Because of his most recent stunt, whereby he specifically started a thread inviting Nox to come back to Off-Topic, addressing him in the first person by name, right after I had changed a thread title to remove Nox's name, all because he felt it would be a "challenge" to my "authority", I've decided that James' ongoing sniping has risen to the level of a potential disruption of the Off Topic forum. His posting a thread specifically titled "Dominux nox, where are you", inviting as such for Nox to break the rules by coming and posting on off-topic, is disruptive to that forum especially as the forum is only just now starting to recover from the "Nox show" that it had become (notice how it had been dead for several weeks after Nox left).  James' post invited someone to violate the ban imposed on him, stirred up conflict for no reason other than that he thought in his childlike-mind that he was showing how much of a man he was by "defying my authority", and may have led users that were planning to start coming back to Off Topic to believe that no, it is not safe there yet, its still the "nox show".  And to top it all off, he lied to the mods about why he did it.  As such, his account has been changed so he can no longer post there.

There was a lot of consideration about this among the moderators, some favouring banning him outright because there was no chance that he'd change his ways, since for him this is some kind of a bizarre ego challenge, while others were trying to negotiate with James to get him to apologize (which he refused to do).

In the end, I decided to go with my own instinct, which was to not ban him altogether, despite all the shit I've had to take from him, and despite the fact that no doubt the Swine Brigade will all rally to attack me for this decision just as if I'd arbitrarily banned him altogether, comparing me to hitler, saying I'm as bad as the rpgnet mods (right, because everyone knows on RPG.net you can spend 8 fucking months harassing a mod, calling him all kinds of names, attacking him, etc, and he'll respond by eventually limiting your rights on certain parts of the forum :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ).

This is for you James:  You continue to be on notice. Keep fucking with me in your pathetic little dickwaving contest and you'll see just how quickly you get stuck in a very limited place. You insist on acting like a spoiled little boy? Fine, you're grounded. No more Off-topic for you. If you want to be treated like a child, I will treat you like a fucking child.
Grow the fuck up. Do you realize that I had to defend you from those who wanted to suspend or ban you completely? Yeah, I'm the fucking enemy. You understand that not a single mod believes you won't end up banned from here (because no one believes that you're capable of changing how you act here anymore).  Its pathetic.

RPGPundit

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

With that one post you show that you can't even read when it comes to me. The thread wasn't about getting Nox to post in a forum he's banned in, it was about getting someone to tell me how to contact. I thought I'd made that pretty clear, but maybe George Harrison was right when he wrote "The farther one travels the less one knows."

By the way, aren't you the man who just finished telling Shewolf:

QuoteAnd relax knowing that IF you choose to get involved in a flamewar, you won't get banned because of what you say, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me.

Kinda funny to then turn around and topic ban me for disagreeing with you, then threaten to make it site wide if I continued.

And please, if you don't mind, stop talking about my dick? With how constantly you mention it, and your attempt at forced feminization the last time I told you I wouldn't be your pretty girl, it's starting to get weird.

I have, I should think obviously, not read all of James posts, but I am against this sort of censorship, and denial of free speech. Your post basically sounds a lot like "If you challenge me, you'll get censored, and maybe banned!"

As I understood the goals of this website this sort of thing is in direct conflict with not only the spirit of this place, but also that (rather silly) constitution.

Perhaps you're fine with this, but I will object to this sort of thing. I don't know what RPG.net would do, or care what they would do. I don't know, or even particularly like James, but I do think any time we censor someone and limit free speech it is a bad thing.

I know your reply to this will accuse me of all sorts of things, and call me many names, which is okay. Because I am not looking to limit your free speech, and expression. You should, if you're not interested in this board having truly free speech, just ban the people you don't like or want around, and modify your sites purposes, and constitution-that way no one can complain when you make a decision like this.

I know you have your RPG Pundit act to keep up, and I think it's funny. I know you have this persona you've created that we're supposed to believe in, and be impressed by-but really I've seen it done, and better. I know who you really are, and what you really are. As such I know you realize this decision was simply made to add to the Pundit melodrama, but I think you've been treading down a precarious path with this censorship and banning stuff.

Get back to your roots, and if James isn't actually just an account you've registered to argue with yourself, and stick to them. You're more entertaining that way.

I support sanctioning James.  Whether you agreed with the sanction choosen in the Nox case or not, a large number of people had agreed with the basic position that Nox had been disruptive to the board.  I was one of those people who felt that Nox was doing much more harm than good.

Off Topic was showing signs of recovery after Hurricane Nox.  People were actually starting to use it again.  Then someone went and necro'ed that stupid bagel thread with Nox's name in the title.  I thought Pundit overreacted by closing the thread and I told him so.  But I also think that something did need to be done to prevent Off Topic from turning into a bunch of Nox-related poo.

James starting a new thread about Nox right on the heels of the bagel thread was poor form.  The fact that he and Pundit fight like a grumpy old married couple isn't even germane here, in my opinion.  James was deliberately fanning an already burning fire.  Last I checked we only have two hard rules around here.  1) Don't be a spammer and 2) don't be disruptive.  Whatever James's intentions, this looks to me like a disruption.  We don't need another thread about Dominus frickin' Nox around here.

Quote from: jrients2) don't be disruptive.

I think the rest of your post was very well reasoned, and well written, but isn't this last bit here a little subjective? I mean who determines what disruptive is? And how do we keep people from just applying that label to people they don't like?

Maybe, and I am more than willing to admit I don't always know everything or even most things, his posts were that disruptive, but it doesn't seem like they really were. And if they were, why isn't Pundit removing his own access to Off Topic since he played the same game with the same glee?

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong, but please be prepared to support your position, because I will certainly ask questions.

Quote from: Serious PaulI think the rest of your post was very well reasoned, and well written, but isn't this last bit here a little subjective? I mean who determines what disruptive is? And how do we keep people from just applying that label to people they don't like?

I think we all know that Pundit is in charge around here, so I'm not telling anyone anything new by saying that he makes the final call.  What keeps Pundit honest?  The fact that every user on the board can vote with their feet, for one thing.  And the fact that everyone he's ever pissed off is waiting with baited breath to call him a hypocritical jackass.

Also note that although Pundit is the boss, he consults the other admins before taking any action.  In this case, Pundit decided on a lighter sanction than had been suggested by another admin.

QuoteMaybe, and I am more than willing to admit I don't always know everything or even most things, his posts were that disruptive, but it doesn't seem like they really were. And if they were, why isn't Pundit removing his own access to Off Topic since he played the same game with the same glee?

Pundit is not going to reduce his access to the board he runs.  That's just not practical, just like there have occasionally been users I would like on my ignore list but as an admin it would be irresponsible of me to ignore any user.

So short of everyone taking the drastic, and silly action, of everyone quitting the board the RPG Pundit will not be held accountable for his actions, regardless of what they are?

I just want to make sure I understand the rules, since they seem pretty arbitrary at this point.

Quote from: Serious PaulSo short of everyone taking the drastic, and silly action, of everyone quitting the board the RPG Pundit will not be held accountable for his actions, regardless of what they are?

I feel ill-equipped to speak to the matter of Pundit and the totality his actions on the board.  I came on this thread to note that I supported one particular decision of his, not to give my blanket endorsement to everything the man has ever said or done.

When I find myself in a situation where I think Pundit is helping more than he is hurting, I say so.  Usually I do so publicly.  I've seen many other users do the same.  If you are of the opinion that Pundit is being disruptive in Off Topic and should refrain from posting there, I suggest simply flatly stating your opinion.  There's no need to couch in terms of James' situation or to couch your opinions in these questions you are asking.

QuoteI just want to make sure I understand the rules, since they seem pretty arbitrary at this point.

Many well-functioning systems break when you examine extreme cases.  Modern D&D seems to melt down when you reach a certain experience level.  Astrophysics as we know it goes out the window inside a singularity, or so I'm told.  Trying to enforce the rules on the ultimate arbiter of the rules seems like a similarly doomed process.  I have to ask myself what I would prefer, a Pundit that sometimes shoots off his mouth, or setting up something like an appeals committee that will only increase the amount of nonsense.  Unless I see a solid proposal that makes sense and is less of a hassle than an wild-eyed autocrat, I'm going to choose Pundit.  If anyone has an alternative I would be interested in hearing about it.

Does this mean that Pundit can get away with stuff you or I couldn't?  Yes.  That's the nature of the board.  I choose not to let it bother me, because in exchange for the occasional outburst from a guy I know really, sincerely wants to make this board work, I get a message board I rather enjoy.  Because framing the raison d'etre of theRPGsite as a political statement is more Pundit's thing.  I'm not here because this board is more ideologically pure.  I'm here because I like the people and I find the atmosphere more easy-going than RPGnet.  If you buy into Pundit's dream of a social utopia on the net, I can see how the current events could be worrisome.  If you're here just for a nifty place to hang out and talk about games, I don't see how this whole fiasco is worth deep and heavy soulsearching.  Not that it's my job to decide what is or isn't important around here.

Quote from: jrientsIf you are of the opinion that Pundit is being disruptive in Off Topic and should refrain from posting there, I suggest simply flatly stating your opinion.

I do not find his posting any more disruptive than any other user, including James.

QuoteThere's no need to couch in terms of James' situation or to couch your opinions in these questions you are asking.

You can't speak for Pundit, but speaking for me is okay in your book? Interesting.

QuoteMany well-functioning systems break when you examine extreme cases.

Agreed.

I've seen nothing that indicates this is such.

QuoteTrying to enforce the rules on the ultimate arbiter of the rules seems like a similarly doomed process.

Well we certainly agree here, although unlike you (apparently) I am not discouraged by the prospect.

Quote from: Serious PaulYou can't speak for Pundit, but speaking for me is okay in your book? Interesting.

I'm not sure I'm following you.  If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize.

Also, I didn't say that I can't speak for Pundit.  I said that I feel ill-equipped to do so.  If you need me to try I can, but I'm not sure how helpful I would be.

QuoteWell we certainly agree here, although unlike you (apparently) I am not discouraged by the prospect.

I am discouraged.  I sense an undercurrent of discontent with some users and I don't know what to do about it.  Lots of people seem to enjoy the environment that Pundit has created, but at the first sign that Pundit is trying to keep the place on course he usually gets dogpiled.  I lack the wisdom to resolve the conflict.

Quote from: jrientsLots of people seem to enjoy the environment that Pundit has created, but at the first sign that Pundit is trying to keep the place on course he usually gets dogpiled.

The problem, or at least part of the problem as I see it, is that the course corrections he makes don't jive with the supposed intent of the board. It's difficult to say to a new user that you're running a place where people don't get banned for speaking out against the big boss, and then the very next day you topic ban someone for speaking out against the big boss. Likewise, it's hard to come across as truly magnanimous when you start public consultation threads to see advice from your members on solving problems and then ignore the majority's voices and go with the decision you stated in one of the first few posts.

Basically, and I may be a little biased on this one, the Free Speech that this site supposedly prospers under falls away if you happen to be the guy that, for reasons even he couldn't nail down when he said it, annoys him more than any of the "serious Swine from his rogue's gallery."

Quote from: jrientsI'm not sure I'm following you.  If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize.

No apologies necessary, I can see it was just a misunderstanding on my part.

QuoteLots of people seem to enjoy the environment that Pundit has created, but at the first sign that Pundit is trying to keep the place on course he usually gets dogpiled.  I lack the wisdom to resolve the conflict.

I'm sorry if you think I am part of some dog pile, as it were. I am honestly expressing my feelings in the matter, no more, no less. For my part censorship is  never the answer. It can never work, and can only create hostility.

You can't force a square peg into a round hole, and if your vision or his vision is narrow enough to not allow for some flex, then you both have unrealistic expectations. Any time you create a thing for public consumption you have to expect that it will take on it's own life, and grow from there. Attempts to force it to grow in a certain direction have to be careful, and well thought out if they're going to work.

But enough of my jibber jabber, for now!

Quote from: JamesIt's difficult to say to a new user that you're running a place where people don't get banned for speaking out against the big boss, and then the very next day you topic ban someone for speaking out against the big boss.

James, if all this fiasco was about was another instance of you and Pundit bickering, I would not be so inclined to throw you in the doghouse.  To me starting that Nox thread was the local equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.  And the fact that you want to somehow blame Pundit for your own boneheaded stunt is not helping your case.  This present situation is not about your incompatibilities with Pundit, it's about you doing something dumb and refusing to acknowledge that you screwed up and could have done things differently.

Paul, I don't think you're dogpiling Pundit.

I did tell you I could have done things differently. What I also said was that I wasn't going to make a blanket apology for things I didn't do, despite Pundit demanding I "do it now, or else."

My exact words were

QuoteI will not apologize for things I did not do to a man who will hold it over my head every time I point out that he's acting like a retard. If that means I'm banned, so be it. If I thought it would change anything I would, but you and I both know that the instant I say something that contradicts something he said I'm back in the status of "that guy who's trying to destroy my site."

There are many, many people who speak out against him more often, more vocally, and more abusively then I ever have. I have never lied about him despite the multiple lies he's told about me. I've never forcibly changed his title as a failed attempt at bullying.

No, I will not lie to that man (or any man who doesn't have a gun to my face) and say I'm sorry for things I did not do.

I will apologize to you though, for helping to create a shit storm that caught you up in the middle of it. I'm honestly sorry about that part of all this.

and

QuoteNo, that's not the thought process. The thought process was "since I'm going to piss him off, I might as well do what I was going to do anyway, regardless of how he might feel."

and

QuoteMy intention wasn't to piss anyone off, merely to find out how to contact someone who seemed knowledgeable on a subject I'm currently interested in. The fact that it manged to piss Pundit off is atangential amusement. With or without him I'd have still wanted to know where DN can be found.

I know (and no longer care) that you, Pundit, and a third admin that apparently wanted me banned but won't say so to my face don't believe me when I say that. But it doesn't make it any less true.

Quote from: James McMurrayI know (and no longer care) that you, Pundit, and a third admin that apparently wanted me banned but won't say so to my face don't believe me when I say that. But it doesn't make it any less true.

You're right.  I overstated my case and that was wrong of me.  I apologize.