This section is for the premature ejaculators who confused a comment thread with a review and shamefully shot their load of impotent rage all over the floor of our site.
This is a cautionary tale about why it's probably better to wait until the review actually appears in the Wiki before saying anything. We take you back to late 2015.
If you want to see how the entire thread played out with our increasingly desperate attempts to salvage the situation as the potential review author and the webcomic creators escalated going after each other, click the title or here but even just the relevant posts from the people being reviewed say more than enough.
So yes, in this case as history has shown, the third panel was definitely the best option here by far.
Despite how this looked on the surface, I suspected undercurrents of a different tone.
... and yet I was not completely convinced.
Things were starting to spin of its axis here.
We don’t mind you writing the review, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but you seem to be taking this personally. Why is that? You said, “And the reason nobody had previously commented about the similarities to Penny Arcade is because the few 13-year-olds on Newgrounds who read AB&C are too young to know what Penny Arcade is, it’s kind of a relic.” Whats the point of this, why be so snide in your comment? Is that an attempt to demean our work? How do you know that only 14 year olds read our comic, and what would be so bad if all of our fans were 14? It may be your opinion but I also think it’s an informal fallacy much like the one you accuse us of in your review. Let’s not forget about your comment on our Newgrounds page, “Looks a lot like one of the several styles Penny Arcade has used, did you draw for Penny Arcade at some point? The thing is it’s even less funny. Why would you even waste time trying to make comedy comics when you haven’t got a single funny thing to say? Your jokes were absolute fossils the first 15 times I saw them elsewhere in my life.” Once again here you try to be as rude as possible, yes it’s your opinion but do you need to present it in such a manner? What did we do to you? Did one of our comics bite you, or is it because internet? We bet it’s because internet, but that’s just speculation on our part and there’s no way we can prove it. To be honest you come off as more of a troll than someone stating their opinion and you lose credibility doing that. We don’t mind that you don’t think we’re funny or if you think our jokes are old. There are other people out there who enjoy what we do. You just aren’t one of them.
Now, time to address the Penny Arcade problem. We don’t mind saying that we’re inspired by Penny Arcade, we’ll be the first to admit that, it honestly doesn’t bother us. They’re a big inspiration to us, especially Krahulik’s art style. We knew that some people were going to have a problem with it when we started the comic and we know some people are going to have a problem with us admitting it now, but it is what it is. But is it really that bad to be inspired by other people? Look at Abby Howard for example. The first time we saw her artwork Jhonen Vasquez and Kate Beaton came to mind and that’s not a bad thing. Is it? Will AB&C always look like this? We doubt it, because unlike what you stated in your review, we think the art has changed since the first comic and hope it continues to evolve over time. We would also like to say that the Tartakovsky thing was a mix up with Steven Silver. Compare the art from Kim Possible and Penny Arcade from the early to mid ‘00s and you’ll see what we mean.We aren’t saying don’t write the review, it wouldn't matter if we were. We’re saying write it using facts not extreme bias.
... and despite everyone's best efforts (including someone who's actually ended up with a review in here already), we've sailed past the event horizon (and hence any chance of saving this one) here.
Then everyone completely forgot about it for most of 2016 and did nothing about it for the rest of it but then since Tina's Story ended up in this section and it was never even going to have a review in the Wiki for a few reasons as detailed in its entry, in fairness we now have to put this in.
The obvious irony here is once again (though to be accurate, this happened before the above) if the creators simply had said nothing, this wouldn't be here as the potential review author last logged in on the last day of 2015 still leaving their work incomplete and as of the creation of this entry here in early 2017, hasn't accessed their forum account since.
Bittersweet Candy Bowl
This comic gets to be in our reaction section twice. But really, it deserves to be here three or four times. Once for when they made a thread about our thread on their forum (the forum itself was recently deleted and I didn't think to save a copy of the thread), once for when the author's husband came to our thread to argue about it before the review was even made, and a third time when he came back again, a year later, after it was.
Belch Dimension Comics
This has to be the stupidest thing ever... He found our thread/half review and wrote on his DA account that we only hate him because we are liberals.
DAMN YOU OBAMA!
"So far we have an annoying author self-insert as the protagonist who at times will be revealed to have random super powers which benefit him depending on what situation he's in, the self-insert's friends who usually do nothing significant, a generic 90's cartoon bully and his right hand man who team up with the protagonist and his crew after some mysterious villain appears out of nowhere to attack everyone, moronic henchman who work for the bully and his attack dog, and tons of characters that are introduced and do nothing...It's painfully obvious that Tony, the bully in this comic, is supposed to be a carbon copy of Montana Max from Tiny Toons, from both the design and the personality." --Crazy BusActually, Tony Moneran was modeled after this kid who used to pick on me growing up... psst, in the nineties, Slick, so of course he looks like a 90's cartoon bully, you moron. Moneran was basically a living cartoon caricature. He was this punk who usually hung around on Main Street, chain-smoking Marlboros (the cigarette of choice for the discriminating d-bag), often going shirtless to show off those cheap green ink tattoos up and down his arm, and constantly harassing passersby, usu. with his retinue made up of fellow d-bags. Monty's real name was Weyer, or Meyer, or some dang-fool thing, I've long forgotten. As with many people I know, he became incorporated into the comic, serving as the foil and periodic rival to my star. I often wonder what happened to good ol' Monty. Likely he was dumb enough to try his crap with someone who was a lot less easygoing as I was and got the hell beaten out of him for his trouble.
By "easygoing" you mean "cowardly". Don't project you pathetic revenge fantasy on other people.
There is a thread on the Sonich Wiki forum comparing you to Sonichu. We are backed by an expert opinion.
Yeah, I'm sure you love "Back doors"... But anyway, none of this has anything to do with his comic so I can't be bothered to respond to it.
We have no idea what this person is even saying.
Just gonna point out a couple things to clear up some misunderstandings you made: I don't roleplay. I don't have time to waste on that shit, dude, I make two pages a day or more xD I spend all of my time working. I am not some typical "yaoi fangirl". I am a transgender guy, and I'm mostly gay (I've had a gf but I'm demi when it comes to girls). The reason that there's so much lgbtqia+ stuff in my comics is that I myself am part of that demographic and mostly hang out with people within that demographic. There IS NO UKE OR SEME in Bloodroot. None. Nada. Liv and Arii switch, and these days I tend to avoid the terms "uke" and "seme" since they are old terms that carry much more meaning than just "top" and "bottom" - they are words that continue to reinforce old disgusting gender roles in gay relationships. "Uke" doesn't just mean "Bottom", it means girly boyamathingy that is weak, fragile and cute so that the woman reading the comic can see that this is the character they are supposed to identify with. Ukes were created so that japanese women who had been raised into a gender role where they are expected to not want sex can get sexual gratification without feeling guilty. How? Well, they didn't WANT it of course! Which is why the uke often gets raped in yaoi. Semes are abusive, manipulative, macho pieces of shit. I was sexually exploited and manipulated by a norwegian man 15 years older than me for 4 years straight, starting when I was 14-15 years old. I know macho shitty semes sell well in the yaoi community, but I am not here to sell myself and even if I was I could, for aforementioned reason, not bring myself to write such a character and play the yaoi pretend game of "abuse is love." Also, in your typical yaoi, any woman is often a cockblock bitchlord. This is not the case with Bloodroot. Bloodroot assumes that women are... well. People. People who should have proper personalities in the fiction they're in. People who should be able to dress however they damn please without being questioned about it or told they're gonna get raped and deserve it. People who have better shit to do than trying to break up a couple of gay guys.
I don't write that kind of crap. I write crap, but not THAT kind of crap.
The half sibling incest was something I attempted to find a way to get out of the story. I couldn't find a way, at least not at the time that I started the comic. Eventually it was either I write the story with it, or I don't write the story at all. As an artist, an action that contains something controversial or a potential mistake is always better than not creating anything at all. It is a part of the plot that will be more thoroughly handled later on, but I don't let it eat the story up because I don't want it to become the entirety of the story, nor do I want it to become so dominant in the comic that it all looks like I'm fetishizing incest. I don't really care much about incest personally as long as no biological children come of it, but I also don't have a kink for it and I don't want to exploit it.
The art looks much better in recent chapters, I promise xD I want to vomit when I see the old art. Current art looks more like this: http://sta.sh/01vy5swqiora I'm also trying to improve the writing and I completely agree that the way the story was handled in the first chapters is horrible and oddly paced. If anyone who read the full story or looked at the newer art has constructive criticism to give, I am open to it!/John Vincent
So, first I was ...
... and then I was ...
Follow continuing proceedings in the forum here. I'm clearly out of my depth but good luck to you if you choose to continue.
Bold text as per the original post.
Buddies in Big Places
Here's a comic we cared so little about, it took us over 6 years to notice its nobody author replied to our thread about him, and another 2 and a half to bother to reply.
"BIBP" is an unremarkable furry comic who's only distinguishing features are the fact its been going on for over 15 years now with no noticeable signs of improvement (despite the fact its art is nothing but unfinished sketches) and a uniquely terrible comment its author left on our old forums.
For it is true that I have no talent whatsoever. I don't think I would've ever improved enough to make the comic palatable to any audience. As it is it apparently appeals to a very small, niche audience.
You might find it interesting that even most furries hate the comic. I think I recognize one of the site contributors as a name from Crush!Yiff!Destroy!
I can offer some additional information which may help your review go smoother, as I realize suffering through at least 2,800 or more of my terrible drawings is an arduous task at the very least. One reason the art is so sparse (aside from the base lack of talent) is that I really do it quickly. The five seconds per strip is actually not far off in a term of magnitude; I often take between two and five minutes to draw a strip.
I very clearly have perception issues, which will be one reason you won't see any discernible improvement in the "art."
Now, why are there so many comics? Part of that is explained by my poor writing, as I am not even 1/16th as talented as, say, one of the site contributors here. I am really lacking for an ability to convey wit or humor (which comes naturally to those I admire here).
I can draw about a month's worth of comics in about four hours, roughly the amount of time it would take a good artist, such as one of the people here, to draw a professional-quality strip. (This of course is dependent upon available talent, of course)
This means that a large number of comics built up very quickly, so much so that when I switched from sequential to calendar-based filenames, I decided to backdate the comic to 2001. So when you write your review, the actual starting date of the comic is roughly October 8, 2002.
I suppose the remainder of this post would be to give you some insight as to why I do something so futile. As stated before, I have no writing or artistic talent whatsoever, yet I persist in making a comic. It may be surprising, but the comic is really a fun hobby even though I absolutely can't make it look good. It really does allow me a lot of "unscheduled" activity in contrast to the remainder of my vocations (such as teaching). It allows me to do something different that not everyone will like - something essentially tied to weird stories in my head that I want to tell.
Which I suppose leads to a fundamental flaw of myself. Granted, I recognize that per the site's message to webcomic authors, that it's not about hate, at least out of the box. I simply seem to like things a lot of people don't like. I'm very certain that any of you on the site would absolutely hate many of the things I enjoy. I may well not be interested in the things you enjoy. I'm weird like that.
I guess I should just conclude this tl;dr post by once again thanking you all for your feedback, and I promise that I will try to somehow (as my lack of talent limits) incorporate your calls for improvement. I also would gladly accept you all rewriting stories or even redrawing them if somehow I have salvageable writing.Thank you.
There is no point in responding to every line of this, so let me just give a general overview for those who are too lazy to read the whole thing.
The entire response looks like a failed attempt to sarcastically thank us for our criticism and praise us all for being so much more talented than its creator. However, since this is done in a way that by no stretch of the imagination resembles wit or humor, and since his sarcastic remarks are actually true, it feels like he tried to be ironic, didn't actually know what that entails, and due to an unfortunate autocorrect accident ended up looking up the definition of "Moronic" instead.
The Dynamite Twins
We never intended to write a review of this webcomic, but it still earns a place in the "Reactions" section. Why? Because there was a brief discussion once if the comic should be reviewed (it was decided not to, since the comic had already ended years ago and wasn't quite offensive enough to bother with) - but the cartoonist still managed to sniff out the discussion and complain that it was doxxing.
Truth be told, the policy of the Bad Webcomics Wiki is to review webcomics we find bad enough to list. We BWW members usually find them ourselves, but occasionally people who are not regular members join us to tell us about a webcomic they don't like. Do we review it? Yes, if there is a consensus among us that said webcomic warrants a review. Yes, people do come here with a grudge against a webcomic author and want us to write a review to spite that author. But it is still our decision whether the webcomic really is bad enough to review, no matter what everybody else says. We're not here to do the dirty work of others.
Picking up from where they left-off with the utterly awful "Mall Monkeys", this trio now makes a new comic which we have gotten a number of complaints about but have yet to bother reviewing. Still, they cited a thread regarding the comic as a review on their site and said:
I'm not sure if they meant this as a compliment or an insult. Either way, your comic is shit.
The Last Spork in the Universe
The author of The Last Spork in the Universe decided to quit because a thread on the forum exists about her webcomic.
Less than a day later.
Thanks. Here's what she had to say in another thread.
Ma'am, you don't have to improve anything, you have to overhaul your entire creative operation, because nothing about it work. Furthermore, the title Angry Politician Wannabees is a really funny string of words. I wish her webcomic was this funny.
The creator of this comic briefly mentioned us in the comments of his comic back in 2011, citing:
The comic obviously never made it "Big-big" (he must have been fucking delusional). In another comment he went on to say:
Again, doubtful. Either way, a review wasn't created until 2014 (and the reaction was less positive than "this is alright"), but at that point the comic had already ended. So he never got to give us his thoughts on it.
OG-Chan AKA Real Kawaii Gangstas
We have to be careful when people come looking for us before we find them. It's important to tread carefully lest people think we've sold out. Or at least sold out too cheaply.
I am submitting myself to the mercy of the BWW court to determine if I do in fact belong here or not. All this as a result of posting my 100th webcomic.
You can see my work here at https://ogchan.com/comic/og-chan-1-real ... -gangstas/
I do not consider myself an artist, as I am merely using this software to enable me to tell the story of this young woman.
I fully accept most any and all criticisms and am looking forward to all of them, warranted or not.
Plz be gentle this is my first time here. ₍₍ (ง*˙ω˙*)ว ⁾⁾I just know we're going to get along famously.
Well, that's one way to get our attention.
Managed to post on the Bad Webcomics Wiki.
I only got two replies.Two good replies, so I’m trying the two bits of advice I was given in this, and may end up using this in the (potential) print version for the extra work I’ll put into each of these here comic panels.
Well, it was more than two of us but I guess there were just two this creator deemed useful while we did what we do best and turned on each other. Though, there is an argument to be made that the repeated use of 'nigga' by our central character is heavily ironic given she's a Japanese schoolgirl from a well-off family in Japan no less and the people around her find her insufferable (plus the obvious fact one of the names of this work is the triple tap of 'Real Kawaii Gangstas') but the counter argument that the irony is painted on so thick that there's danger of heavy metal poisoning is also a valid position to debate. It's a fine line for a creator to tread when taking this approach.
Still, it's nice to see some of our advice was considered helpful. People sometimes miss that the purpose of this place is to be constructive, not destructive and to make the webcomic world a better place.
Quite by chance, we stumbled across this while doing one of our routine periodic background checks on plarblman (you can't be too careful in this permanent miasma of paranoia we all cohabit here).
Taking that shit to heart fam.Thank you uglyhyena, and plarblman, I will remember to have you killed last.
Ooookay then. Though it is worth noting that as the time of writing this, the majority of contributors to that thread haven't been seen since last year back in 2017.
If it does in fact come to pass that we're all being picked off one by one, avenge us plarblman. AVENGE USSSSSS!!!!
Power Point Ranger
I was able to get the password to our old email and found this:
Just want to point one thing out: I use Power Point, not MS Paint for my shitty artwork. If you could fix that, I would appreciate it.
We didn't fix it. We deleted the entire page because no one gives a fuck about MS paint scribbles that haven't been updated in four years.
If anyone still wants to read the half-review someone did write you can do it here.
The Other Grey Meat
On a thread about our site the creator of this comic posted this comment:
But all was not as it seems because later he posted this on that same thread:
But honestly, their review of our comic didn't really bother me. It was their review of someone else's comic... I'm not sure if Nightsky is talking about the same person, but it really irritated me.Their general position that one has to be at a certain level of competence in order to put a webcomic on the internet is one that I am completely opposed to.
So when he says: "It's going to be lost on a creator anyway". He means: "It was lost on me". We hurt his feelings so we are wrong. Also he doesn't understand that all reviews are subjective opinions by default and opposes competence... Actively, it would seem.
At first, we never intended to write a review of this admittedly awful webcomic, but it still earns a place in the "Reactions" section. Why?
First off, this is a furry porn webcomic on an adult furry website. We've reviewed porn comics, of course, some of which were truly hideous. But those were webcomics that could be found in a casual internet search, while this one could only be viewed by signing up for SoFurry, the adult furry website in question. One person did sign up for the BWW forum to insist to us that we review Tina's Story, which we agreed was bad, but we originally decided not to bother reviewing it because it was on a membership-restricted adults-only website, and the only people who would look at it were those who were looking for fapping material in the first place. This would have been the end of the matter, if webcomic author "Gray Muzzle" hadn't also joined the BWW forum to tell off the person who complained about his webcomic. The post by Gray Muzzle:
Just read your anonymous htchet job. Anonymous, because it was an account created for this post. Pathetic and sad, because you've clearly read every single thing I've ever posted over the last eight years? What did I ever do to hurt you? Are you the ONE person I've had to ban? Tina's story is a fun, furry soap opera that's been around since 2009. It's not great literature; it's not MEANT to be. Still, it's been viewed millions of times, and has three "Best of Web Comics" nominations to it's credit, for Best Furry, Best Romance, and Best Adult. It's a twice weekly comic followed by 5-6 thousand watchers, and is consistantly a top draw on multiple websites In the end, do I care? No. Are you showing me your much better art and writing? No I am guessing that you are a thirteen year old with no life and multiple "Second Life" accounts.If you don't like it, don't read it."
Yo, Gray Muzzle! I've met you on SoFurry (using a different pseudonym) and I got the impression that you were more mature than to react like this. If you think this person is so "pathetic and sad" for joining the BWW forum to tell us to pan your webcomic, how do you think you sound when you join the BWW forum just to write a whiny response to this "pathetic and sad" critic of yours? If you didn't care "in the end", why even respond to him? If you consider your webcomic so wonderful and popular, why even care about one person who doesn't like it? I've done my own artistic endeavors over the years and I never expected everyone to like them, nor did I react like a crybaby if anyone criticized anything I did. I don't expect to please everyone. Did you expect everyone to like Tina's Story, even among the adult furry community?
UPDATE: I wrote a message to Gray Muzzle on his SoFurry account telling him that we wouldn't review Tina's Story on the BWW, and that it was only because of the fact that it was on an adults-only website not accessible to the general public. His response to me:
Evidently he failed to notice, or did not care, that I told him that his webcomic avoided being listed on the BWW strictly due to the technicality mentioned above.
UPDATE 2: A few years later, someone had pointed out to us that Tina's Story is not as inaccessible as we first believed; while we reconsidered our initial decision, Gray Muzzle was given the opportunity to respond. Instead, he left this catty remark in another thread about advice on writing reviews several months after the fact:
I don't know if he thought that we'd just forgotten about him, but passive-aggressive snipes in an unrelated forum thread does not make you look like the bigger man, especially after being offered more leniency than most other creators normally get here. Respect is a two-way street, friendo.
UPDATE 3: Gray Muzzle has decided to respond to us after all:
Well, after all the rigmarole, we can conclude that Gray Muzzle didn't violate the tacit agreement after all. And one forum member told us he really hated the webcomic but would not write a review of it. And if he won't, why should anyone else bother? There's a lot worse dreck out there (not just porn) that we've covered and the general public can view.
UPDATE 4: Gray Muzzle has joined our forum on a long-term basis as Campion, author of Forest Hill has done, though both authors only post infrequently.
UPDATE 5: In the end, Tina's Story ultimately did get a review after all, namely because it was in fact accessible to the general public on The Duck website.
UPDATE 6: As mentioned in the review, this webcomic has brought trouble to author Gray Muzzle. But it has also brought trouble to artist Zenia, as she admitted on her FurAffinity page:
(Zenia also admitted when I asked her that she deliberately did not do her best efforts for this webcomic as a cost-saving measure.-Long Tom)
Too Much Information
The author of the comic had this to say about the thread that discussed his comic:
This post brought on a slew of ass-pats from his fans in the form of long paragraphs about how wrong we are and how amazing his comic is. It was pretty sad to watch. He then continued in the comment section, claiming he gets 500 times more traffic than we do, something that isn't true and was probably even less true before we moved sites, and said the number of new readers he has gotten thanks to us is now 150 compared to 0 for the past 8 years. So I guess someone does take us seriously.
The most hilarious part in all of this was this picture of his face-
Tomb Raider - The Tome of the Ancients
About six months after a thread was made, and long after we moved sites and were no longer monitoring our old forum, the guy making this abomination decided to sneak in to our dead forum and leave one of the most insane responses we've ever gotten, then slink off in fear, quickly deleting the account he made for the soul purpose of leaving this comment in a bizarre act of cowardice.
Obviously, and probably by design, we didn't find it until long after, and didn't care to add it here until later still. Nonetheless, here is what he had to say:
Please get a dictionary and look up "Narcissistic Defence Mechanism"... check out the definition of "Popular" while you're at it.
Sounds like something a racist would say.
Sounds like something someone who makes pictures of underaged girls would say.
(His own comic actually have extremely large print)
I'm sure he thinks that this is a very educational metaphor, but all anyone really learns from it is that this pervert who makes porn comics probably masturbate to the thought of his English teacher watching erotic TV shows.
you will see hundreds of fan sites. Its also free so there is no money being made out of it so get your fucking facts right before you try spouting off about things you know nothing about! It looks like the first couple of chapters are made from a program called XNA whichis perfectly legit to use as well and the rest is using daz or poser.
You're right and we're sorry. You comic is clearly not a copyright infringement... just plagiarism.
This is in response to someone mentioning his art is nearly identical in style and content to an old deviantart webcomic about a demon girl with giant tits.
Thank you for complimenting our gigantic pricks, your mother liked them, too.
Weapon Of The People: DECODED
As noted in the review for this comic, the reason for the review's existence came about from the cartoonist, Muhammad Rasheed, finding a 2-year-old thread on the forum and deciding to necropost, complaining that we were but a group of triggered racists who didn't like his comic.
The result was a near-month-long lol-cow milking session, where Rasheed gave the wiki community an endless stream of the most ridiculous hot takes, the best of which were included in the review proper.
Even after the review was finished, Rasheed still bitched and complained despite most of the forum having put him on their ignore lists by that point.
On the plus side, this would appear to be the first time a cartoonist came to the forum and managed to taunt the crew into reviewing his comic.
Of course, not satisfied with having made an ass of himself, Rasheed continued to rant and rave on the forum after the review was done, which you can read about here.
UPDATE: Rasheed ultimately got banned from the forum after he made death threats against forum member Webkilla. Even if it was in jest, he crossed the line.
It all started when someone on our forum found a collaborative woolfaboo comic on DA and a thread about it. We all had a good laugh calling the artists names, mocking their demands for fanart, joking about its poor quality and discussing if we should write a review about it. Suddenly, the creators somehow found out we were talking about them (could be because some of us went and posted some insults on the comics' profile) and wrote this hilarious response:
Some of the comment has been lost when they deleted everything
How did she find out about our band "The Basement Boys"?
Everyone knows the BWW motto is "Tits or GTFO".
Shut up woolfaboo.
Yes it does.
This was literally said to the original staff.
But it wasn't over there because then they wrote a journal about us.
Cry me a river
Nice implicit threat. I don't think you understand what kind of site this is.
No one cares.
And you won't get it either.
Yes you are.
As if you could.
I pity them.
Shocking (still better than Preston).
More shit no one cares about.
Suck it up (like a [expletive deleted]).
End it (they did).
At this point we realized these are a bunch of kids and decided to apologize to get them to stop freaking out and lay off of them, but it was already too late. We were unable to stop before one of our user made a blog (deleted and not archive) of parody porn of their characters. After seeing it they announced that they are ending the comic, deleted their page and left a number of angry comments in this thread, one of which ended with the words:
The thread itself has too many funny comments to quote here, with the only positive one being one of the creators saying she will take our advice and try to do better. Even so, my favorite thing they said to us was:
At least it's less pathetic than the time we made Andrew Fraser cry.
While we were talking about if we should review this comic or not, someone (I'm guessing a user of this site who's trying way too hard) informed Viv about it via anonymous asks on tumblr.
Firstly I thought comics had to be like LAUGHABLY bad to get on that wiki, and while I do not at all think ZP has reached any level of ‘good’ yet, I certainly don’t think it’s laughably bad.
Secondly, I’m sure every comic out there that has elements to nitpick has been brought up to talk about on the forums of that site. I’m sure there are people who can’t stand my comic and I’m sure those are the same people who even pay attention to a site like “bad webcomics wiki”Kinda like Encyclopedia Dramatica, I understand why the site exists, in some aspects I think it’s hilarious. But I really don’t care what people who update on sites like that think of me and my work haha. I’m not gonna go read them.
If people have advice on things that I don’t have full knowledge of, like how to portray a certain culture, or something like that, I’m beyond open to it.But when it comes to story concepts, timing, writing, ext. It is my comic, I’ll take the advice i’m given by others, but I’m not going to go to a forum and read all the things people think I should do.
As you can see, what she says is actually fairly reasonable, besides the part where she implies she won't read the review because we're all a bunch of trolls.