fast rate, and so on. Plus the fact that Goblins started out as a D&D parody and then deviated from that pretty quickly...a lot of people say the "story's already written, I'm just telling it", but I don't buy it. Sorry.

GiantDouche.jpg WARNING: The creator of this webcomic is a giant douche, even by internet standards. Their behavior may include, but is not limited to: Rampant displays of racism, sexism, homophobia and/or other forms of bigotry and douchebaggery. May spew invective at critics and fans alike. Avoid real-life interaction as much as possible.


A personal attack if ever I've seen one, in highlighted text in a giant red banner at the very top. I acknowledge that everything has its critics as much as its proponents, and that criticism is necessary to improve - that is the point of constructive criticism, after all. But BWW just come across as -pardon my language- massive dicks who go for shock value and sensationalism over analysis and advice. They have legitimate points, but they're made in such an aggressive and frankly bullying manner that they come across as people that want to see others fail, not improve.

That is a stock tag and mostly has to do with Mr. Hunt's lack of professionalism. Perhaps he's not a "giant douche", but he's making these long sob stories about how mean Kickstarter is, and how they exposed his address, which was submitted by him in the first place, and can be accessed through a WHOIS query with the Goblins website in the first place. He takes no responsibility for the whole G:AR fiasco, he makes more excuses than comics (self-inflicted PTSD, really?), and so forth. This is his full-time job. He's not a student doing this for fun. There were enough excuses that one of the BWW members was able to build a full 5x5 bingo card based on his Twitter responses.

In my experience it is not a good idea for members of one online community to join another as 'representatives' of the first. In the first place, this is the internet. Individuals are individuals. They aren't authorized to speak for a whole diverse group.

I am not acting as an ambassador in any official context. No mod said "You and only you must infiltrate the forums and bring us back valuable intel", because nope, I chose to do it on my own.

In my view, then, a webcomic artist is first and foremost a creator of art (which I here define, very broadly, to include both the writing and the visual portion). Art is not a democracy. It is not a group project -- or even when it is, it's always a very small, select group of collaborators. Fans are not included. We do not get to tell the artist how to create. Useful criticism focuses not on how the comic ought to change to be a better comic, but on the fan's own personal reactions, positive or negative. The artist is under no obligation to listen to any of it, but if/when they are undecided and looking for a direction to try to improve (which is NOT always the case!), "I thought," or "I felt" is far, far more useful than "You should."

If a comic is not what you would have made if you were creating it, you can say that, of course. But you always need to remember that you are not creating it. That hypothetical other comic that you would have produced... well, it's just not reasonable to expect the artist to abandon their vision of the project and create yours instead! Now, it's probably a lot of fun to construct these imaginary other versions of Goblins, but it sounds like some people on BWW have been throwing screaming fits because Thunt isn't making his comic their way!

Please show me where in the BWW forums where people are "throwing screaming fits" about this. The best I could tell was when someone on their own time rearranged some panels so that it would flow better and be less stupid. We're also not the ones giving Thunt money.

(Actually, a lot of the above was basically repeated by Hates-fun, so sorry for dogpiling)

I don't get what you actually -want-. I shall qualify that with an addendum: that you don't already have.

You can and do critique and/or enjoy. We can and do enjoy and/or critique, usually in those orders. There's technically no barrier preventing a dialogue between the two camps (aside from the "BWW" sign you held up, which I guess is a little divisive by its very nature) - so, um, why did we need a big long "we just want to talk" thread? Why not just talk? We love talking! We do tons of it and we're happy to have you join us.

I guess what I'm saying is that I find the actual introductory formal request for parlay thing to be just another source of friction, another line in the sand between "us and you" - which we're (lol see) doing too - and an us and you mentality isn't usually going to promote a nice healthy long term conversation.

I wanted to make myself clear and yet come here with an honest approach because I knew some of you would write me off as a troll just like the review.

The reason is at BWW you won't get shot at for defending the comic or even Thunt, whereas here criticism of the comic or Thunt is frowned upon. At least that's what I was told.

[nikohl]

For me, the problem stems from people who arrive, essentially (British-ism) slag off our friend/someone we care enough to stick up for, and then act all surprised and affronted when we DO stick up for him. We're not rabid fans, or blind to Thunt's flaws, but this is a place we've created to celebrate his work.

I mean, really? Do people expect a different response here? Isn't it a bit like standing up in a bar in America and saying the national flag is kind of ugly, and then wondering why all the people in the bar with you just stopped smiling? I genuinely don't understand the thought process that leads to "...gee, I wonder why my opinion isn't popular here" :/

I'm not saying don't have that opinion or anything... But I am really surprised, every frickin time, by people who say "ugh that guys fans just...like him...and they won't stop liking him all in my face, no matter how much I say he's not that good."

[American Dork]

For me, the problem stems from people who arrive, essentially (British-ism) slag off our friend/someone we care enough to stick up for, and then act all surprised and affronted when we DO stick up for him. We're not rabid fans, or blind to Thunt's flaws, but this is a place we've created to celebrate his work.

I mean, really? Do people expect a different response here? Isn't it a bit like standing up in a bar in America and saying the national flag is kind of ugly, and then wondering why all the people in the bar with you just stopped smiling? I genuinely don't understand the thought process that leads to "...gee, I wonder why my opinion isn't popular here" :/

I'm not saying don't have that opinion or anything... But I am really surprised, every frickin time, by people who say "ugh that guys fans just...like him...and they won't stop liking him all in my face, no matter how much I say he's not that good."

I wasn't exactly expecting a welcoming parade, you know.

[RocketScientist]

I have never shot anyone. And I don't eat babies, even though I'm an atheist. Shh. Don't tell anyone, or they'll take away my godless heathen card.

[Glemp]

GiantDouche.jpg WARNING: The creator of this webcomic is a giant douche, even by internet standards. Their behavior may include, but is not limited to: Rampant displays of racism, sexism, homophobia and/or other forms of bigotry and douchebaggery. May spew invective at critics and fans alike. Avoid real-life interaction as much as possible.


A personal attack if ever I've seen one, in highlighted text in a giant red banner at the very top. I acknowledge that everything has its critics as much as its proponents, and that criticism is necessary to improve - that is the point of constructive criticism, after all. But BWW just come across as -pardon my language- massive dicks who go for shock value and sensationalism over analysis and advice. They have legitimate points, but they're made in such an aggressive and frankly bullying manner that they come across as people that want to see others fail, not improve.

That is a stock tag and mostly has to do with Mr. Hunt's lack of professionalism. Perhaps he's not a "giant douche", but he's making these long sob stories about how mean Kickstarter is, and how they exposed his address, which was submitted by him in the first place, and can be accessed through a WHOIS query with the Goblins website in the first place. He takes no responsibility for the whole G:AR fiasco, he makes more excuses than comics (self-inflicted PTSD, really?), and so forth. This is his full-time job. He's not a student doing this for fun. There were enough excuses that one of the BWW members was able to build a full 5x5 bingo card based on his Twitter responses.

If he's not a giant douche, then don't use a giant banner calling him a giant douche. If you think he's unprofessional, say it instead of substituting something totally unrelated and even more incendiary.

[Hates-fun]

I don't get what you actually -want-. I shall qualify that with an addendum: that you don't already have.

You can and do critique and/or enjoy. We can and do enjoy and/or critique, usually in those orders. There's technically no barrier preventing a dialogue between the two camps (aside from the "BWW" sign you held up, which I guess is a little divisive by its very nature) - so, um, why did we need a big long "we just want to talk" thread? Why not just talk? We love talking! We do tons of it and we're happy to have you join us.

I guess what I'm saying is that I find the actual introductory formal request for parlay thing to be just another source of friction, another line in the sand between "us and you" - which we're (lol see) doing too - and an us and you mentality isn't usually going to promote a nice healthy long term conversation.

Just as one cannot speak for all of you, I cannot speak for all at the BWW, but what I want, further than to discuss Goblins within a new sea of faces, is to understand you, and to be understood in turn. I made my attempts to come in and talk, but I've found myself hitting something like a language barrier. I cannot talk with you within your own language, even though it was all english, i didnt know how to approach the topics i wanted, without becoming abrasive. The friction now? More than worth it to me. Absolutely a price I am willing to pay. Friction softens the edges. From what I've already seen, there seems to be some misconception as to what exactly the BWW believes or talks about, and in turn, i have some misconceptions about what exactly happens over here, both within the comic and the community. Already i feel progress has been made in less than a day since clearing the air. I believe a certain degree of transparency is required for proper communication.

As far as us and them mentality, i think putting that line in the sand is a good thing. Debate teams make it very clear that they are on opposing sides, but reasonable discussion is the goal. To come in here knowing i am different from you does not eliminate that mentality, it simply puts me on a different level of other from you, being the only one knowing that i am not of you. I Think thats something much more detrimental to communication.

I have never shot anyone. And I don't eat babies, even though I'm an atheist. Shh. Don't tell anyone, or they'll take away my godless heathen card.

I apologize that this seems to be the impression you think we have of you over at the BWW. While you have been mentioned breifly, things done in your personal life, as well as religious affiliation have escaped our interest, and I don't think anyone over there even considers those things our business. I, personally, find nothing of worth in knowing someone's baby eating habits, whatever they may be.

[Sessine]

In an attempt to break this down into something I can digest and continue being civil, I'm going to say what I think you're trying to tell me here, and if it is incorrect, feel free to say so. You're under the impression that someone from here came as some ambassador from the Goblins fandom(as such, speaking for everyone here) to make some attempt at communication, and you feel that this was a bad idea. The first part of this notion is untrue. I do not know what that person's intent was, contacting us, it actually seemed to be an attempt at defending the comic and the right for it to exist as it is, not speaking on behalf of all Goblinites. In fact, one of their first words were that they could not speak for the Goblins forum. The second part of that notion, that this may have been a bad idea, remains to be seen. Coming on to this forum seemed to be an idea that rose from the ashes of the visit, not so much a direct result.

My apologies as well. It was well past my bedtime when I wrote that! I misread you, and then expressed myself badly. Nikohl said what I meant to say much better, in her last paragraph. Thinking of this as a dialogue between two potentially-opposed camps is the part that struck me as not the best way to approach a discussion. The trouble is that humans have this annoying us/them failure mode, which might have been a survival trait back in the time of stone axes but in today's world on the internet only serves as a source of endless, needless bickering. It's much better to sidestep that whole mess the minute we spot the tiny beginnings and simply write as individuals with opinions. With that small caveat in mind...

This is not at all what I would like. I would like a dialogue. A sort of conversation between those who like a thing, and those who do not, and an ability to think critically about what exactly makes something not work with people and hammering that out to what exactly to do about it, even if the conclusion ends up being 'nothing at all.' Such conversations, I feel, are always worth having.

I would definitely like to talk about what makes something not work for some people. In fact, if you've been reading back threads here, you'll probably have noticed that I do talk about that, quite often, and am always interested in engaging in another such discussion. Where we part company, somewhat, is over the 'what to do about it' clause there.

This goes back to my experience with writers' groups. The basic isssue is that the writer or artist is the only person in the world who knows what they want to do. Criticism that focuses on "here's how you should fix that" is very, very likely to miss the mark, simply because the critic doesn't, can't, know what the mark is! Now, that's not to say that one shouldn't suggest possible ways to avoid a perceived problem; however, such criticism is always best couched as if/then. 'If you want to do this, then one way might be to do the following...' Very often the artist knows something about where the story is heading, or the style, mood, or tone they want to achieve, that will make such suggestions inapplicable -- or perhaps they are doing what they're doing because with their current skills that's the best they can do, or this is their personal style, or (this happens a lot with webcomics) with their current real-life obligations that's all they have any time to do.

Also, realistically, forums are not critique groups. Webcomic artists aren't usually looking to Random Internet Fan for criticism. In my observation, the ones who survive and prosper may have a select few beta readers that they trust to keep them on course, but otherwise they have learned to live with the fact that they aren't going to please everyone. If their work is good enough it will gradually find an audience. If it improves, it will find a wider audience. If it's flawed, well... hey, it's the internet. There's plenty of room for flawed work that nevertheless has some merit. As Kate Ashwin of Widdershins wrote on her blog recently, when asked what she wishes she'd known when she was starting: "One last thing - ItÔÇÖs okay to start out terrible. Just making anything at all puts you ahead and teaches you things. Apply what youÔÇÖve learnt and get moving." (Her other points were, work with print in mind even if you think you'll never go to print, and -- don't begin with your 500-page epic! Well, we know Thunt made that mistake, but it's a lot too late to worry about that.)

I will not stand here and say that an artist must cater their vision to a crowd, or compromise their ideas, but those ideas are only as good as their delivery, and it is well within the realm of criticism to analyze that delivery and decide whether or not it was well done. That is how I prefer to critique. If something fails on a technical level, I have no problem with admitting such. I do not criticize ideas. Ideas are abstract and nebulous things that are beyond my scope of judgement. I can only agree or disagree with ideas. What I criticize is art. I read it, I watch it, I look at it and I judge whether it works. Some of that is subjective, like if it resonates with me specifically on some emotional or thoughtful level, or some of that can simply be objective technical criticism, like placement, pacing or, once again, delivery.

And here is where I cut through all our mash to try and understand your point again. Your idea seems to be that we should not criticize art we did not make, simply by virtue that we did not make it. Once again, correct me if I am wrong. This is an idea I do not agree with. I will say that Art is a group project. That it is a collaborative work, that fans are most definitely included within that collaboration, as well as critics. Art without an audience is nothing. It means nothing it can do nothing and it is worth nothing and all those ideas or vision within it are so much dust in the wind without people around to see and judge it. How can you be a fan of anything, how can you be a fan of Goblins, and not think you contribute to its creation? It exists because you exist. Do you think this comic would have even gone on as long as it has if you all were not here? If we over at the BWW were not there?(this one may be debatable, but it's a debate I'll have if you wanna get into it) Recognize yourself as part of the whole that is Goblins. Everything that happens within or to Goblins is because of you. You support him through his trials and tribulations in any case and you don't think you are some contributor to his art? I don't care about any script or plan that was made ages ago and will be adhered to. The plan does not matter, the plan is an idea that would not have a complete delivery outside of a single mind without you and people like you. And it's okay to talk about it a little. You are not Hunt's boss, but Hunt would not be doing what he does without people like you or, once upon a time, like me.

What I would say is... I read it, I watch it, I look at it and I judge whether it works for me. All of that is subjective, whether it resonates with me specifically on some emotional or thoughtful level, or whether it's seemingly-objective issues that really aren't, like placement, pacing or, once again, delivery. The proof that it's my response I am experiencing, and not some objective technical attribute of the work itself, is that there are others out there who respond quite differently to the same work.

It's true that art requires an audience to be complete. What I try to remember, always, is that I am not the whole of the audience! Art that I do not like may nevertheless have a perfectly good audience that does not include me. Conversely, when I am part of the audience who is enjoying a work of art, I am aware that there are others who are not, and that they have reasons I respect as entirely valid for them.

I don't flatter myself that I am privileged to tell Thunt what to do with his story -- or his (currently somewhat fraught) life. I do have plenty of opinions. You'll notice I can, and do, express them here. Maybe he listens, maybe he doesn't. That's entirely up to him. His choice, either way. I do try to make it clear, always, that I am speaking as a member of the peanut gallery. If he even reads what I write, I heartily hope he evaluates it all against everything else he knows, and feels free to discard it if it doesn't work for him.

[nikohl]

I wasn't exactly expecting a welcoming parade, you know.

No, I didn't think you were expecting one. And I wasn't directing my post at you in particular - I was saying that a lot of our past experiences here have been with people who don't like the comic at all, or just want to complain rather than discuss things - they show up, have a little shout, and then get all huffy when we don't sit quietly and listen to them yell with a smile on our faces

I don't count you among those people. I am not particularly well-disposed towards you, since you and your friends sit around your campfire calling me and my friends full-retard level brainwashed cultists, but that's another matter entirely.

[Glemp]

I wasn't exactly expecting a welcoming parade, you know.

No, I didn't think you were expecting one. And I wasn't directing my post at you in particular - I was saying that a lot of our past experiences here have been with people who don't like the comic at all, or just want to complain rather than discuss things - they show up, have a little shout, and then get all huffy when we don't sit quietly and listen to them yell with a smile on our faces

Hey now, there was that one guy that didn't like how Chief died and said so in an extremely civil and polite manner - I think I ended up agreeing with him, in fact. Just a reminder that it can be done without .

[YardMeat]

I've never had any issues with mods going after me when I have criticized Thunt or his comic. I wasn't a fan of the Psimax arc and I hope it doesn't come back, and I criticized his communication during the hiatus. That said, stuff like this below isn't constructive criticism.

That is a stock tag and mostly has to do with Mr. Hunt's lack of professionalism. Perhaps he's not a "giant douche", but he's making these long sob stories about how mean Kickstarter is, and how they exposed his address, which was submitted by him in the first place, and can be accessed through a WHOIS query with the Goblins website in the first place. He takes no responsibility for the whole G:AR fiasco, he makes more excuses than comics (self-inflicted PTSD, really?), and so forth. This is his full-time job. He's not a student doing this for fun. There were enough excuses that one of the BWW members was able to build a full 5x5 bingo card based on his Twitter responses.

First of all, he didn't complain just because they gave away his home address, and his complaints with Kickstarter are well-founded. A company who had licensed his intellectual property for a game took the money and ran (or ran out of money, or whatever else happened). Thunt has no responsibility to deliver the product to the backers. That was the company's responsibility. This is like Marvel licensing its characters to Mattel to create action figures, and then me expecting Marvel to reimburse me if one of those action figures is broken.

Thunt has taken much more responsibility for the G:AR fiasco than he is actually responsible for. His "sob stories" involve his numerous attempts to get Kickstarter to take the collection page down, inform the backers of the situation, and to help facilitate some communication between himself and the backers so that he can find some way to let them know what happened, maybe even find a way to make sure they are still rewarded for their contribution, and provide them with any updated information about a new solution.

Instead, Kickstarter sent a message to the backers telling them that their products would still be coming as promised (by someone else), and that specific message lead to information about Thunt's home address. Any of us would be upset in the same situation.

And I think we can all agree that someone who calls another a "giant douche" and who makes 5x5 bingo cards to ridicule someone suffering from a mental health issues -- Thunt didn't called it PTSD; he mocked the idea that it was PTSD -- has no business lecturing people about "professionalism". Don't get me wrong, you seem like a level-headed guy yourself, but surely you can see where we would want to keep the criticism constructive and factual.

[nikohl]

Hey now, there was that one guy that didn't like how Chief died and said so in an extremely civil and polite manner - I think I ended up agreeing with him, in fact. Just a reminder that it can be done without .

Hence me saying "a lot", not "all"!

I don't like several things about/that have happened in the comic... I really disliked Chief's death scene too, for example. It was super gory, far too bloody for my taste - although that guy disliked it for many more reasons than the gore, I know. I'm choosing to hope that as the story progresses we find that Chief's sacrifice wasn't in vain. I'm just not the yellin' about things a bunch sort, and I don't really enjoy it when other people do.