Time to check our mail again!
We got this email asking us to update the "Jack" review (you guys are already working on that, right?)
=12pxI think the jack review could afford to have some stuff added to the author bio. Considering some of the author bios are pretty ripe with drama and personal info, theres quite a bit left out about David and it's pretty suprising considering what info on him is floating around. It pains me to write this but, it's kind of a good thing this assbutter webcomic exists. This guy Is a supressed serial rapist venting through this comic so he doesn't get arrested for sereal rape. It's not just a fantasy thing, if what I've read is true, he has apparently admitted that this is what he would do if he was garunteed to get away with it. There was also an incident involving his wife calling loveline, describing him as a violent psycho rapist and asking for help. One of his arcs is very similar to this event. You can find all this shit and more here http://kate-comics.tumblr.com/post/19675520001/here-is-the-cut-down-portion-of-the-loveline
Some more review requests:
Curvy - The plot is driven by porn and nothing elseDragon City - Crappy artwork, boring characters with skewed priorities, and a random plotGrumble - The comic's gimmick works against itself, and the plot is unclearA Bondage Fetish Comic - The entire thing is an excuse for... just read the title Suggesting it even though it probably doesn't count: Top Web Comics'
Another review request for "Girl Genius" which has been on our list for years now anyway:
=12pxHello BadWebcomics! First of all I wanna say GREAT JOB on the site, all of the articles are a great source of laughs for me, it's hilarious to see such fitting reviews for bad comics as well as good ones. Anyway, I wanted to know if you could review Girl Genius. It's a long-running comic that's actually won awards but I cannot for the life of me understand why any of it is good at all. The art is awful and hasn't improved since the comic's inception, and the story is riddled with Mary-Sues and convoluted plots. If any of you have had the displeasure of reading through it and care to write about it, I think it would make a great addition to your site. Just wanted to leave a suggestion. Keep it up guys! - Theo
Someone found a mistake in one review:
In Shädbase review (no, I didn't read the webcomic, I'm not that depraved), there is a mention of "Then there's "parodies" like this one where the Sniper from Team Fortress 2 yells about piss a lot. It's funny, 'cause, you know, the Sniper says piss a lot in the game, right? I don't know what this strip is driving at. The only thing I can guess is it's a reference to Murderface from Metalacalypse who also said piss a lot and tried to start something called "Planet Piss". That's not a parody though. That's just another reference."
However, in the game, the sniper get the jarate-or-whatever-it-was as an (easy to unlock) unlockable secondary weapon, which is a throwable jar of piss which affect all ennemy in an area, revaling spies and causing all further damages during a small period of time to be mini-crits.So the sniper is in fact complaining because everything has been covered in piss - by himself. He (from what I remember) never say piss in the game. However, he should be pissed (no pun intended) that all of his environnement is covered in his own piss. But because the game does not wish to dwell on that too much, the drawbacks of such a weapon are never touched upon.So this strip contains a relatively funny parody, probably one of the only funny (and relatively non-offensive) moment of the strip. It would be fair to recognize that, or at least not to say there is no parody element when you failed to understand the joke ( which is not a critic).=12pxI'm not sure why I'm writing that, since you will probably not bother to correct it. I guessed I dislike unaccuracy?
=12pxI would like you to take a look at this webcomic, if you please. http://mylittleschool.deviantart.com/gallery/43166367/1st-book
An email defending Jay Naylor:
=12pxI'd first like to take a point of agreement. The dude is a douche, his real life behavior doesn't do him any favors, and if he treated people better he might be further along as an artist.
=12pxThat said your reviews are highly biased. Your opinion from one aspect of review to the next is colored by what you've decided about the artist or the story content. The reviews aren't objective but often are attacks on points you don't find to your liking. Certain topics most certainly will garner offense and reaction for the simple controversy, but that doesn't make it a good review to attack points simple because you don't agree with his philosophy as the artist, and not what you could take away from the content itself. That's art, and you call him an author and artist, making the point about the art, not him as person.
=12pxArt wise yes the backgrounds are plain, and some remarkable comics are wonderfully detailed in atmosphere. but I'd point to Jim Davis comics. How many times did Jon walk up to Garfield and there is yellowish wall and you assume by what you can see of Jon that the cat is on a table or counter of some sort. Does he deserve to be attacked for style there?
=12pxAs for story it is what it is, you claim he show's misogyny and yet I think many of his female characters are smart and independent. Then the aspect of children being thrust into certain topics... it's a work of fiction I'd like to point out first, and on point there are several cartoon shows, shown for children as the intended audience that are less acceptable. Several adult animations as well, south park being one off hand that deals with children in unacceptable conditions. My personal experience is all of them should be taken with a certain amount of suspended belief and yet even with an objectivist spin his story is better for sticking close to what could really happen if it were real.
=12pxIt was the only comic that I was very familiar with, but skimming through a few other reviews I say the same tactics and language. Odd it seemed at least moderately well researched and yet devolved into attacks on his person, and lost objective perspective. By objective I mean citing the comic for it's good points and it's bad points solely on the comic itself, not Rand tenants.
=12pxIn the end I hope this makes you a better critic, but that might be hoping for too much from the internet.
I was thinking if I should post this on facebook for a laugh, but either way, this was what I responded to it:
"I'm sorry, but this email will not make us what you consider to be better critics because our views on what is good and bad and what the objective of our site should be is not the same. Firstly, yes, all our reviews contain personal attacks (if there are any to be had) because we believe that, since webcomic artists interact with their readers on a far more direct level than in any other medium, not being a massive ass is part of what you have to do as a webcomic artist and is worthy of criticism. Secondly, I don't think you understand what "Objective" means because reviews, by definition, are opinions and therefore can not be objective. Thirdly, you make some false comparisons here. "Grafield" and other newspaper strips are not judged by the same standards and "Southpark" is all about shock humor, which is not the same as giving a big "thumbs up" to incest and pedophelia the way Naylor does. Which brings me to my last point. Lastly, we are not against his opnions, but rather the way he chooses to express them - By flooding his comic with never ending preaching. Not that some viewes are not okay to be against without being called bias, such as the aformentioned incest-pedophelia. For a comic that finds time to complain about modern "art Naylor sure didn't have a lot to say about the morality of two 12 twins fucking.I'm sorry, but this em"
ail will not make us what you consider to be better critics because our views on what is good and bad and what the objective of our site should be is not the same. Firstly, yes, all our reviews contain personal attacks (if there are any to be had) because we believe that, since webcomic artists interact with their readers on a far more direct level than in any other medium, not being a massive ass is part of what you have to do as a webcomic artist and is worthy of criticism. Secondly, I don't think you understand what "Objective" means because reviews, by definition, are opinions and therefore can not be objective. Thirdly, you make some false comparisons here. "Grafield" and other newspaper strips are not judged by the same standards and "Southpark" is all about shock humor, which is not the same as giving a big "thumbs up" to incest and pedophelia the way Naylor does. Which brings me to my last point. Lastly, we are not against his opnions, but rather the way he chooses to express them - By flooding his comic with never ending preaching. Not that some viewes are not okay to be against without being called bias, such as the aformentioned incest-pedophelia. For a comic that finds time to complain about modern art Naylor sure didn't have a lot to say about the morality of two 12 twins fucking"
We got this update on that retard who graced out forum to defend "Shreded Moose"
=12pxSo the Shredded Moose fan boy/girl tried to join the CWCwiki forums to rant about Shredded Moose, as seen here,http://cwckiforums.com/threads/chris-hall-aka-the-writer-of-shredded-moose.3630/ then he/she begged for friends or something here http://cwckiforums.com/threads/move-this-to-talk-to-the-staff-once-im-allowed-to-post-in-that-section-verifying-myself.3640/ and then they had a poll to ban him/her http://cwckiforums.com/threads/community-vote-on-banning-robert-wayne-stiles.3652/ something I have never seen done before. Just though you guys could use a laugh over this. I would post it in the forums but I don’t want to see any more threads by this person. At this rate they will be banned from every site.
And lastly, we have some info for Tom to put in his "Dume" review:
=12pxIn reading your entry I see down in the "About the Author Section";
=12pxI could find nothing on either of them."
=12pxWell, here you go, enjoy!
=12pxHe's also well into his 30s, Asian, quite short, overweight, and spent a considerable portion of the 90s living in Los Angeles and the '00s living in the Bay Area. If I could provide/remember more personal details I'd spill, but I couldn't stand the little fucker THEN, so I hardly paid attention if he went by another name other than "Jonas Silver".