A petty fandom war over Spider-Man, and lingering bitterness

[Phantom Roxas]

Hey, everybody. So… a while ago, I made a couple statuses about wanting to be a better mod, and while there are several things to go into about that, at the time I wrote those, it was motivated the sense of finding people that I just… hate. Someone I didn't want to be like, but I fear I have. I'm gonna go into detail about the story, if anyone's interested. Though as a warning, this will include some discussion on sexual assault in storytelling.
 
Our story begins long ago, in the distant days of 2012. Dan Slott has written the 700th issue of The Amazing Spider-Man, the finale of a story called "Dying Wish". Doctor Octopus is dying, his failing broken and failing, and he has switched his mind with Spider-Man. The story ends with Spider-Man still in Doc Ock's body, which gives out and dies, allowing Ock to keep control of Peter Parker's body. And so, swearing to surpass Peter Parker, Doctor Octopus declares that he shall be "The Superior Spider-Man"!
 
Naturally, because, you know, the writer just killed off the main character and replaced him with the villain because I'm pretty sure Doctor Octopus is Dan Slott's husbando, this comic was incredibly controversial. Dan Slott even stalks Twitter, looking up who is talking about the book, and getting into arguments with them. Because of course a person who is confident in their work seeks out each and every person who dares to criticize their work, just to tell that critic why they didn't read the book the "right" way. Two forums come into play here: The first is Comic Book Resources, whose Spider-Man section is moderated by someone named Mister Mets. The second is Spider-Man Crawlspace, which Mister Mets visits, but unfortunately for him, he does not moderate the Crawlspace as well. I moderate neither of those forums. CBR regularly praises Slott's comics, and Mets consistently, without fail, praises Slott's work to perfection. Conversely, the Crawlspace features reviewers who are not fond of Slott's writing.
 
Guess which forum Slott likes, and which one he condemns with every ounce of fiber in his soul. If you guessed that he adores CBR and detests the Crawlspace, then you're right!
 
So I'm not fond of Slott's work. In a later storyline, Spider-Verse, the character of Silk is introduced. She has the exact same powers as Peter (He's alive again, because Doctor Octopus made a heroic sacrifice, which I guess means we're supposed to forgive him for lying to Anna Maria Marconi), but she's better him, because reasons. She even has his Spider-Sense! However, Peter and Silk's Spider-Senses compels them to make out against their will. Except, it's not against Silk's will for long. She suggests that Peter should leave New York City just so they don't trigger the pheromones, and when multiple Spider-Men from parallel universes all show up, Silk walks up to Kaine, one of Peter's several clones, and considers using the pheromones to generate that same reaction to compel Kaine to make with her without his knowledge. In other words, she considers trying to sexually assault him with Spider-Sense pheromones.
 
As Slott is one whose ego must be protected like a wee innocent baby, he did not take kindly to ideas such as Doctor Octopus committing rape by fraud against Anna Maria, or Silk trying to outright rape someone, so Slott got defensive on Twitter about Spider-Verse: https://storify.com/AliasJones/here-we-go-again (Ctrl+F "sexual subtext" for the part relevant to this, but feel free to read everything before that if you're curious)
 
To make a long story short, Slott and I had been feuding for years, where people criticize his work, Slott gets butthurt that I pointed out how poorly he wrote Silk, and he has a peculiar habit of just saying that anyone who criticizes him must come from the Crawlspace. Look, when you're a writer who a lot of people like, it's easy to just scapegoat your critics! Ah, yes, clearly all the critics come from a single forum. Nope, not like people can criticize your work without knowing what the Crawlspace even is. Clearly all the critics come from this one place, and that place alone!
 
On CBR, one of Slott's favorite tactics is that if you point out something in his story, his response is almost always something like "The comic you're describing only exists IN YOUR HEAD, and wasn't on the page!" Seriously, the dude repeats several deflections so easily that he either just copy-pastes his arguments over and over, or their so ingrained in his head that he recites them like a script. Or he calls people crazy, anything to imply that someone is mentally disturbed. Don't like his work? Well then, it's impossible for him to have done anything wrong! Clearly you're unhinged or insane, or belong to my "cyber circle". It's all a conspiracy, just to get back at him! You know, because "You may have written a poor story that people recognize as poor storytelling" is too difficult of a concept to understand. Whatever his excuse is, Slott always goes on the offensive against him.
 
This is where Mister Mets comes in. No matter what people (Usually me) reported him for, be it flaming, trolling, or just generally being a jerk to people, the moderator excuse was always "I don't think he's doing objectionable." CBR even wrote an article defending him to swearing at a user, and implying that anyone who disapproves of Slott's behavior is a "bad fan". CBR has a rule against personal attacks against creators, and that's fair. Just because you don't like a comic, or any kind of story, doesn't make it fair to say that the writer is a terrible person for writing it. No, I just think Slott's a terrible person for how he treats people. I think Mets just wants to write at Marvel, so he's kissing up to Slott because he wants to be rewarded with a job. You know, even though "Well this guy was nice to me on a forum, so let's give him a job making comics" is not a safe bet to hinge the future of your careers on. Whatever the case, no matter how aggressive or abusive Slott was to users, Mets failed in his duties as a moderator because "Well the other guy started it." He didn't really have too many recurring people pointing this out (Okay, there was me), so it didn't really matter who it was that started an argument against Slott, the problem was that Slott is who they were arguing it. Slott always had to be the victim. You know, even though Slott repeatedly attacked Stillanerd crazy. This was vengeance for Stillanerd committing the great sin of… um… speculating where the story would go next. …Stillanerd, you fiend! Why won't people pity Dan Slott for attacking people and calling them crazy fanatics who are part of a hive mind? Clearly it's their fault!
 
A few months ago, I told someone on CBR, who really had no stake in the feud of Slott and Mets vs Spider-Man Crawlspace, that people put Slott on a divine pedestal. When they asked who did this, I responded thusly:
 

Mister Mets is obsessive when it comes to acting as though Slott can do no wrong. Whereas other writers can have failings, Mets always treats Slott as the exception. Whenever Slott is aggressive towards other users, Mets is first in line to defend Slott and condone his bullying. If Slott makes a baseless accusation against someone, Mets will punish that accused user without question, even if the user actually did nothing wrong. When Slott calls someone’s writing “bullshit”, Mets doesn’t step in and discourage such language. Instead, because Slott was the one who threw the insult, Mets takes Slott’s side and joins in on teasing that user.

“It’s not harassment; it’s a response to a statement made in a public forum. You might have missed the point. It wasn’t to insult her.”

Oh yes, because “I just read a synopsis of your life. OMG.” isn’t the least bit insulting, because apparently mocking someone’s life is the “appropriate” response to reading a synopsis of a work of fiction and deciding that you’re not interested in it. Mets will never hold Slott accountable for harassment, and he avoids that by going out of his way to claiming that Slott didn’t harass people. It’s always someone else’s fault, because it must never be Slott’s own fault. And Mets has suggested that, should Slott ever leaving Amazing Spider-Man for a satellite title, that satellite title could be named “Dan Slott’s Spider-Man”, as if Slott’s name is what would sell that book. Because, you know, just having a book with a different title and having Slott’s name on the credits wouldn’t be enough, we apparently also need to just have Slott’s name be on the title.

“As for Slott’s online behavior, I haven’t seen him go after someone just for speculating.”

HAH! Right, so I assume him making fun of Stillanerd’s “inane” theories was just, as Slott would put it, something that only exists “in my head”? Oh, right, that still has to be Stillanerd’s fault, because the alternative would mean actually admitting that Slott bullies people, and we just can’t have that.

Silk using her pheromones to sexually blackmail Peter and consider using them for her pleasure when Kaine has no idea about those pheromones? Forget that, I have to specify what else Silk should be doing for it so I wouldn’t “claim” that it’s sexual assault. He could have tried to understand how I reached my conclusion, but he made it clear that he saw that I was wrong. To Mets, if you’re criticizing Slott’s work, it’s not just a matter of different interpretations. Mets’ interpretation (Coincidentally, the one that involves praising Slott’s work) is right, therefore an opposing interpretation (Particularly when someone is criticizing the work) is wrong. I get that someone’s interpretations can be weird, and I agree that you should be able to back up your interpretation by citing the text, but that’s difficult when Slott, Mets, and Prof. Warren all just accuse people of ~IMAGINING~ what was on the page. So someone can’t even criticize Slott’s work when they do have actual evidence for their argument because Slott himself and his fans will either claim that the evidence you’re citing doesn’t actually exist (Or it only exists “in your head”), or they insult your reading comprehension. Either way, they resort to ad hominem by implying that someone is mentally unstable, which isn’t actually proving that the person was wrong. It’s just insulting their intelligence in a bid to discredit their opinion solely by association.

Oh, and earlier in this thread, Mets outright lied about what I had said. He claimed that I was moving the goalposts “from” my initial viewpoint and “shifting” to a different complaint, even though the goalpost I was supposedly moving towards was my initial viewpoint. But when I pointed that out, Mets deleted my post. His excuse was something like “When wrong, an accusation of lying is an insult”, except the only person who can really say that my claim of him lying was wrong is Mets himself, and if the issue is that he was accused of lying, why should we assume that he’s telling the truth when he claims that accusing him of lying was wrong? Sorry, but “I’ll never lie to you and that’s a fact” doesn’t work that way. Mets will purposefully misrepresent people and what they say and help Slott bully people (Especially if they’re a user on Spider-Man Crawlspace), but if you point out how what he’s done is wrong, then you are the problem. Not because you did something that’s actually wrong, but because you tried to hold Slott and Mets accountable for their behavior.

After a few days of the moderators sitting on their butts, a decision was finally made:
 

You have been banned for the following reason:
An "Honest opinion about Slott" thread should've tipped you off that it was too risky for you to participate in. Then you go and slag off a mod on top of it? Yeah, we're done with you.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Feel free to dissect my post however you like. I suppose the moral of the story is that when you're a published writer, by all means, harass people online, because a moderator is going to have your back! You and your moderator buddy can bully whoever you like, because come on, these are just normal members we're talking about. Who cares what normies have to say?
 
 
I'm writing this on the spur of the moment, so I'm sure I'm leaving plenty of details out, so I will offer clarification if necessary. My experiences dealing with Slott and Mets have been highly influential on me. The bare minimum of my goal has been to not repeat the mistakes of Mister Mets. First and foremost, my issue with Mets is how his rationales can be summed up as "This person could not have done anything wrong, so if you report them, you are the problem!" My biggest concern is playing out a role reversal, where I act like Mets in how he treated people, and other people are left desperately trying to speak out just as I tried with Mets. So, how do I separate that? When are people genuinely being a problem, and when am I just being like Mets? I think part of it is that, when I lash out at users, it's because I believe I could be what Mets is too afraid to ever be. Mets is too scared to lift a finger against Slott, because he admires the man too much, and I got banned for pointing out that, hey, maybe Dan Slott isn't the stand-up guy that Mets wants to believe he is.
 
So, I'm a hypocrite. A phenomenon I've been fascinated by lately is that when you try to prevent something, you just end up causing it. Or, as it was said on last night's episode of The Flash, "A man meets his destiny on the path he takes to avoid it." I can't really apologize for. Oh, I do have regrets. I just don't believe that I have the right perspective for any apologies I could make to prove that I comprehend everything I've been ignoring, and without that comprehension, my apologies would ring hollow. And all of that definitely sounds like I'm seeking a pity party. If this just sounds pathetic, and seeking pity sounds ignorant and selfish, then I will at least apologize for that.

 

My grudge against Dan Slott is one of the worst things I've let taken hold of me, and it's… far too petty. None of this should be worth my time, but there it is.

[evilfusion]

You have been banned for the following reason:

 

"Instigating drama by libeling Dan Slott and an unrelated forum's mod without them having a chance to defend themselves"

 

Date the ban will be lifted: When this joke is actually funny.

 

 

I don't actually know what the point of your story is, but I did read the whole thing. Being something of a writer, I certainly see how you have an issue with a writer responding to criticism in such an irrational manner.

 

And self-fulfilling prophecies are pretty fascinating...

[Phantom Roxas]

Took me a second, but heh.

 

And yeah, the point of the story… I'm not really sure how to put it. I think it's been that I've alluded to something I've tried to avoid, so I want to be more open about it. It's difficult to explain because I'm trying to talk about an event in a place where there's no stake or bearing in it, and relate the two because of the influence it's had on me.

 

tl;dr: Mister Mets was frustrating and I don't want to be like him.

[evilfusion]

Well, you can take some heart in the fact that, based on your retelling, the mod was incredibly biased. And see, that's the quality that makes someone unfit to BE a mod: the utter inability to be impartial.

 

Being impartial is not quite the same as "unable to be riled up" or take something personally, or overreact. Humans do that. (Although it can, over time, indicate unfitness for a position, if it happens severely or frequently enough) But when someone is completely unable to even consider the angle that they, or someone else, is wrong, and goes to great lengths to conceal, misdirect, or single out dissenting views, they are abusing their power, and are not impartial by any stretch of the imagination.

 

...you're nowhere NEAR that level.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm so confused. Are these people metaphors analogies for other people?

[evilfusion]

I'm so confused. Are these people metaphors analogies for other people?

 

No, I think he's literally talking about a comic author (Slott) reacting to fans criticisms irrationally, and backed up by an uber-biased forum mod (Mets), and how Roxas (himself) doesn't want to be like Mets.

 

Apparently, these are grudges, feelings, fears, etc that have weighed on him for a while. Or something.

[Phantom Roxas]

Well, you can take some heart in the fact that, based on your retelling, the mod was incredibly biased. And see, that's the quality that makes someone unfit to BE a mod: the utter inability to be impartial.

 

Being impartial is not quite the same as "unable to be riled up" or take something personally, or overreact. Humans do that. (Although it can, over time, indicate unfitness for a position, if it happens severely or frequently enough) But when someone is completely unable to even consider the angle that they, or someone else, is wrong, and goes to great lengths to conceal, misdirect, or single out dissenting views, they are abusing their power, and are not impartial by any stretch of the imagination.

 

...you're nowhere NEAR that level.

 

Thank you. That means a lot.

 

No, I think he's literally talking about a comic author (Slott) reacting to fans criticisms irrationally, and backed up by an uber-biased forum mod (Mets), and how Roxas (himself) doesn't want to be like Mets.

 

Apparently, these are grudges, feelings, fears, etc that have weighed on him for a while. Or something.

 

Yup, exactly this. Slott and Mets are real and aren't supposed to be analogues to anyone. My concern is that my experiences dealing with those two have bled over here.