This thread is for civil, pointed discussion of Stan's latest comic.

Opinions are welcome, attacks are not. At this point we will continue to run Stan's work, and won't be making any decisions based on the content of these discussion threads.

That said, there's always reason to have one's voice heard. Let's hear what you have to say.

Debate is fine. Contradiction, name-calling and personal attacks are not. Moderators will deal with inappropriate posts on a message-by-message basis.

Thank you Dangevin! My intentions were the same as yours with the original thread. I believe that other voices still need to be heard. I find it hard to believe that I am on an island all by myself on this.

Other voices other than Stan, right?

You know, as much as I like the fact that I laughed at this comic at one person's expense, it wasn't against that person specifically. It was against those folks that still deal with a person that's shady. So, I still think it's hilarious : ) Still dealin' with shadiness is funny to me, because one day it will probably bite you on the ass ; )

I hate beating around the bush with names, but everyone here knows the name from the comic.

EDIT: Christ, what am I, a republican?

This topic can be a really good thing to help people get over whatever they need to get past, but we need to do it in a civil manner, just as ole Dan said.

The Comic was in bad taste. I understand why people feel that Nick's actions should be known by anyone that is dealing with him, but I don't see this as a very good way of doing it. Nick has done some unacceptable things in the past, but at some point we either need to let the guy live in peace, or maybe decide to not make him welcome. I hope we can find a way to let him live in peace because I really think he has taken great strides to rebuild his reputation. I have dealt with him numerous times and have never had an issue with a single deal.

I would ask that, Stan, when you do these types of comics, please, please make them a little less... I don't know, obvious isn't the right word, but I think you can get what I'm trying to say.

You are starting to sound like one Roth.  What's happening to you?

Trying not to get the banhammer for stating my loathing of an individual ; )

lol, loath away man... loath away.

I'm more on the liberal side though. I feel that holding those negative feelings for too long can kill your chi man! You've got to put out positive and think positive, and positive will come to you *sitar music in the background*

I think Stan turns around conventions of allegory and satire, and instead singles out a person that personifies the point he's trying to convey in order to set a theme.

The comic successfully culminates with the feeling we get when we see the final frame. His use of a specific antagonist and making a complete caricature out of him is obvious hyperbole, and really just a means to and end. His point is (as is a common theme with his comics) that the driving motivation to "catch 'em all" - at any cost - overrides our common sense. If it wasn't for these excesses on the buyer's end, the antagonist wouldn't be able to perpetrate what he did.

F.E. just as easily could have used that Damian guy who renegged on Ant's SE deal, then pointed out that the auctions did pretty well in the end anyways - but it wouldn't have been nearly as effective (not as many people know this story, and it wasn't as outrageous). Also, he could have just made an imaginary character that wasn't an obvious satire, but it wouldn't have evoked the same tone.

Think about Stan's position whenever he grumbles about anything - he believes the true ugly underbelly of the community is the sheer desire-based inflation without substantiation. He says little about scammers.

EDIT: D'oh! Dangevin posted before I could, and I was talking in your direction Burdger hehe Alright, straightened out now : P

haha That's cool, I feel ya : )

I'm usually more optimistic about things, people included! Hell, I'm one of the more optimistic people you will ever come across! I'm just not fond of... hmm... (how to be delicate... )...

I'm not fond of idiots. It's one thing to make a mistake. It's a whole different issue when you make a mistake, get called out on it, then change your moniker to something different to try and hide who you are.... then try to do similar shenanigans AGAIN. Perhaps I'm the only one to remember these details. Whatever.

Anyway, I wish Ron Paul was running Independent ; ) Different subject though, but, ya know!

Think if this was an article, it would be incredibly insulting and hopefully not accepted for publication. Even this topic says no personal attacks which is exactly the goal of this comic. It's a comic so its supposed to be laughed at, but too many people will just not find it funny in any way. The real target is the entire community but the point can be made without being so obviously specific to certain people.

As for the comic style I generally prefer less text and stuff going on. I thought this one was better than some previous ones, mainly because of not as many completely unrelated references. Maybe just more simple frames would fit what I like better, but thats just opinion.

Penn & Teller in 2012!

...unless in comic form...

Very astute, but there is a difference, and a weird relationship between art and social discourse. They both inspire each other, but flirt like married people when the spose is out of town. Neither will admit any sort of real relationship or influence, and like to pretend like they're both unaware of each other most of the time, but secretly they're arm in arm.

Articles and posts do not qualify as prose; they're not art. Even though you've made the argument (correctly so) that were Stan to simply bitch and submit it as an article, it wouldn't be run...there's just something about a comic!



Some will question my use of the word art, so I'll explain the difference in my mind.

To me, social discourse is the exploration of issues logically, through interactions and direct expression of facts and opinion.

To me, art indirectly creates an emotion in the viewer; it's purpose is generally to move.



Logically, some would argue that art has no place in the NintendoAGE e-Zine. But I think there's always room for art. Without art, it would be a pretty shallow read. That's not to say the art always needs to be at someone's expense in order to be effective, but I don't think this particular comic was harmful or costly.

All real harm and cost was paid out years ago when this actually happened. While it's certainly a sore spot and tough to see a cartoon skeleton drag skeletons out of one's closet, keep in mind the real subject of the work.

If you'd like to create and submit a comic about the double-standard that exists between art and naked conversation, I'd be interested to look at it, even if it were at my/Stan's/NA's expense. Just be aware, yours would be one of a great, great many which point this out - the only difference would be the characters.

Artwork or not, its still a personal attack that doesn't need to be made for the point. Saying comics are protected just invites the same name calling we are trying to avoid but put in word bubbles above stick figures. Turning it into a jpg doesn't make it less of an insult.

And I am insulted you don't think my amazing Famicombox writing is good enough to be considered art!

The comic is in bad taste all around. One, it specifically slanders a member of our community. If Stan had posted this comic in a thread here on the boards it would also be in bad taste but at least it would just be just Stan's post, not printed in a publication by the website itself. For the website and e-zine to condone this kind of slander against one of its own members is pretty sad. By doing so, you allow this viewpoint  and course of action to be representative of NA, Dain, E-Zine, the editors, etc. Should this be allowed? Well, ultimately, thats not up to me as this is not my website and it is not my publication. However, if it were, I would not openly attack one of my own members for any reason.

I think you are missing the point here Kev.  Whether Stan wrote it or not, what is printed in the e-zine is still representative of this site and all people involved.  Whether the comic is funny or not, seemingly harmless, or in bad taste, the fact is that it openly attacks a member of our community and calls him by name (so its not even subtle).  If you, the other editors, dain, and the NA community are all ok with that then so be it.  But a publication that attacks the very members that support it probably won't last very long.

You can have any opinion you like Roth.  And you can find the comic funny as well.  But, there is a time and a place for it.  The publication put out by this website is not the place to openly slander one of its own members.  Even if its someone you don't like.

There's a big difference between satire and slander, bum. You're misusing the term, again and again.

Ok, Satire. Either way its an open attack on one of our own members and should have no place in a publication put out by the website itself.

My point is, satire is not an open attack, slander is. If it were, then the legal implications would be much different. Yes, it's saucy, provocative and even personal. But it's satire, man.

You accept the change in wording but are trying to apply the same definition.

well, I'm not trying to argue definitions. My understanding of vocabulary and language has never been my strong suit. However you want to define it, belittling one of our own members by using their screen name and their real name in a NA publication just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe if you got his permission first or knew that he was ok with it (which is doubtful) I could see printing this. Speaking for myself, if you or anyone else would want to discuss MY faults or MY mistakes I've made in my past then lets discuss. But I wouldn't want you to broadcast them via e-mail to 1300 members years afterwards. Even in the name of art and satire.

And how is this not an open attack when its titled "This is about Nick"

You know in a way you and I agree, Bum. I don't like to watch political analysis shows; the pundits tend to do a lot of agenda-pushing and muckraking, and, personally speaking, I am neither entertained nor informed by any of it. My news comes from the radio, almost exclusively, I don't even have CNN, MSNBC or any of their offshoots on my satellite TV list, even though they're free.

I find much of it very base, irrelevant and I never got much of a rise over gossip or trash-talking, of political figures, Survivor contestants or classmates. I tune out when I hear insultory dialogue. I can make my own decisions about whomever I choose to decide about.

As a viewer/listener, I have a choice where I direct my ears and eyes, and I consciously make that choice.

As an editor and a publisher, I have a different responsibility. While it is my duty to present gather articles for a publication that represents our community and hobby, it is not my duty to act as a content filter for my readers. If it's legal, it's appropriate and it's GOOD, I'll publish it. The first, legality, isn't up to me. The other two are. While I do think Stan's comic was very blunt, I do not think it was inappropriate.

The fact of the matter is, while the comic (and most of Stan's comics) are indeed controversial, there has been far worse said about that user (and many others) in these forums, which are always available for the NA world to see. Even guest users can see all threads if I'm not mistaken. While the e-Zine is a lot higher-profile than some of these deeply buried posts, they exist and represent our population, our feelings on important issues, and dialogue about notable people and their actions.

Stan is guilty of bringing these feelings to the surface, but he neither started the situations, nor sparked their debate... and this comic/thread won't mark the end of the discussion. And while Kevin and I have creative control over the Zine's content, it's beyond our responsibility to all 1300 users to decide for them what they should or should not know about the community within which they post.

It's of course not our responsibility to educate them to specifics either, but this is the comic we got - it's the comic we ran - and so long as we find Stan's work to be legal, appropriate and good, it will continue to be published.

One more thing - as I said before, the comic takes a shot at one user, but there's a more subtle and much lower blow on a much larger unnamed group of collectors. Could he have named names? Certainly. Should he have? Therein lies the edge along which art and humor exist.

I'm going to have to side with Bum on this one. I don't know how you can say this comic was appropriate. As Bum says, it VERY openly insults one of our users. Yes, it has been talked about numerous times on the boards, but as you said, "...the e-Zine is a lot higher-profile..."

Those posts on the boards are not emailed out to every single user. This eZine represents the site so much more than a few buried topics on the boards. It is your baby, and you can put whatever you want in it, but you say that as long as the work is legal, appropriate and good, it will continue to be published. I think the problem is, most people would find specifically calling out a member of the forums inappropriate.

I do want to say that this post is in no way trying to bash or belittle the eZine. I look forward to it every month. I just feel that maybe there should be a little more couth in the comics than there was this time. In the past Stan has said what he needed to say without pointing directly at the offending party.