TheRPGSite

The only reason he's here is to attack me, even moreso than any of the other Swine here. He'd never have joined the site if it wasn't for the fact that he was humiliated at being tonguelashed in a blog entry, and has started trolling my blog and this site as some bizzare kind of "revenge".

Its almost certain that all of his posts will simply involve attacking me, and possibly Jimbob whom he also appears to have a previous beef with, and trying to promote his Swine position.  On the other hand, the guy's positions are so unbelievably outrageous that I'm almost tempted to let him stay as proof of what the Swine's real motives are; clearly none of his fellow porkers have come to him yet and told him the game plan; you know, the one of not saying what they really believe in order to make people think that they don't actually despise normal roleplayers and want to ruin the hobby?

He gives the rest of the swine here such a bad rep that it might even be useful to have him around. He's the walking talking archetype of everything I've ever been saying about the Swine.

But, on the other other hand, he might be way more disruptive than its worth.

So I'm listening to advice here: what should I do with him? I'm not saying it gets to be put to a vote, but I want to know people's minds before I make my decision.

RPGPundit

Don't do anything. I can't read Lev's mind but I think you're overreacting based on misreading, and the fact that he won't back down about not seeing D&D as the ideal game for all situations. Which I doubt you think it is, either. Banning him would be a big mistake.

Dude, don't waste your time or energy. Just call a dork a dork and move on.

When someone starts asking theory-based questions to challenge the accusation that they wear theory-based goggles, you know they've lost it.

At least, that's what I got out of the blog exchange. I could be off.

All this is BS. You piss on this guy on your blog. You call folks Swine (hell I'm probably one of them, although I know fuck all about theory). You incite folks to post on his blog in suppoprt of your so-called war. And when he comes here looking for a fight - on a site that prides itself on freedom and all that shit - you consider banning him. You stir shit up and then complain when it hits the fan. Should he be banned ? No.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAll this is BS. You piss on this guy on your blog. You call folks Swine (hell I'm probably one of them, although I know fuck all about theory). You incite folks to post on his blog in suppoprt of your so-called war. And when he comes here looking for a fight - on a site that prides itself on freedom and all that shit - you consider banning him. You stir shit up and then complain when it hits the fan. Should he be banned ? No.

Regards,
David R

I actually incited people to post on another blog that he was posting on, not his own.

In any case, this site is not going to be subverted by people who come here in utter bad faith, whether they are on a crusade for Swinedom, or a personal crusade to attack me.  If that's the ONLY reason he's here, and it appears to be (he certainly doesn't seem to share the mission statement's ideas about roleplaying or like the kinds of games that this site is supposed to encourage), then yes, I will certainly consider banning him.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI actually incited people to post on another blog that he was posting on, not his own.

Sorry about that. My mistake.

QuoteIn any case, this site is not going to be subverted by people who come here in utter bad faith, whether they are on a crusade for Swinedom, or a personal crusade to attack me.  If that's the ONLY reason he's here, and it appears to be (he certainly doesn't seem to share the mission statement's ideas about roleplaying or like the kinds of games that this site is supposed to encourage), then yes, I will certainly consider banning him.

RPGPundit

It's your site, do whatever the hell you want with it. I suppose folks who are on your side of the fence will get better treatment than those who come here on a crusade for Swinedom, right?  

So let me get this straight, if someone comes here merely because they can't stand you and start shit up, they will get banned, right? I mean, this is going into the board's charter or whatever you call it, correct?

For years, you pulled shit like this on the various boards you frequented. Sometimes you had a point, sometimes you didn't. The one constant was that you were disruptive and insulting to most of the folks there. And you were banned. So, maybe you are correct. maybe you should ban Lev.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only reason he's here is to attack me, even moreso than any of the other Swine here. He'd never have joined the site if it wasn't for the fact that he was humiliated at being tonguelashed in a blog entry, and has started trolling my blog and this site as some bizzare kind of "revenge".

Pundit, it's rarely as black or white as we might think. I've looked at Lev's comments and see no reason for him to be banned. He's responded to accusations that have proven false. You, Bob and a few others aren't coming off pretty from this so far. Banning him would be an indication that you refuse to lick your wounds and admit you are wrong. You should be apologizing for putting words in this dude's mouth earlier and instead, you're wondering if you should ban him. You're smarter than that.

Plus, his tastes in games are actually quite ecclectic and he's familiar (face to face) with at least two board members, which I see as a plus for the community. On top of that, he's done some work for a company, even if it's for a game I find horrible. That's also a plus for this community.

I think you should continue the great direction this website is taking and allow different viewpoints to be shared.

Don't become RPG.net the 2nd.

I'd say no. Unless he does something illegal and or freaking detrimental to the site as a whole (that means things like DOS attack, not simply being annoying.)

Do not be "that guy" we see too much of the "well your annoying me and I have power so goodbye" elsewhere. (As opposed to you know legitimate rules violations...)

This is your site and you can do what you want with it, but if you start banning folks just because you don't like their face, then this site becomes RPGNet.

Hate to say it, Pundit, but You REALLY jumped the shark suggesting this one.

Way to early to even think about banning him, given some of the characters we let walk around these parts and your own 'constitution'...

You know what I did when the "Why Are You On His Dick?" thread got started?

I looked at it, blew it off, and walked away.  Oh, I know the one dude told me he he had a bone to pick with me because I suck or I'm not wearing the right shoes or whatever but PFFFFFT.  I let my receding ass do the talking.

And now I feel like this:

(http://www.digitaldutch.com/arles/tutorials/thumbnail_tags/galleries/thumbnail_tags_with_size/images/Hammock.jpg)

Quote from: David RIt's your site, do whatever the hell you want with it. I suppose folks who are on your side of the fence will get better treatment than those who come here on a crusade for Swinedom, right?  

Well, duh. People who come here specifically to disrupt the stated purpose of these fora shouldn't expect to be mollycoddled.  I mean, if someone like me or Maw went to the Forge with the obvious explicit purpose of disrupting the site, how long would we be tolerated?

QuoteSo let me get this straight, if someone comes here merely because they can't stand you and start shit up, they will get banned, right?

Yes, absolutely. If that's the only reason they come here, there's no reason for them to be treated as though they're anything different from a spammer.
Note that this doesn't mean anything similar to "anyone who criticizes me will be banned"; anyone and everyone is free to criticize me up to and including  calling me an unclefucker if they want to, as long as they're also being a productive member of this site who's here with goodwill and shows that by participating in the threads (or starting ones of their own).

QuoteFor years, you pulled shit like this on the various boards you frequented. Sometimes you had a point, sometimes you didn't. The one constant was that you were disruptive and insulting to most of the folks there. And you were banned. So, maybe you are correct. maybe you should ban Lev.

No, I didn't pull shit like that. I never went to the Forge boards or the White Wolf boards, and troll them.  I respected that these places had a stated purpose that meant I had no business being there.

RPG.net, on the other hand, was supposed to be a place for free and open discussion of RPGs in general, and I was there doing that: ignoring the question of whether I was justifiably banned there or not; its nothing like someone coming here explicitly to try to fuck around with the stated purpose of this site.

RPGPundit

Quote from: O'BorgThis is your site and you can do what you want with it, but if you start banning folks just because you don't like their face, then this site becomes RPGNet.

That's not what I'm talking about here.  There's a LOT of people on here who's "face" I don't like, but they aren't under any consideration of being banned. Even James McM, who I felt at one point was intentionally hounding and baiting me, was NEVER under any threat of actually being banned.  Why? Because he, and all those other people, are also on here in good faith and contributing, talking about the subjects that correspond to this site.

In the end, whether or not I ban Lev will depend very much on what he does; some believe he won't hang around here long anyways, but if he does, it depends on whether he begins to contribute to the site like others have, or if he is only here to disrupt the site, and how much volume of that he does.

But I want to send an unequivocal message to the various Forgeites and Rogues out there who would otherwise never bother coming here, if it wasn't me running the place: if you come here only to try to piss all over the place, or me personally, you're not actually here in good faith, and you will be treated like any other kind of spammer, once it is determined and confirmed that this is what you're doing.

Otherwise, my concern would be that we'd soon have a dozen or more of these guys coming on here and turning this place into an unreadable wreck.

RPGPundit

This is a big test for you, dude.  

I haven't been here long enough, or have enough familiarity with the big beef you two have to bother offering an opinion.

But, it seems to me, this is where the true test is in the eating.

I mean, if the guy is only coming here to fuck with your biscuits, and disrupt this place and offer nothing else, my first reaction is "you are not adding anything here - go away".

On the other hand, you've billed this place as being free and open and a place to get your hands dirty, as well as "anti-every other gaming board".  

Its going to be a tough test.  I don't envy you at all.  Seems like this could be a defining moment of your administration and this new direction this board has taken.

Good luck.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral... fuck with your biscuits ...

HA HA HA HA HA HA-- whup--!

(http://www.handmadehammocks.co.uk/siteimages/falling%20out200.jpg)

Dangit.

Ok, fuck that made me laugh.

Love the hammock meme so far.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, duh. People who come here specifically to disrupt the stated purpose of these fora shouldn't expect to be mollycoddled.  I mean, if someone like me or Maw went to the Forge with the obvious explicit purpose of disrupting the site, how long would we be tolerated?

Yeah, give me an example of how he's here to disrupt the stated purpose of this site. Seems, to me, he's here, because you started shit with him.

QuoteYes, absolutely. If that's the only reason they come here, there's no reason for them to be treated as though they're anything different from a spammer.

For now, it seems, he's here to defend himself. And really, the only other time, this shit has come up, it's always been about you and your rep for stirring things up.

QuoteNote that this doesn't mean anything similar to "anyone who criticizes me will be banned"; anyone and everyone is free to criticize me up to and including  calling me an unclefucker if they want to, as long as they're also being a productive member of this site who's here with goodwill and shows that by participating in the threads (or starting ones of their own).

So, give him time, to become a productive member. fuck, if Nox has a place here, why not him. Let this fued between him and you, end, and see how things go.

QuoteNo, I didn't pull shit like that. I never went to the Forge boards or the White Wolf boards, and troll them.  I respected that these places had a stated purpose that meant I had no business being there.

Yeah, you just went on boards, where you knew Forge and WW games were discussed and started shit...kinda of what Lev is doing right here.

QuoteRPG.net, on the other hand, was supposed to be a place for free and open discussion of RPGs in general, and I was there doing that: ignoring the question of whether I was justifiably banned there or not; its nothing like someone coming here explicitly to try to fuck around with the stated purpose of this site.

This site is supposed to be about free and open discussion. I don't really care about the stated purpose of this site, since it's cleary not become a problem for most folks who post here. The only time, it ever comes up, seems to be when you have a problem with a poster.

I mean, really, is this the way, you want things to go?

Regards,
David R

I would say that he should be warned that if his only purpose here is to attack you and he contunues to do that then hes gone.

Otherwise if this a one time thing , that he came here defend himself and one his defence is made hes ok. Atleast as long as once he made his defence, he doesnt take every chance to attack you.

I mean we have plenty of people here that like troll on occasion, but none of them do if full time. Most of them do contribute more to conversation than the do to trolling.

Give the newcomer some time. There's a number of ways this could go without having to ban him. Odds are Lev will eventually "grow up" and start posting interesting stuff, or he'll end up in everyone's Ignore List (remember it?).

Yes, you guys are right, clearly its best to let this play itself out. But I just saw this guy, come in after being slagged on my blog, and naturally interpreted it as him coming on here for pure revenge with no good motives.  Sort of like if I were to go on Storygames after someone posts something critical of me there just to raise trouble; only worse, because my posts were on my blog (which he's also trolling), not here.

And when it comes to this site not being disrupted by the Rogue's Gallery, I get defensive.

But I mostly started this thread to see what the rest of the site's initial reactions to the guy were going to be, and while I suspect some of the people who posted here have ulterior motives for arguing in his favour, others have clearly made it known that they don't feel things are sufficiently disrupted yet that I need to do anything about it.

So that's cool. I won't. I'll wait, and this will either resolve itself, or very shortly get to the point where the majority of good-faith posters on here feel that he's adding nothing to the site and want me to get rid of him.  I'll give him "enough rope"; and see if he forms his own noose.

RPGPundit

The man has the balls to come down here, shovel the crap you've tossed his way, and remain on his toes.  He hasn't gone off on a preachersome rant, and he's not been dropping pointless "claim to authority" linkage.

I say we let JimBob slap some english into him, and then fight it out.

Quote from: David RSo, give him time, to become a productive member. fuck, if Nox has a place here, why not him.

With this, I agree.

He'll do one of four things,

• Continue to post pointless attacks
• Post rpg stuff instead
• Do pointless attacks, and rpg stuff
  
• Disappear into silence, forgetting he was even registered here.

Only one of the four possibilities makes him banworthy. The last option is the most likely, and is in effect no different from a ban; silence is silence.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, you guys are right, clearly its best to let this play itself out.
[...]
So that's cool. I won't. I'll wait, and this will either resolve itself, or very shortly get to the point where the majority of good-faith posters on here feel that he's adding nothing to the site and want me to get rid of him. I'll give him "enough rope"; and see if he forms his own noose.

I'm glad you agree.

Like David R said, if you let Dominus Nox stay, you sure as shit have to let Lev Lafayette stay. At least Lev talks about rpgs in between saying I'm a poopyhead. Granted, his talk is wrong and crazy, but at least it's rpg talk.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe man has the balls to come down here, shovel the crap you've tossed his way, and remain on his toes. He hasn't gone off on a preachersome rant, and he's not been dropping pointless "claim to authority" linkage.

Yep, he has balls alright. But the linkage lack, well he has no choice. Unlike that LJ, if he links here, someone might actually read what he links to and point out its silliness, which kinda hurts the ol' Claim to Authority.

I would be sorely disappointed to find this board had banned any real user. (As opposed to Spam bots.)

Quote from: Serious PaulI would be sorely disappointed to find this board had banned any real user. (As opposed to Spam bots.)

Thus far it has only banned spam bots.

But eventually its almost certain that I'll end up forced to ban some non-spambot; it'd be questionable if I'd call a person who came here ONLY to make trouble and destabilize the site a "real user".  It'd be like calling a foreign national sent to your country to try to bomb your infrastructure a "real citizen".

I want it to be explicitly clear that I will NOT have the least bit of qualms about banning someone who comes here to sabotage the site or its admins (be they me or any other); and that I certainly expect that sooner or later that will happen. I make a point of saying this later so that no one can accuse me of "hypocrisy" later for taking out some guy for his wanting to destroy this site.

RPGPundit

If you ban Lev, I will go too.

Quote from: SettembriniIf you ban Lev, I will go too.

That would be a pity, as it would be to lose Lev, assuming he talks about rpgs. I've pointed out (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62383&postcount=117) this thread to him, as it may interest him, and it's good to know if you're skating on thin ice; there I also pointed out the thread where he can go to call me a prick, since he seems quite keen on that.

I still think he'll get bored and wander off, though. It's not his kind of site, we're unfriendly to jargon and call bullshit on obvious bullshit. He also takes the shit-talking personally, and takes things to a personal level with others. Again, this is a pity.

I don't particularly care either way whether you ban the guy, but I'm glad you asked us (the userbase) for our opinion.

Don't ban him.  JB's right: he'll get bored of poking the bear and move on to greener pastures.

I think banning folks is usually not a good idea, especially when they are acting like an ass and everyone sees it. On the other hand Pundit, as much as I like you, you're kind of abrasive yourself... and that's cool (so am I). He'll eventually grow bored with fucking with you (they always do).

Nobody gets bored of fucking with me because I AM THE LOVE MACHEEN.

Okay, I'm not contributing.  Don't mind me.

Quote from: RedFoxI don't particularly care either way whether you ban the guy, but I'm glad you asked us (the userbase) for our opinion.

Yea, I always think that's important.
At least, the opinion of those who are here in good faith.

RPGPundit

Maybe I'm the paranoid one here, but I see the entire discussion of whether or not to ban someone as 'gateway' behavior into Mod-cliquishness and power tripping.  Lev is not in the 'in crowd' and he is 'disruptive' because he points it out... let's ban him, guys!   I'm doing it for the good of the group.


I could be paranoid.  Fact is Lev is a poster who has generated discussion...movement on the board if you will.  That is a good thing.  Hell, I'd rather have seen you slap modhammers on Serious Paul and company when they popped up with the 'attack everyone' troll thread.  I'm glad you didn't, but at least to me that one would have been 'okay behavior'.  

The fact that there are enough posters here defending Lev's right to post should indicate to you that this is a 'closed case' and he should be allowed to post, rather than dragging this out for another hundred posts... or just banning him because he's got your goat.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


If you want to keep the site free from posters picking on the Mods... don't respond to them once it degenerates into a shouting match.  Moderate by Not Egging Them On... Just a thought.

Quote from: SpikeIf you want to keep the site free from posters picking on the Mods... don't respond to them once it degenerates into a shouting match.  Moderate by Not Egging Them On... Just a thought.

Yup.  Hammocks, man!

Spike´s right. Lev has a right to speak his mind, it´s not a privilege granted by some almighty Baseball Bat wielder. The whole question is a bad move.
The time somebody gets the feeling he´s only here because it was "decided" he was cool enough or not bad enough is the time when all that is good about this site will have been lost.

Freedom of Speach guys!

Pundit, I want an apology for even suggesting to ban Lev.
Apologize to your deceased freedom-loving Fore-Masons if you will, but apologize you must!

You declared war on the guy. Is it any surprise he has responded? And with a certain amount of restraint, i would add.

It's not as though he has popped up in threads all over the site. He's kept his responses to your part of the site, which is where i thought you would want him to be. Or don't you want to give him the right of reply?

An apology?  Meh.  I think considering banning the guy was a poor move, but it's obvious this guy gets Pundit's goat.  He's on his hitlist, after all.

This is Pundit's site and I don't think it's appropriate to ask for some sort of public apology because Pundit dared to ask whether or not he should ban this guy he hates.

More importantly, he consulted the userbase.  I'm all for that.  The overwhelming majority of us said to keep him, and Pundit decided to kept him.  Possibly against his better judgement.

That's how a real community works, folks.

I will not be apologizing for consulting the userbase; nor will I apologize for being concerned about this site being invaded by, swamped by, and subverted by ill-intentioned Swine who don't actually give a shit about the real well-intentioned members of these forums or the people who actually care about the place.

People who do not come here in good faith with good intentions for this site do not have a "right" to be here, or to be treated the same as someone who's here with sincere good will.  That I'm tolerating his presence, and erring on the side of allowing him to keep on being here when I'm positive he has no good will for the site should be evidence enough of how much I care about free speech.

RPGPundit

Don´t get me wrong:
All Lev deserves is a rhetorical kick in the ass, as he is full of shit. No need to apologize to him.

Repent you must, for even thinking in the Mod-Mindset!
Atone for the the first step to fascism!

Solve the moral quandarie yourself, but don´t place yourself in the place of a reluctant martyr, free speech must be granted like a duck takes to water. Not some royal favor you grant or deny, as your mood sees fit.

The first reaction to any poster must always be: let him speak!

And not: "I´m just not banning you to show how cool and aloof I am." In my eyes, you don´t even have the right to ban anyone (Spambots obviously excluded).


You might have the ability, but no right whatsoever. Even thinking about it betrays the whole fabric of free speech. Repent!

There is no need for an apology esp to Lev. You asked for our opinion - which is a hell of a lot more than most other sites would do -you got it. The problem (if there ever was one) has been resolved.

I mean what is this ? therpgtherapysite. What next, posters demanding closure? Primal scream gaming. JimBoB becomes the Doctor Phil of therpgsite?

Regards,
David R

I demand an apology to free speech as a concept, not to some real people.

Quote from: SettembriniI demand an apology to free speech as a concept, not to some real people.

Oh come on, man.

QuoteOh come on, man.

I'll allow that Settembrini expresses it somewhat histrionically, but he has a certain point and it's the same one Spike made.

I wasn't going to post.  I rarely post in general anyway.

But I'm really torn on this.

I understand where Pundit is coming from in that someone who comes here to be a dick (small d) to the Pundit probably should be censured somehow.

But many of us come here to be a Dick (capital d) because we're allowed to.

It's a fine line that separates dickishness from Dickishness.  

I support everyone's right to be a Dick...and I think I'm against Lev's being banned because he's a dick.

If you're going to ban someone, have a better reason than you disagree with him, or you think he's here on a revenge kick.

As Jimbob said, he'll either contribute with rpg stuff, contribute with nox style rambling which is always good for a laugh, or get bored and disappear.

Failing all of that make me a mod and I'll abuse my position with glee and abandon. ( oh yeah, and I'll ban Lev - leaving your hands clean - nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

No, at least not yet. See if he sticks around and posts in general gaming threads or leaves. This site has a section devoted to Pundy's blog/rants afterall and lev was targeted by that silly declaration of war etc..

Personally I'd like to hear more on those Runequest campaigns. A link even, but in a new thread. While I'm at it I'd also like less (as in nothing) on this site on the war against the Swine.

Nobody here is in the position to make any remarks like the two above.

Nobody decides, because everyone may talk freely.

It starts to smell like high school politics invading again.

I am against banning Lev.

Quote from: jrientsI am against banning Lev.

I would support the banning of banning Lev (threads)?


Seriously though, he didn't seem all that bad to me...I can only see what he posted on this site...

In other words: let the villagers with their torches and hounds suss him out.

Quote from: SettembriniNobody here is in the position to make any remarks like the two above.

Nobody decides, because everyone may talk freely.

Cool and all but Pundy seemed set to ban at the start of the thread and asked the forumites. I don't personally think he should at all but I don't wield a spiked bat of justice.
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g253/Lord_Sepulchrave/forum_pics/ClueBat.jpg)

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t get me wrong:
All Lev deserves is a rhetorical kick in the ass, as he is full of shit. No need to apologize to him.

Repent you must, for even thinking in the Mod-Mindset!
Atone for the the first step to fascism!

Solve the moral quandarie yourself, but don´t place yourself in the place of a reluctant martyr, free speech must be granted like a duck takes to water. Not some royal favor you grant or deny, as your mood sees fit.

The first reaction to any poster must always be: let him speak!

And not: "I´m just not banning you to show how cool and aloof I am." In my eyes, you don´t even have the right to ban anyone (Spambots obviously excluded).


You might have the ability, but no right whatsoever. Even thinking about it betrays the whole fabric of free speech. Repent!

By your logic, we should never ban any spambots either.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StumpydaveIf you're going to ban someone, have a better reason than you disagree with him, or you think he's here on a revenge kick.

As Jimbob said, he'll either contribute with rpg stuff, contribute with nox style rambling which is always good for a laugh, or get bored and disappear.

Failing all of that make me a mod and I'll abuse my position with glee and abandon. ( oh yeah, and I'll ban Lev - leaving your hands clean - nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

You might feel differently about that if, say, R.Bumquist HatesPundit came on here and started several threads a day on every forum about attacking me, and derailed every thread he could find with defenses of Forge Theory or digs at my person.

See, it wouldn't be about me, the reason for banning him (there's plenty of people who hate me on here, and I haven't banned ANY of them, because they keep their hate relatively in check and are also here to contribute) it would be about making the site unreadable.

RPGPundit

QuoteBy your logic, we should never ban any spambots either.

Reductio ad absurdum.

You know very well that you made a moral mistake, a mis-step, if you will.
But again, Pundit is never wrong, never apologizes, yada, yada, yada.

I fail to see how a policy consultation can possibly be a mis-step. If I had outright banned the guy, you might have some ground for accusing me of a "mis-step"... but are you saying you'd rather I didn't check with the userbase before making decisions anymore?

RPGPundit

No.
I´m saying:
Just thinking of banning Lev was a sin against the concept freedom.
For defending freedom, you don´t need to check the userbase ever.

Quote from: SettembriniNo.
I´m saying:
Just thinking of banning Lev was a sin against the concept freedom.
For defending freedom, you don´t need to check the userbase ever.

If he was the inhuman avatar of Great Justice, maybe.

Quote from: RPGPunditthere's plenty of people who hate me on here

Awww – I don't hate you, Bandit. Come and join my party and we'll play some D&D or something.

Quote from: SettembriniJust thinking of banning Lev was a sin against the concept freedom.

Just thinking is a sin? That's extremely Catholic of you! Don't be ridiculous - thinking is never a sin. Only actions can be sinful. And banning someone from a forum barely even registers as an "action". It has a trivial effect on their life.

Quote from: SettembriniFor defending freedom, you don´t need to check the userbase ever.

Defending freedom? Is that his job here? Ridiculous! His job here is to provide a place to talk about rpgs, and to encourage that rpg talk. Nothing else.

He's a moderator on a little message board, Settembrini. Get a sense of proportion, you mad Prussian. Any more irrelevant and hysterical talk of "freedom" and people will start mistaking you for an American!

"You can take our posts, you can ban our user names, but you can never take OUR FREEDOM!

Settembriniheart, in theaters July 4th, 2008

Sorry, Settembrini, but I have no intention of apologizing for anything.  And, to top it off, I can almost certainly (sadly) guarantee that sooner or later I WILL ban someone who will one day come here with the sole intent of attacking this site or particular users of this site, who have no intention or desire to contribute positively here and are only here to disrupt the workings of the site akin to the way a spambot would (only worse, because they'd be far more thorough about it).  

I wouldn't be happy about having to do so, but I have said I would do that if the scenario occured, I have said that from the very beginning.  And, again, I probably will consult with the users before doing so, though I don't guarantee it.

So really, if you want this to be your own personal Alamo, and leave the site or what have you, I guess that would be your choice; I for one would be very sad to see you go, especially since absolutely nothing of the sort has happened yet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniNo.
I´m saying:
Just thinking of banning Lev was a sin against the concept freedom.
For defending freedom, you don´t need to check the userbase ever.

I think that before any banning takes place, we should be asked for our opinions on it. Banning someone whose sole aim is the disruption of this site is guarding our freedom, not some "sin" against that particular concept.

I'm curious as to what behavior is considered disruptive to the site, and who makes that determination, especially given how much of this site is dedicated to insulting each other. (Which makes this thread all the more ironic.)

Paul, when you say "I'm curious" I hear "I'm looking for ways to stir up some shit".  Maybe that's just me reading too much into the "on his dick" thread and resurrecting the Nikchick LJ discussion.

I can understand that. My post was sarcastic, but I am seriously curious as to what disruptive behavior is around here. I mean posters here regularly insult each other with a vitriol I couldn't even begin to muster. I mean these guys really seem to hate each other in some cases.

No matter what I post I don't know any of you, as such it would be hard to actually hate any of you. And like I said in another post, I tend to limit my silliness to a limited area of the site, as to not bull doze all of the serious threads. (And I think I do a fair job of that. I'm not always successful of course, but then we all have goals right?)

To me it seems like some things don't quite jive around here, and I will feel free to point it out. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or even see my view points as being topical, well thought out or even as humorous. But I do participate.

Quote from: jrientsPaul, when you say "I'm curious" I hear "I'm looking for ways to stir up some shit".  Maybe that's just me reading too much into the "on his dick" thread and resurrecting the Nikchick LJ discussion.

http://www.animalball.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=460 (http://www.animalball.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=460)

nope, not reading too much into it...

there's a difference in just plain being a dick...or planning in advance to be the biggest dick you can.

Quote from: Serious PaulTo me it seems like some things don't quite jive around here, and I will feel free to point it out. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or even see my view points as being topical, well thought out or even as humorous. But I do participate.

I got no beef with that.

While we're all in such an open sharing mood, I'm gonna call Set out.  Set: Pundit was off track, but asking the man to apologize to an abstract concept seems pretty fucking stupid from over here.  I get your point, but you aren't helping yourself the way you're framing the argument.

And notice that is about one thread. Which I have clearly stated I purposefully kicked over the ant hill.

Edit

Jrients posted in between me and the post I was replying to, which was Kreg's.

I post here a lot and I've barely noticed the guy, so no, don't ban him.

For someone to be banned for being disruptive I think they'd need to be seriously fucking with the site, not just being annoying in one or two threads that most of us don't even read.  Plus I get the impression some folk think his posts were fair play, can't say I care but it doesn't sound banworthy to me.

Quote from: jrientsI got no beef with that.

While we're all in such an open sharing mood, I'm gonna call Set out.  Set: Pundit was off track, but asking the man to apologize to an abstract concept seems pretty fucking stupid from over here.  I get your point, but you aren't helping yourself the way you're framing the argument.

I think at least some, probably most, and possibly all of Set's posts to this thread were humorous.

Quote from: BalbinusI think at least some, probably most, and possibly all of Set's posts to this thread were humorous.

Well thank God.  I read most of the back half of this thread at one go and I was really starting to wonder what the hell was up.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou might feel differently about that if, say, R.Bumquist HatesPundit came on here and started several threads a day on every forum about attacking me, and derailed every thread he could find with defenses of Forge Theory or digs at my person.

See, it wouldn't be about me, the reason for banning him (there's plenty of people who hate me on here, and I haven't banned ANY of them, because they keep their hate relatively in check and are also here to contribute) it would be about making the site unreadable.

RPGPundit

Then when that happens you have solid grounds to ban them.  As it stands, you don't.

Dave

Quote from: Serious PaulI can understand that. My post was sarcastic, but I am seriously curious as to what disruptive behavior is around here.

Well, my "disruptive behavior" that got Pundit thinking about banning me involved a lot of me throwing shit at Pundit. I made tons of posts that didn't involve him whatsoever, but I also managed to cross whatever personal line he has about being personally insulted, and he completely ignored the existence of those other posts in favor of only seeing the ones that attacked him.

It seems from the opening post on this thread that Lev has done the same thing.

I'd also point out that there are others besides Pundit on this board (like Dominus Nox, yourself, and JimBobOz) that get a lot of people attacking them. There are also some (like Blakkie) that spend most of their time attacking Pundit as well. Yet none of that activity results in thinking about banning, at least not publically like with Lev and myself.

What does that all mean? I'll leave that to others to decide, but I know what impression it gives me.

As for whether I think he should be banned or not? Who the heck is he? No offense to Lev, but he's not exactly made a huge splash here. And if you're not known you can't be disruptive. So no, I don't think he should be banned.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd also point out that there are others besides Pundit on this board (like Dominus Nox, yourself, and JimBobOz) that get a lot of people attacking them. There are also some (like Blakkie) that spend most of their time attacking Pundit as well. Yet none of that activity results in thinking about banning, at least not publically like with Lev and myself.

People register at therpgsite just to attack RPGPundit. Nobody registers here just to attack me or Nox or whoever. Serious Paul and AnimalballBrasky signed up just to attack RPGPundit and stir up shit; their posts since then have largely had nothing to do with rpgs. Whereas the people who attack me or whoever, they post mainly about rpgs.

If someone says, "JimBobOz is a prick! Mainly because he doesn't like d20, and I love d20, let me tell you about my campaign," then that person is a useful contributor to therpgsite. Let them rant on.

If someone says, "JimBobOz is a prick!" and leaves it at that, then that person is not a useful contributor to therpgsite. Let them fuck off.

We're here to talk about rpgs.

The point is that attacking some other poster, that's fine in general, but it shouldn't be your only purpose on this site. Your main reason for being here should always be to discuss rpgs. It's like in a game session, okay, you'll make little jokes and comments out of character - but if you never do any roleplaying in the session, why the fuck are you there? Just to stir shit? Fuck off, then. We're here to talk about rpgs.

I haven't read the whole thread. Are you also suggesting banning Serious Paul and AnimallballBrasky?

Quote from: James McMurrayI haven't read the whole thread. Are you also suggesting banning Serious Paul and AnimallballBrasky?

Check out the Why are you on his dick? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3596) thread. Then wander over to their forums in the links provided, and you'll see that they signed up specifically to come and troll RPGPundit. Whereas lev_lafayette signed up in response to being flamed here, and having RPGPundit set him as a target on his "War on Swine." Lev's also posted on rpg topics here.

So if the standard is going to be, "if you talk about rpgs, and also stir shit, that's fine; if you stir shit, and don't talk rpgs, you can fuck off," then Serious Paul and AnimalballBrasky are worthy of banning, but lev_lafayette is not.

One of the things I used to hassle the rpg.net mods about was consistency and fairness. I'm a great believer in fairness - standards or rules may be loose, or harsh, I can handle either - but they should always be fair. If Lev's at all worthy of banning, if it's even worth considering, then Brasky and Paul should definitely be banned, on the same standards.

They're here to stir shit, not to talk rpgs. It's not theshitstirringsite, it's therpgsite.

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd if you're not known you can't be disruptive.

Soon therpgsite will become the thejorunesite....("damn it, you said that out aloud...he...they wont understand... :mad: ") :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzSerious Paul and AnimalballBrasky signed up just to attack RPGPundit and stir up shit;

No, no you're confused. We're not attacking Pundit. We're attacking the rest of you in that thread. We're calling you, the membership, fanboys who seem idolize Pundit for no particularly good reason.

As far as I can tell that's on topic for that forum since it is called "Pundit's own forum."

(If you're going to hate me, fine. But hate me for the appropriate reasons.)

Quotetheir posts since then have largely had nothing to do with rpgs.

I'm sorry is there some sort of requirement that I post X number of RPG posts for every Off topic post I make? is it some sort of unwritten rule I am unaware of? Or are you just electing yourself moderator of what is on topic and what isn't?

(I am flattered you're following my posting so closely.)

There is an Off Topic forum. I post to it. Why is that so bad? Should I attempt to post drivel to the RPG forums and clog them, when I have nothing to say?

And what if I enjoy reading the RPG threads? Even if I don't comment, I can't read? Is every lurker here going to be required to post Jimbo?

I suggest you take the stick out of your ass, climb down off your soap box and worry about making your own posts constructive, there by letting your reputation be built by what you do. (I'm pretty fine with mine, I'm not looking for your help. As well meaning as it.)

Quote from: JimBobOzThey're here to stir shit, not to talk rpgs. It's not theshitstirringsite, it's therpgsite.

I think you under estimate both us. I can only speak for myself, but as I've already said I've limited my fun to one thread. I've tried to maintain a creative and constructive input in other areas.

I guess that rubs you wrong. Luckily, I don't care. You seem, from your posts, to be a greatly sensitive tit who needs a hug. when you're ready, I have one for you.

Also Jimbo I'd like an apology for every Off topic reply you've ever made, since according to you it's all dead weight. So I expect we can see all of your Off topic forum posts deleted shortly? And you will of course never post there again, right?

Since anyone who isn't here to specifically discuss RPG's isn't welcome right? And you do speak for everyone, right?

Okay, I still don't care about Lev...  but can we ban Serious Paul?  :p

Quote from: Serious PaulNo, no you're confused. We're not attacking Pundit. We're attacking the rest of you in that thread. We're calling you, the membership, fanboys who seem idolize Pundit for no particularly good reason.

Yippee for you.

Quote from: Serious Paul(If you're going to hate me, fine. But hate me for the appropriate reasons.)

I don't hate you. You're just irrelevant, and at least trying to be destructive, to therpgsite.

Quote from: Serious aulI'm sorry is there some sort of requirement that I post X number of RPG posts for every Off topic post I make? is it some sort of unwritten rule I am unaware of? Or are you just electing yourself moderator of what is on topic and what isn't?

It's not "electing myself moderator." I'm a member of the forum. This particular thread has a moderator of this forum asking us about moderation of it. We've been asked for our opinions, so I'm giving mine.

As to posts about rpgs vs posts not about rpgs, there are two things here.

First is "does the guy add anything to the place in terms of rpg talk? Does this person subtract anything?" I would say, if you only post about non-rpg stuff, then I wonder what the fuck you're doing here, but you're harmless, so I'd say, "leave the guy alone." You'd be a net zero, neither adding to the rpg talk, nor subtracting from it.

If you only post about non-rpg stuff and run around insulting the other members, then you're a net negative and should probably be banned.

It's a balance thing, no hard and fast rules, you just gotta judge each case on its merits. Like RPGPundit was asking us to do here with lev_lafayette.

The second point is, well, quality vs quantity. Let's suppose joewolz went crazy and started flaming everyone. He doesn't post about rpgs much, but when he does, it's interesting stuff. Whereas for example JongWK posts a lot, but it's not always that interesting to everyone. So overall they both contribute a lot to the rpg talk here.  

Quote from: Serious Paul(I am flattered you're following my posting so closely.)

Not really. I just read and post on the main roleplaying subforum, and the off topic subforum, and I notice you're strongly present on one but not the other. You make yourself noticed, so you're noticeable by your absence.

Quote from: Serious PaulShould I attempt to post drivel to the RPG forums and clog them, when I have nothing to say?

If you've nothing to say about rpgs, then I wonder why you're here. On, you know, therpgsite.

Quote from: Serious PaulAnd what if I enjoy reading the RPG threads? Even if I don't comment, I can't read? Is every lurker here going to be required to post Jimbo?

I don't see why not. A policy of expelling lurkers would do no harm at all. But even without that - if someone just lurks, fine, so what, like I said, they're a net zero to the place, neither adding to nor subtracting from it. So who cares, they're harmless.

But if they say nothing about the main topic of the forum, and at the same time insult other posters, and yabber along in the off-topic subforums, well, fuck 'em. Let them go crap on someone else's lawn.

Quote from: Serious PaulI suggest you take the stick out of your ass, climb down off your soap box and worry about making your own posts constructive, there by letting your reputation be built by what you do. (I'm pretty fine with mine, I'm not looking for your help. As well meaning as it.)

The constructiveness of my posts is not for me to judge, nor is my "reptutation" (whatever that means on a little message board). It's for others to judge. As to your reputation, I am indifferent to it. I just want you to at least occasionally talk about rpgs, or shut up, or fuck off to some other board whose focus is on the things you do like to talk about.

Each person should talk about whatever interests them. But forums have to have a focus, a main topic of discussion. If the topic doesn't bring the people together, then what will? Just their individual likes and dislikes for each-other. In other words, they form a clique. Which is pretty sad, and goes against the stated purpose of this place.

I don't have to apologise for off-topic posts, anymore than my players have to apologise for saying "hey did you see that football game?" There'll always be talk outside the main toic, that's fine. But if there's only that off-topic talk from a person, you've got to wonder why they're there. If some player in my group never roleplays, just talks shit, then I'll wonder why they're there. If they add insults to other people in the group, then I'll toss 'em out. But if they roleplay, and talk shit, and occasionally insult others, then I'll balance up how good their roleplaying is before deciding whether to toss 'em out. It's a balance thing.

Talk about rpgs, or shut up about everything, or go to some site whose topics match your interests. But don't crap on our lawn.

You do a great job of making yourself look like a jerk, which means I don't have to. Let me know how that banning lurkers thing goes!

Dude, you can't possibly win with a "he posts off topic stuff in the off topic forum, let's ban him" platform.

Serious Paul makes a very fine point:

The concepts of "contributing" and "useful posts" are just guises of the chimera of "common good".
Once somebody can establish authority over what is to be acknowledged as "common good", all nasty things can be done in that name.

Look at RPG.Net. All Moderation there is done for the "common good"...

Quote from: SettembriniSerious Paul makes a very fine point:

The concepts of "contributing" and "useful posts" are just guises of the chimera of "common good".
Once somebody can establish authority over what is to be acknowledged as "common good", all nasty things can be done in that name.

Look at RPG.Net. All Moderation there is done for the "common good"...

I'm fine with the concept of community standards.  RPG.net does not, as a general rule, consult the userbase on their opinion before making decisions.  One could argue it's because the userbase is too unwieldy to do so.

As a small messageboard with a small userbase where everyone knows each other, this kind of thing works and it works well.  Ain't nothing wrong with asking everyone here, "Hey, is that guy who wandered in and started pissing on the carpet annoying ya'll?  You want to kick him out?"

There are 1600 plus members here. Less than 600 are active. That means 1 in 3 people.

Some of post, but only post when we feel we add something to the discussion.

Much of the time, for ex, I have something I could say but because it doesn't add much, I don't take the time. For me, it's kind of a time-effort-value equation.

Here, I think there's no value in banning Lev. I think it'd be a bad idea. Going from RPGPundit's stated rational for banning you, Serious Paul and Brasky, tread really close to the line, though I wouldn't ban you because you're not disruptive enough to the site and occasionally post something of value.

For this site, now, banning people is almost always going to be worse then the problems they cause.

Holy fucksticks! And people reckon there's navel-gazing at the Forge! Settembrini, I agree.

I am against banning Lev. More on that soon, as I read the thread :)

EDIT: I've read it. Long story short.

I disagree in that the solely goal of Lev is to attack you, Pundit, unless you define that as "defending my opinions against the shit and insults that you fling in my direction."

Also, he doesn't attack the mission statement in any way, unless you define that as disagreeing with you on that D&D is the best thing ever. Lev is a guy that carries an RQ book and uses it to teach kids what is roleplaying. Unless RQ is now a Swine game and I haven't received notice, I don't see him as promoting any agenda other than defending himself and stating his opinions.

If Lev is banned, most of us should be banned.

Settembrini, no one is more aware of the slippery slope of administerial power than I am, nor of the risk of corruption for those in power.

Faced with the likes of Lev, blakkie, TonyLB, etc (blatant Swine) on the one side, people like Paul and Bill Brasky (drunken fratboys out to make trouble) on another side, and people like Dominus Nox (retards) in the third; I think the fact that I haven't banned a single person in all this time speaks volumes, and is a victory for the site, and puts the lie to ANY argument that "heavy moderation" is needed to "control" roleplayers and make it possible to have a productive environment.  RPG.net's modclique are liars, we've proven it.

So I think on the other hand, I could be granted a bit of trust that if someone comes along who is attacking the board, I could ban him without suddenly throwing all of that away and becoming a totalitarian nutjob.
Again, if that's NOT so, then I shouldn't be banning spambots either by your logic.  There is NO effective difference between a spambot and a guy who would come in here just to attack the site.

RPGPundit

QuoteSettembrini, no one is more aware of the slippery slope of administerial power than I am, nor of the risk of corruption for those in power.

That´s great, and all that matters.

See, I can see that you are torn between your alpha male persona ("punish them pigfuckers!") and your classic liberal intellect ("let the dogs bark").
It´s good that intellect wins.
And being a human that can be angered is understandable. Overcoming the animal is civilization.

But to give in to those feelings leads to, how cheesy, the dark side.

@people who think I´m nuts for bringing this up in a totally irrelevant RPGForum:
It´s important because this site is irrelevant on a larger scale. If you can´t grant others freedom when it doesn´t hurt, doesn´t cost you anything, if the discussions are basically irrelevant and not about, say, the death penalty, then you can never grant freedom in truly important manners.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs for whether I think he should be banned or not? Who the heck is he? No offense to Lev, but he's not exactly made a huge splash here. And if you're not known you can't be disruptive. So no, I don't think he should be banned.

Exactly, I have no idea who Lev is, only the most limited exposure to Serious Paul (and since I've never discussed anything with him have no views on him either way) and don't think I know AnimalBrasky.

Frankly, these guys are not high profile on this site, they post to maybe one or two threads only and if you don't post on those (and I don't much) then were it not for the discussion of banning them I doubt most of us would even be aware of them.

I'm checking Paul's posting record, and he has made several RPG-related entries. So I say no to his potential banning, too.

As things stood, there was never any serious consideration of banning Paul. He'd  have to become far more asinine and disruptive before I'd even consider banning him.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzPeople register at therpgsite just to attack RPGPundit. Nobody registers here just to attack me or Nox or whoever. Serious Paul and AnimalballBrasky signed up just to attack RPGPundit and stir up shit

Don't be an idiot Jimbob-- if you read the posts, you'd have seen that Paul and I both expressed how we liked Pundit, but didn't understand the slavish devotion to him.

We weren't making fun of him, buddy.  We were making fun of the rest of you.  And it's funnier that you don't recognize that.

Denial can be a powerful motive.

Quote from: Animalball BraskyDon't be an idiot Jimbob-- if you read the posts, you'd have seen that Paul and I both expressed how we liked Pundit, but didn't understand the slavish devotion to him.

We weren't making fun of him, buddy.  We were making fun of the rest of you.  And it's funnier that you don't recognize that.

I recognise that you think that, but you're wrong. If you'd read more often than you posted, you'd notice that there's far from slavish devotion to RPGPundit here.

That's merely stupidity, though, and barely worth mentioning. Your real negativity is that you have no interest in talking about rpgs, you're only here to stir shit. You're here to tear down, not build up. You're like some dweeb who runs into the middle of a game session and pisses on the pizza. It's funny for you, but won't make you welcome.

And yet that's not true is it?

I mean it seems you've appointed yourself some sort of judge of our worthiness, when clearly the community as a whole doesn't care what you think. You've already made up your mind, and you're not interested in changing it for whatever reason.

Fine.

In the mean time you make yourself look more and more like a stubborn ass who refuses to face reality, even when presented with it. You've managed to make your name synonymous with repressive, which rhymes with RPG.net.

For a guy who claims to believe in freedom of speech you seem only interested in allowing those freedoms to people who meet some sort of exacting standard, that no one else wants instituted here-because it would make this place every bit as shitty and crappy as RPG.net.

What's funnier is you just don't get the joke, which is cool, but really just shut up. The more you talk about it, the dumber you look. Take a tactical time out, and think about it. Why confirm how stupid you are when you can just ignore people and let them think it, but never really be sure.

You may be some sort of cool in your hometown, but you're obviously out of your league here, and that seems to bother you. So you want to try and artificially induce conditions that will favor you, and allow you to retain some sort of control. Except, isn't that a shitty reason to want to be here?

Wouldn't have much more fun just talking about games, and ignoring the shit you don't care about? I'll gladly let you stoke the fires, because for me this is every bit as fun as discussing some bullshit theory about RPGs. (What kind of nerds are we when we have theory's about RPG's and take them so seriously.)

Quote from: Serious PaulI mean it seems you've appointed yourself some sort of judge of our worthiness,

Nope. We were asked for our opinions on whether lev_lafayette should be banned. The reasons given for his possible banning were that he came here only to attack RPGPundit, and/or others here, or the place as a whole. This naturally developed into a general discussion of when and where people should be banned. I pointed out two other people who'd only come here to attack RPGPundit or the place as a whole.

When asked for our opinions, we give them - that's not appointing ourselves judges, that's just responding to requests for input.

I wouldn't try to judge your worth; but anyone can try to judge the worth of what you've posted, the "worth" being relative to the site's purpose - to discuss rpgs.

Quote from: Serious Paulwhen clearly the community as a whole doesn't care what you think.

I'm sure the community as a whole doesn't care what I think. But a few people do, and I'd never know without posting and telling them what I think. And plainly, you care what I think, since you keep responding to it.

You know how over in the thread attacking RPGPundit, you said that if anyone posted any response at all, then you'd won, that proved your point. So, when someone posts in response to what you said, that shows that your opinion is important, yes? So surely if someone posts in response to what I've said, then that shows my opinion is important?

Or maybe neither of our opinions are that important, but people just post whenever they happen to feel like it? I think that's more likely.

Quote from: Serious PaulIn the mean time you make yourself look more and more like a stubborn ass who refuses to face reality, even when presented with it. You've managed to make your name synonymous with repressive, which rhymes with RPG.net.

Look like to whom? You? I'll try not to cry into my cheetos too much. How do you know the opinion of everyone reading the thread? Do millions of lurkers support you in email?

Quote from: Serious PaulFor a guy who claims to believe in freedom of speech you seem only interested in allowing those freedoms to people who meet some sort of exacting standard, that no one else wants instituted here-because it would make this place every bit as shitty and crappy as RPG.net.

In the first place, I don't believe in any absolute freedom of speech; it must be limited to avoid criminal stuff, and limited by venue, and so on. Secondly, I think the standards are not too exacting. "In a forum about X, you should not be there just to abuse the site owners and talk about everything except X. You should talk about X a lot, or be silent." It's not too difficult a standard to reach, I reckon.

Quote from: Serious PaulThe more you talk about it, the dumber you look. Take a tactical time out, and think about it. Why confirm how stupid you are when you can just ignore people and let them think it, but never really be sure.

Didn't you ever do high school debating? I guess not. Personal attacks are usually a sign of a weak argument. "Um... er... you're a poopyhead!" If your best argument is, "You are dumb!" then I find that a bit sad. Hell, even I can argue against me better than that, and I agree with me!

Quote from: Serious PaulWouldn't have much more fun just talking about games, and ignoring the shit you don't care about?

I've already said I enjoy off-topic discussions. I realise that as an American, English isn't your first language, but please try to understand anyway.*

It's not that I don't care about off-topic things, it's just that I don't want them to dominate the forum I'm in. If I wanted a forum where the off-topic blather of people who don't roleplay dominates the site and its moderation, I could go begging back to rpg.net and get myself back in. At the moment, the off-topic stuff doesn't spill over into the roleplaying forums - but I think it's best to nip it in the bud. We're just a young forum, we ought to start as we mean to go on.

___
* See, we can both do personal attacks! Isn't this special? You want to mud wrestle, too?

Quote from: Animalball BraskyDon't be an idiot Jimbob-- if you read the posts, you'd have seen that Paul and I both expressed how we liked Pundit, but didn't understand the slavish devotion to him.

We weren't making fun of him, buddy.  We were making fun of the rest of you.  And it's funnier that you don't recognize that.

Not sure I recognise that, Pundit has a few people I guess who mostly agree with him but to most of us he is just another poster.

I suppose, to be fair, I do regard it as an achievement on his part that I see him as just another poster, as it implies he is succeeding in his goal of light touch moderation.  But the thing about people being devoted to him, that's something I think that you assumed would be here when you arrived and you haven't bothered to notice that your assumption was incorrect.

I post here in part because when I disagree with Pundit, who is after all the site's owner or core moderator or whatever, I can tell him to fuck off and not be banned.  I like having that freedom, it's as simple as that really.

Now, the thread that people are getting fired up about is obviously a dig at the site's other posters, but that just makes it a troll.  Rather a successful troll given it's clearly quite a long thread and gets lots of attention so kudos for that, but a troll all the same.

Wow, I really got under your skin, eh?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only reason he's here is to attack me, even moreso than any of the other Swine here.

Nonsense. Already disproven by other posts.

Quote from: RPGPunditHe'd never have joined the site if it wasn't for the fact that he was humiliated at being tonguelashed in a blog entry, and has started trolling my blog and this site as some bizzare kind of "revenge".

Many seem to think you came off second-best there.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts almost certain that all of his posts will simply involve attacking me, and possibly Jimbob whom he also appears to have a previous beef with, and trying to promote his Swine position.

Already disproven by other posts.

Quote from: RPGPunditOn the other hand, the guy's positions are so unbelievably outrageous that I'm almost tempted to let him stay as proof of what the Swine's real motives are; clearly none of his fellow porkers have come to him yet and told him the game plan; you know, the one of not saying what they really believe in order to make people think that they don't actually despise normal roleplayers and want to ruin the hobby?

This sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory. Maybe it is a paranoid conspiracy theory!

Quote from: RPGPunditHe gives the rest of the swine here such a bad rep that it might even be useful to have him around. He's the walking talking archetype of everything I've ever been saying about the Swine.

I'm sure you wish that was the case.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo I'm listening to advice here: what should I do with him? I'm not saying it gets to be put to a vote, but I want to know people's minds before I make my decision.

If you ban me for the posts I have taken you will display to all the depth and type of your moral reasoning.

For the record, I have now seen several posts from Lev on roleplaying and generally they have caught my interest.  At this point I'd be sorry to lose him.

Fuck you, Balbinus!
This whole:

"I have weighed his posts and found them worthy!"-bullshit really makes me angry!

Anybody who thinks he is in the position to judge the "value" of posts to "the community" should be tied up in a dentist chair and be force fed some serious 18th century political writings, until even his farts sound like "Liberté!" and his shit starts looking like the declaration of independence.


.

Oh, please, Settembrini, fuck off.

Everyone here is in the position of judging anyone else's post and his contribution to the community, the world peace, or whatever you want. You, and I, and everyone else in this thread have been doing just that. Don't start with that shit now.

As we are a community, we are all judges of everyone else's behaviour. Where did you get such an stupid idea?

You judge by replying to the post-maker.
Talking about him as if he were some kind of supplicant or whatever is really...

Well, either you see the fucked-upness of this mindset yourself, or you don´t.

Quote from: SettembriniFuck you, Balbinus!
This whole:

"I have weighed his posts and found them worthy!"-bullshit really makes me angry!

Anybody who thinks he is in the position to judge the "value" of posts to "the community" should be tied up in a dentist chair and be force fed some serious 18th century political writings, until even his farts sound like "Liberté!" and his shit starts looking like the declaration of independence.


.

What's the problem?  I'm not speaking for anyone else.  For me, personally, I find his contribution worthwhile.  I didn't speak for the community, I didn't say that I was in a position to judge his post's value to the community.  That's stuff you introduced, I said that his posts had caught my interest and that I would be sorry to lose him.

I struggle rather to see why my deciding for myself that I find a particular poster's comments interesting and like having that poster around merits a fuck off.  I do think my saying that I find his stuff of value is directly relevant to a thread about whether he ought to be banned or not.  Equally, if you find nothing he says of value that's relevant too.

Incidentally, I am fairly familiar with 18th Century political thought.  I further struggle to see the relevance of that to my personally finding a particular poster interesting, though I do think the founding fathers or Thomas Paine had they turned their minds to the topic would have thought it within my rights to decide what I find personally interesting.

Quote from: SettembriniYou judge by replying to the post-maker.
Talking about him as if he were some kind of supplicant or whatever is really...

Well, either you see the fucked-upness of this mindset yourself, or you don´t.

I don't see him as a supplicant, however if he takes exception to my commenting that I find his posts interesting he's welcome to take it up with me.

Again, you're bringing stuff to my post that just wasn't there.

Edit:  Also, replying to the post maker rather misses the context of this thread, which is a debate about whether he ought to be banned on the grounds of making no contribution.  In that context, to comment at all is to comment on his value as a contributor.  Not to comment risks him being banned on the basis that nobody has anything good to say about him.

Quote from: JimBobOzI recognise that you think that, but you're wrong. If you'd read more often than you posted, you'd notice that there's far from slavish devotion to RPGPundit here.

No shit, Jimbob?  Really?  I'm not going to rehash what's already been discussed in the other thread.  But thanks for your hostility sport.

QuoteThat's merely stupidity, though, and barely worth mentioning. Your real negativity is that you have no interest in talking about rpgs, you're only here to stir shit. You're here to tear down, not build up.

Hey asshole, for someone who accuses others of not reading posts, why don't you read my fucking posts?  Or better yet, why don't you go read my site (where you're a registered member) where I've talked about what I think of this site.  Why don't you go read about how I like what's going on here, I like what Pundit's doing, and how I think it would be tragic if Pundit went down an RPG.net form of moderation.  Don't like the way I'm delivering the message?  Well fuck you and go back to RPG.net if you need to be molly coddled, dickwad.

QuoteWhat's the problem? I'm not speaking for anyone else. For me, personally, I find his contribution worthwhile. I didn't speak for the community, I didn't say that I was in a position to judge his post's value to the community. That's stuff you introduced, I said that his posts had caught my interest and that I would be sorry to lose him.

This is all well and nice.

But in the context of the thread, your and other peoples statements get another meaning.

They imply, that postership on this board is tied to being perceived as a  "valuable poster".

I think Lev is a shithead, and deserves mockery and rejection. But that has got nothing to do with banning somebody.

So generally, I´m with you. But in this case and context, there is no need to vouch for anbodys "worthiness".

Quote from: SettembriniThis is all well and nice.

But in the context of the thread, your and other peoples statements get another meaning.

They imply, that postership on this board is tied to being perceived as a  "valuable poster".

I think Lev is a shithead, and deserves mockery and rejection. But that has got nothing to do with banning somebody.

So generally, I´m with you. But in this case and context, there is no need to vouch for anbodys "worthiness".

I accept your point as a matter of principle, but practically my concern is that unless we get our hands dirty and comment on someone's value they may get banned.  That's why I thought there was a need to vouch, because although I agree with you that we shouldn't be judging each other's value as a test to see who stays and who gets banned that box was already open.  

Put another way, the context was opened by the original post, at that point we can either engage within that context and implicitly validate that context or refuse to do so but risk someone being banned by virtue of a lack of disagreement.  I chose the former, being more concerned with the outcome than the process (which doesn't mean the process doesn't matter, just here that pass was already sold).

I see.

I can respect that, although I think you thereby further the mentioned mindset, by "playing along".

It´s nice to have someone understand my point, though!
:bow:

Quote from: SettembriniI see.

I can respect that, although I think you thereby further the mentioned mindset, by "playing along".

It´s nice to have someone understand my point, though!
:bow:

I did, and in all honesty I did so without entirely thinking it through, there is a real question about whether at this point in the thread there was still a need for me to comment given the trend seemed already to have moved away from banning.  It's entirely possible I contributed nothing toward avoiding having him banned but did contribute to the idea that we can be judged for membership by the content of our posts, if so then I got it wrong.

But that's the thing, we act and sometimes we support that which we mean to and sometimes we don't.  I prefer as a matter of personal philosophy to act on instinct, and instinct argued that there was merit in presenting a counterview.  Instinct isn't always right of course, and here may not have been, but overall I tend to find for me it is right more often than it is wrong.

I think that, more then Levs presence, it's the resolution of the stupid-ass argument between JimBob and Brasky that's going to decide where this board goes.

Quote from: Thanatos02I think that, more then Levs presence, it's the resolution of the stupid-ass argument between JimBob and Brasky that's going to decide where this board goes.

Yes. And the real point which will be lost amid all the dick waving about freedom of speech, is, who actually makes a productive contribution to this board. (Which is not a criteria for anything, but rather an indication of the direction of this board) I mean, think about, besides these two incidents, the rules or the mods have not really made their presence felt.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Thanatos02I think that, more then Levs presence, it's the resolution of the stupid-ass argument between JimBob and Brasky that's going to decide where this board goes.

I read that argument as,

"will we have a Frat Boys Talking Shit board, or a roleplaying board?"

Is that how you read it? As a party to it, it's hard to be objective.

Quote from: David RYes. And the real point which will be lost amid all the dick waving about freedom of speech, is, who actually makes a productive contribution to this board.

Or rather, "what is a productive contribution to the board, and should we even care or dare to judge if it's productive or not?"

I think you have a valid concern, when it comes to wanting meaningful contribution, however I always say don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think those of us who want this place to be something productive should simply endeavor to set a community standard by our actions. If you always make clever, well thought out posts that are well researched and backed by sound logic then the burden is upon me to meet that standard when debating with you, whether for or against.

I'm way out of my league with some of you: I have no college education to speak of, little experience with a lot of the games some of you play, less experience with the gaming industry as a whole, and so for me it's not always easy to make my posts witty and well thought out. But it does increase my drive to show all of you that I can post at your level, and as such I try harder.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's entirely possible I contributed nothing toward avoiding having him banned but did contribute to the idea that we can be judged for membership by the content of our posts, if so then I got it wrong.

But clearly, people can be judged for membership by the content of their posts. Hotgirlxxx who posts nothing but links to porn sites gets banned.
Likewise, Swineguy who posts nothing but attacks on the site will also get banned.

The thing people object to would be if it was like a subjective method of thought control; the way things are on RPG.net. But its not that, its a litmus test: do you post ANYTHING productive, or are you just here to cause noise and disruption to the site?  If you post productively, then you can be as big a fratboy as you like, as swiney as you like, whatever, and you will not be banned (sometimes certain other measures might be taken, as was the case with James McMurray).

Now as for the other issue, the one Jimbob raises about "Will we have a Fratboys talking shit board, or an RPG board?", that one can only be resolved by the will of the readership itself. Of course, having mods who are all hell-bent on the focus of this site remaining on RPGs is something that will surely help, but the mods can't do it alone; the thing is, I don't think we can moderate that kind of thing away, at least not with out turning into a mockery of everything the mission statement of the site stands for.

Someone who ONLY comes here to be a "fratboy talking shit" could likewise end up banned, via the same litmus test that Spambots and "Swine Kamikazes" fall under. But in the end the way you beat that trend, IMO, is by making more posts and focusing on the threads about RPGs.

I can assure you however, that at least to me, the RPG forum(s) will always be the most important on this site.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious PaulI think those of us who want this place to be something productive should simply endeavor to set a community standard by our actions. If you always make clever, well thought out posts that are well researched and backed by sound logic then the burden is upon me to meet that standard when debating with you, whether for or against.

(Bolding mine) If this is the standard my days here are numbered :D Frankly what I find disruptive to the forum is nonsense like "Why are you on his dick" thread which was not only pretty ignorant, but served no purpose but to stir shit up. I'm not saying that threads like this should be closed -I just don't participate in em' that's all - but I do think it pollutes the site. Frankly I find drama like this boring.

Most folks here come to talk about rpgs first then other stuff second. We are also, if rumours are to be believed, pretty rough in our manner - although I don't necessarily think this is true. But between Jimbob's "speak English motherfucker" Jules persona and the Pundit's Joe Pesci like Swine rants, the perception of this site for better or worse is one of straight talking no BS gunslingers. Think Deadwood only everybody speaks English (which can be understood)

:shrug: Posting about rpg stuff which few read, is always more constructive than posting stuff that ends in a train wreck. We have been given the keys to the Kingdom - lets not let the barbarians in.

Off course we(the Pundit) have to decide who these barbarians are exactly? With regards to this, for as long as possible the community should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions. That to me is most important aspect of the whole freedom of speech deal.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Serious PaulI think you have a valid concern, when it comes to wanting meaningful contribution, however I always say don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I dunno about "meaningful." I would just say, you know, what are we here for? If my game group says, "hey dickhead, prepare a campaign for us, we want to roleplay on Tuesday night!" then when I'm there with my dice and cheetos and books, I'd like to roleplay, and if one of those guys starts reading a comic or yakking on his mobile phone all night, then I am going to be pissed off. On the other hand, I like to work out, too, and if someone invited me to go to the gym with them, and then stopped in the gym cafe and whipped out the game books, I'd be pissed off, too.

It doesn't have to be all brilliant roleplaying, or the best workout ever, but if we're going to game, let's game, and if we're going to work out, let's work out. Focus, relevancy, stuff like that. "I am here to do this kind of shit, not this other kind of shit."

So if I wanted to talk about h4wt cosplay chixxorz! and What Happened At The Office and Rights for Minorities and Exalted, then I'd go cap in hand back to rpg.net to get back in; if I wanted frat boy shit-talking, I'd wander back in to Animbalball. But I'm not that interested in those things, I'm interested in rpgs, and the occasional bit of talk about politics and stuff. So here I am at therpgsite, because when it started, seemed like that was how it was going to be.

Like RPGundit says, and like I said in my last Letter To rpg.net, a site's style is determined not by moderators, but by its users. That's why I'm here talking like this, about how I'd like to see the site go. Not because I am Judge JimBobOz, but just because I'm a poster here, and I'm hoping to keep having certain kinds of conversations.

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm way out of my league with some of you: I have no college education to speak of, little experience with a lot of the games some of you play, less experience with the gaming industry as a whole, and so for me it's not always easy to make my posts witty and well thought out. But it does increase my drive to show all of you that I can post at your level, and as such I try harder.

I think you're underestimating yourself, and overestimating the site as a whole. You don't have to be smart or witty or have played half the games on John Kim's Bigass List of RPGs. You just have to like rpgs, and like to talk about them. It's plain you're well-qualified to do that. You just tend to put your effort into non-rpg posts instead. But that's your choice, nothing to do with how smart or experienced you are or aren't.

And the rest of us are not that smart. I post to learn stuff, and share a laugh or two. If I knew a lot, I wouldn't have to post at all. I post to see what people have to say, and learn from them. I dunno what others post for, but that's me.

Quote from: David Rbetween Jimbob's "speak English motherfucker" Jules persona and the Pundit's Joe Pesci like Swine rants, the perception of this site for better or worse is one of straight talking no BS gunslingers.

Ah, Jules, what a man!

(http://www.pulpfictionwallets.com/images/jules-with-gun.gif)

If I ever go back to The Forge, that could be my avatar.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou don't have to be smart or witty or have played half the games on John Kim's Bigass List of RPGs.

And you don't even need to have done that to be a useful contributor on this site. If you've only ever played three or four RPGs, and you just want to talk a lot about those games, that's cool too.

RPGPundit

Also, Joe Pesci? I was thinking more "Bill the Butcher".. though I did always like the "Joe Pesci Show" skit from SNL... :D

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzI recognise that you think that, but you're wrong. If you'd read more often than you posted, you'd notice that there's far from slavish devotion to RPGPundit here.

That's merely stupidity, though, and barely worth mentioning. Your real negativity is that you have no interest in talking about rpgs, you're only here to stir shit. You're here to tear down, not build up. You're like some dweeb who runs into the middle of a game session and pisses on the pizza. It's funny for you, but won't make you welcome.

Jimknob is doing a number six again:


6
.Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.;)

Quote from: RPGPunditThe thing people object to would be if it was like a subjective method of thought control; the way things are on RPG.net. But its not that, its a litmus test: do you post ANYTHING productive, or are you just here to cause noise and disruption to the site?

Determining if someone posts something or anything productive means you are making a subjective evaluation of their posts-- and if that is the ultimate determinent of whether they get banned, you are encroaching on the line of "a subjective method of thought control."

QuoteIf you post productively, then you can be as big a fratboy as you like,

Read: Serious Paul

QuoteNow as for the other issue, the one Jimbob raises about "Will we have a Fratboys talking shit board, or an RPG board?", that one can only be resolved by the will of the readership itself. Of course, having mods who are all hell-bent on the focus of this site remaining on RPGs is something that will surely help, but the mods can't do it alone; the thing is, I don't think we can moderate that kind of thing away, at least not with out turning into a mockery of everything the mission statement of the site stands for.

This has been my point all along and I agree with it completely, if when you say "the focus of this site remaining on RPGs" by mods, means they redirect conversation and start RPG-related topics, not banning or warning people who go off-topic.

QuoteSomeone who ONLY comes here to be a "fratboy talking shit" could likewise end up banned, via the same litmus test that Spambots and "Swine Kamikazes" fall under. But in the end the way you beat that trend, IMO, is by making more posts and focusing on the threads about RPGs.

Your last point is the most important, and has been what I've been saying all along.  For what it's worth, you'd never have to ban me.  If you simply ask me to stop (privately or publically)-- I'll do so, Pundit.  Even if my message is delivered crassly, I've made my points critiquing the boards for (what I hope) is the better.  If you don't want the criticism aired publically, just ask.

Sure, but may I say that, given the number of people on here who despise me; and the even larger number that are just indifferent, I think your whole "point" was pretty ridiculous. The "proxy" phenomenon, if it ever existed, has long since passed.

..probably because I treated it with the right amount of utter non-seriousness.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzI read that argument as,

"will we have a Frat Boys Talking Shit board, or a roleplaying board?"

Is that how you read it? As a party to it, it's hard to be objective.

I read it as more of a pointless feud. At some point, which is any thread outside where the argument stemmed, it's essentially a pointless gesture to continues to hash out the discussion. "Why are you on his dick?" was a retarded thread, and the 'discussion' that took place in it, on both sides, was shit. OTOH, everyone has a bad thread. Nox even has a whole lot. They came to stir up shit, but they stayed for the cookies. I mean, it's not like I like either of them all that much right now, but rehashing that debate over and over is doing far worse then that thread ever did.

Quote from: PunditSure, but may I say that, given the number of people on here who despise me; and the even larger number that are just indifferent, I think your whole "point" was pretty ridiculous. The "proxy" phenomenon, if it ever existed, has long since passed.

..probably because I treated it with the right amount of utter non-seriousness.

If you're loud enough, and have enough opinions, it's easy to get yourself a cult of personality online. But it does tend to kill discussion, don't it? Sycophants are boring as shit, and never have any good ideas.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "proxy" phenomenon, if it ever existed, has long since passed.

In retrospect, I can see why Nikchick thought you had an invisible army at your beck and call.  At the same time Jong first appeared on RPGnet I was questioning the modding technique she employed in banning you from the Green Ronin boards.  The funny thing is, I wasn't on her LJ to fight the good fight for you, I was trying to see to what extant your version of those events was bullshit.  I thought that case provided a good opportunity to try to verify exactly how much you were yanking people's chains in your blog.

Quote from: RPGPunditSettembrini, no one is more aware of the slippery slope of administerial power than I am, nor of the risk of corruption for those in power.

Faced with the likes of Lev, blakkie, TonyLB, etc (blatant Swine) on the one side, people like Paul and Bill Brasky (drunken fratboys out to make trouble) on another side, and people like Dominus Nox (retards) in the third; I think the fact that I haven't banned a single person in all this time speaks volumes, and is a victory for the site, and puts the lie to ANY argument that "heavy moderation" is needed to "control" roleplayers and make it possible to have a productive environment.  RPG.net's modclique are liars, we've proven it.

So I think on the other hand, I could be granted a bit of trust that if someone comes along who is attacking the board, I could ban him without suddenly throwing all of that away and becoming a totalitarian nutjob.
Again, if that's NOT so, then I shouldn't be banning spambots either by your logic.  There is NO effective difference between a spambot and a guy who would come in here just to attack the site.

RPGPundit

Hey asshole, if you think you can call people names like "Swine" and "retards" without them firing back at you, you're either a stupid bastard or an arrogant one.

One of the worst kinds of behavior I see in mods, be they the cocksucking assholes running rpg.net or the cocksucking assholes running sjgames forums is the attitude that "I can make cracks and snipes at you, but if you DARE to say anything negative about me you're BANNED!!!!" (In fact, on both forums people really only get banned because a mod doesn't like something about them.)

That seems to be what you're inching towards.

BTW, motherfucker, just why in the fucking hell did you just have toi drag me into your piss fight with this lev guy anyway? I suppose you were stupid enough to think you could make that 'retard' crack about me and not have me return fire. Jesus, no wonder you moved to a third world country, you're too fucking stupid to cut it in the western world......


Since you obviously don't have the braincells to figure it out for yourself, I guess someone has to tell your fucktarded ass that if you ban a user, the modclique on rpg.net will fucking celebrate this proof of your hypocrisy and your tacit admission that their way (banning people) is right and you were wrong all along.

Jesus christ, pundy, how does someone as fucking stupid as you manage to work a computer??? It really boggles the mind to think that an essentially brainless entity (you) can get online. They've made it too easy, even someone with a lower IQ than a rock can enter cyberspace now....

You seem to be very angry. Relax.

Though I can agree with you in that is not good sportsmanship on Pundit's side complaining on attacks ad hominem and such given that he started insulting people and calling them Swine and all that, I don't think that your post is very relevant, or useful for you. Yeah, the Pundit seem to be a bit of thin-skinned regarding some answers to him but, frankly, you end looking far worst than him.

For example, your third world remark. Mate, do you realize how much do you look like an ass for that? Do you really think that the 3rd world is exclusively populated by people who is too stupid to cut it in the US?

Is the term used still 3rdWorld ? I thought it was Developing Nations . :shrug: Well coming from a 3rd World (depending on your point of view of course) country, we have a lot of US citizens here, who I don't think are here because they couldn't cut it in the US but because there is a hell of a lot of opportunities here.

Dominus, you got a passport....ever been out of your country...state...parents home?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: ImperatorYou seem to be very angry. Relax.

Though I can agree with you in that is not good sportsmanship on Pundit's side complaining on attacks ad hominem and such given that he started insulting people and calling them Swine and all that, I don't think that your post is very relevant, or useful for you. Yeah, the Pundit seem to be a bit of thin-skinned regarding some answers to him but, frankly, you end looking far worst than him.

For example, your third world remark. Mate, do you realize how much do you look like an ass for that? Do you really think that the 3rd world is exclusively populated by people who is too stupid to cut it in the US?

I've just reached a point where I really don't give a damn if I offend people. Hell, in america being offensive is considered entertainment, as long as you offend the groups that the PC thought police have determined may be offended with impunity. These groups are:

White males, "rednecks", overweight people, christians, 'nerds' and "geeks.

Any and all offensive remarlks, stereotypes and such are fine and dandy, but god help you if you dare offend any other group.

Well, you know what? The PC speech nazis can kiss my ass. I'll offend whoever I want whenever I want, and if people don't like it, they can eat shit.

It's about time that some of us who've been on the "OK to offend list" started shooting back. If people don't like it, they can stop being so offensive to us all the time, or move to another fucking planet.

You'll notice you haven't been banned here, and neither has Lev.

On any other board, this post would have easily been grounds for permaban, and not just because a mod didn't like you. It violates commn decency, includes profanity, and directly antagonizes another user (a mod, even!). Never mind that you were provoked. Aren't you better than that? Hmm. Better not answer that.

The fact that the Pundit posted this thread, solicited feedback, and slowed down long enough to collect some perspective, is the same thing that lets you mouth off like this, and probably not get banned. I don't think this will ever be like any other corporate owned or community rpg site. They're all modded to some extent, but this is the first attempt I've seen at a truly democratic site.

This isn't a "nice" place. It's vulgar, a little seedy, a lot confrontational. There's no other rpg site quite like it on the net. It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it satisfies a need and so far, it's working.

Not the Pundit's smartest move, dragging you into this thread, but you don't seem to be particularly rational anyway, seeing as how your rabidity has, at least temporarily, placed you into the category of "IQ lower than a rock."

I'd suggest to you the same thing I told the Pundit at the beginning of this thread. Have your opinions, express them, and then walk away to cool off. Get some perspective. Driving your point beyond home and into absurdity will probably make everyone very unhappy.

Quote from: Dominus NoxHey asshole, if you think you can call people names like "Swine" and "retards" without them firing back at you, you're either a stupid bastard or an arrogant one.

*snip*

(In fact, on both forums people really only get banned because a mod doesn't like something about them.)

*snip*

BTW, motherfucker, just why in the fucking hell did you just have toi drag me into your piss fight with this lev guy anyway?

*snip*

Since you obviously don't have the braincells to figure it out for yourself, I guess someone has to tell your fucktarded ass that if you ban a user, the modclique on rpg.net will fucking celebrate this proof of your hypocrisy and your tacit admission that their way (banning people) is right and you were wrong all along.

Jesus christ, pundy, how does someone as fucking stupid as you manage to work a computer??? It really boggles the mind to think that an essentially brainless entity (you) can get online. They've made it too easy, even someone with a lower IQ than a rock can enter cyberspace now....

Quote from: Dominus NoxIf people don't like it, they can stop being so offensive to us all the time, or move to another fucking planet.

And therein lies the entire problem -- a sense of perceived persecution combined with a sense of entitlement. It's not unique to you -- everyone on the planet feels this way.

It's just the sad state of affairs that not everyone has enough humility and tolerance to temper these attitudes. It has nothing at all to do with being PC.

i would say there should be no bannings (almost) whatsoever.  the only caveat would be if an individual is clogging the entire works up here, and i think that would be pretty hard to do.  

i appreciate the fact that anyone can speak here.  if someone chooses to fly off the handle & vent, or has a different choice of words (like tons of expletives) then let them!  i like being at fora that don't treat their users like children.  if you think someone is being offensive, then IL them.

Quote from: rumbleAnd therein lies the entire problem -- a sense of perceived persecution combined with a sense of entitlement. It's not unique to you -- everyone on the planet feels this way.

They do?

I don't feel persecuted, really. Sure, there are things that make me people think unfairly badly of me in certain situations (lack of full-time work and age when going for a full-time job, military service, etc), but there are equally things that make them think unfairly well of me in other situations (being well-read, military service again), so overall it balances out.

As for sense of entitlement... I don't feel I'm entitled to much at all. There are things I hope for (say, children, more income, better looks), and more things I work for (hmmm, more income again, and children, and a good game session), but I don't feel entitled to much. And I don't think I'm unique, or even unusual in this respect.

I think you're generalising unfairly. You're confusing the sense of entitlement screamed by a few noisy net posters with a general one.

Yanno, just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out my perspective on this place.

By right of the nature of the moderation, yes, you can in fact shoot your mouth off and say whatever the fuck you want.  It means that if you want to, you can even be a complete dickbag.

However, this is a priviledge that can be overindulged.  We all have personal responsibility to act like adults, to keep in mind what we are saying, how it is likely to be taken, and whether our rhetoric is really necessary to the situation.

In my own posting, well, I can be kind of an asshole.  I have a certain impatience for percieved ignorance, and a tendency to want to cut straight throguh the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter without any pussy-footing about.  

What I like about this place is that I have the freedom to do so, if needs be.

But at the same time, I also have a fair deal of respect for a lot of the people here, even some of the people whom I've gotten in raging fights with in the past, so I tend to reserve my more cutting remarks for when I feel it's really necessary.

And, regardless of how courteous or otherwise I may choose to present myself, I always do my best to also contribute an actual salient point to the discourse.  Even if I intend to basically just point out why so and so is an asshole, I generally make it a point to explain why.  

It's a matter of importance to me that, even when I am displeased with someone, I maintain enough sense of mind to be able to present myself rationally.  

I see it as a matter of respect.  Even in the case of someone I cannot respect, it's still a matter of respect to present myself well to the rest of the people whom I do respect and might be reading my post.  

There were two recent threads in which I slipped, and became rather irrational, and for me, it's a point of some shame when those happen.  


But anyway, I'm rambling a bit and getting personal now, so I will round it back out to the general, with a singular line that I have used countless times, and I think is good to keep in mind:

Freedom of speech does not equla freedom from criticism.  

You have the right to say whatever the fuck you want, yes, but I have the right to respond how I wish as well, and if you can't tolerate that, the perhaps you are not mature enough to handle this whole "freedom of speech" thing after all?

Well put, J Arcane.  The whole point of the site is NOT to have a place where everyone engages in rank personal insults and baseless attacks and acting like shitheads because you're allowed to. Its a place where along with the freedom to say what you think, you are also expected to have the responsibility to do so in a way that doesn't end up disrupting the site.

And the community as a whole has the responsibility to step up and address people who are doing so, rather than rely on a gang of nanny-moderators who are drunk on their own power to "take care of them" (ie. police them).

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzI think you're generalising unfairly. You're confusing the sense of entitlement screamed by a few noisy net posters with a general one.

Well, if you replace "noisy net posters" with "people," I'm probably not far off your mark. :) Why bother restricting my opinion to the internet?

I have nothing but my own personal experience, attitude, and observations to work with, and one or all of them may be flawed.

I find I have to check myself when I feel like I deserve stuff, or feel like I'm being specifically (or by association) targeted, or think that my opinion or behavior should be the one respected and followed by others until it's proven wrong

Y'know, stuff like:
"I should have gotten that promotion."
"That fucker cut me off on purpose."
"Bitch/asshole just doesn't think I'm good enough for her/him."

I hear these sorts of comments during conversations with just about everyone I interact with. I say similar things myself, for myself, or on behalf of causes or groups, whether or not I identify with them.

I see the behavior so often that it's hard for me NOT to be confident in my generalization. Gah. My spouse is the only person who can tell you what a dork I am. Everyone else considers me pretty pleasant. Go figure.

People here should follow my example and use their ILs more often, hell I've got about 10 names on mine.

Quote from: Dominus NoxPeople here should follow my example and use their ILs more often, hell I've got about 10 names on mine.

Am I on your list ? Nobody has ever put me on IL before :(

Regards,
David R

Stop saying interesting things about roleplaying, and confine your posts to Off-Topic matters - especially when posting to the roleplaying subforums!

Or you could just use commas more.

Quote from: Serious PaulNo, no you're confused. We're not attacking Pundit. We're attacking the rest of you in that thread. We're calling you, the membership, fanboys who seem idolize Pundit for no particularly good reason.

Out of curiousity, who would decide wether a person idolizing Pundit had a "particularly good reason" to or not?
Would that be yourself or would that be Pundit?

Quote from: AnthrobotOut of curiosity, who would decide whether a person idolizing Pundit had a "particularly good reason" to or not?

Can I be naughty and say there isn't one?

QuoteWould that be yourself or would that be Pundit?

If it's me, you're all in trouble. I totally abuse what little authority I have in every way possible.

In a much more serious vein, I don't have the answers to that. I do see a fairly significant (By my own definition) portion of this community as being some pretty seriously over the top, unadulterated Pundit fan boys. Now if that makes them happy, who am I to cast stones? I also realize I am not some sort of self appointed judge of the fun.

However none of that will keep me from having a good laugh at those peoples, and my own, expense. I mean this is the internet folks. It's meant to be entertaining, at least as I understand it.

Hah! I was right! See his profile (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/member.php?u=1563),

"Join Date: 01-08-2007.... Last Activity: 02-07-2007 12:14 AM."

See, I told you he'd get bored and wander off. No need to ban people with a short attention span :p

Quote from: Serious PaulIn a much more serious vein, I don't have the answers to that. I do see a fairly significant (By my own definition) portion of this community as being some pretty seriously over the top, unadulterated Pundit fan boys. Now if that makes them happy, who am I to cast stones? I also realize I am not some sort of self appointed judge of the fun.

Care to point them out ? I mean, the one thing this site seems to lack (IMO) is any form of Pundit worship.

Regards,
David R

Where as I think it's pretty obvious that any forum with a subfora dedicated to a single has some hero worship going on. Add in the sheer number of threads seeking his approval, and I feel the case is made for me.

And don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I think people have to stop posting or anything like that.

Quote from: JimBobOzHah! I was right! See his profile (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/member.php?u=1563),

"Join Date: 01-08-2007.... Last Activity: 02-07-2007 12:14 AM."

See, I told you he'd get bored and wander off. No need to ban people with a short attention span :p

Yup, I'll grant you, you were spot on right about that.

Of course, it also proves that I was pretty much right about his motives for being here in the first place being less than pristine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious PaulWhere as I think it's pretty obvious that any forum with a subfora dedicated to a single has some hero worship going on. Add in the sheer number of threads seeking his approval, and I feel the case is made for me.

Dude, that Forum wasn't created by my adoring worshipers.  It was made by me, for me, as a mammoth testament to my own Ego.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, that Forum wasn't created by my adoring worshipers.  It was made by me, for me, as a mammoth testament to my own Ego.

RPGPundit

And he expects us to believe he's Canadian.

Lev is an active participant on the Runequest list, an active gamer as best I can tell and talks a lot in other places about rpgs.

If he has stopped here, that's our loss and most likely because it was made not worth his time to stay.

I struggle to see a Runequest grognard as a swine, however.

Quote from: Serious PaulAdd in the sheer number of threads seeking his approval, and I feel the case is made for me.

Some examples. I mean I've seen a few threads pissing on him , but as far as I can tell, I've seen no threads started out of a need for approval...it's one of the nicer aspects of this place.

Regards,
David R

QuoteI struggle to see a Runequest grognard as a swine, however.

Runequest was the first wave of pretentiousness, following Jeff Rients theory. Traveller also belongs into that first wave. It was countered with the pretentiousness that is AD&D 1st Edition.

Look at Lev´s RQ comments and comments on D&D: He´s still fighting that thirty year old dick waving battle:

"My game is more mature than yours!" that was the battle cry of many a RuneQuestian.

Quote from: Settembrini"My game is more mature than yours!" that was the battle cry of many a RuneQuestian.

As opposed to "my gaming is morally superior to yours" ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAs opposed to "my gaming is morally superior to yours" ?

Regards,
David R

Or "My gaming is so much morally to yours that I have to wage a fictitious war on you or something"?

Well, my game has more cheetos, motherfuckers!

Beat THAT.

Traveller pretentious? We're talking about the same Traveller, right? Little books, not many illustrations?

I mean, at a stretch you could hang that one on RQ. It had stuff about gods and worship and it had a unified system. Highly pretentious, I'm sure.

Quote from: droogTraveller pretentious? We're talking about the same Traveller, right? Little books, not many illustrations?

I mean, at a stretch you could hang that one on RQ. It had stuff about gods and worship and it had a unified system. Highly pretentious, I'm sure.

That's what I thought. Man, people in this game has skills. How more artsy can you get?

Quote from: ImperatorThat's what I thought. Man, people in this game has skills. How more artsy can you get?

I'm beginning to think that poor Sett, has gone Kurtz on us. All his posts about any game other than D&D roughly translates to - "The Horror, the horror..."

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'm beginning to think that poor Sett, has gone Kurtz on us. All his posts about any game other than D&D roughly translates to - "The Horror, the horror..."

Regards,
David R

He may start any day telling us how other games damaged his skill to enjoy gaming. Maybe even develop a jargon and a theory and...

Quote from: SettembriniLook at Lev´s RQ comments and comments on D&D: He´s still fighting that thirty year old dick waving battle:

Interestingly, he's just posted a review of the ad&d players handbook to that other place which rates the substance of the book "as a waste of my money." I can't get my head around that.

Quote from: SettembriniRunequest was the first wave of pretentiousness, following Jeff Rients theory. Traveller also belongs into that first wave. It was countered with the pretentiousness that is AD&D 1st Edition.

Look at Lev´s RQ comments and comments on D&D: He´s still fighting that thirty year old dick waving battle:

"My game is more mature than yours!" that was the battle cry of many a RuneQuestian.

Hm, and there I thought it was just a game aiming more at a feeling of realism and less at heroic high fantasy.

When it came out in the UK I remember we thought it was brilliant, everything we disliked about D&D had been addressed pretty much.  Great game.

We loved Traveller too as it happens.

Not sure what any of this has to do with swinedom though, IMO AD&D just isn't that well designed an rpg and at that time I hadn't seen the Cyclopedia so AD&D was my reference point.  I thought then, and think now, that Runequest just plain made more sense and was more fun to play.

I don't see anything swinish about this though, RQ is just a fun game.  Traveller too.  As for pretension, I can only imagine you had access to some different, more advanced, version of RQ and Trav than I ever did.

Quote from: One Horse TownInterestingly, he's just posted a review of the ad&d players handbook to that other place which rates the substance of the book "as a waste of my money." I can't get my head around that.

Not sure I wholly disagree, it has great advice for players but the actual rules are inconsistent, illogical and often just not much fun.

Sure, everything you need to create a character is there, but that doesn't make it any good if the characters don't make much sense.  Level limits for demihumans, percentile strength, there was just so much in it never made sense to me.

And this is judging it against its peers, at the time we thought it pretty crap and there wasn't even an internet then to help us in forming that view.  We played it, but when Runequest became available I don't think we looked back.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think it did everything it set out to do. I'm not sure what the 'substance' rating is actually meant to represent. It suggests to me information, usefullness and whether it delivers what it promises, rather than a subjective view of other things like the rules set. I might be mistaken, but that's what i'm going on and under that criteria, i don't see a problem at all with the PH. :raise:

Quote from: One Horse TownI guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think it did everything it set out to do. I'm not sure what the 'substance' rating is actually meant to represent. It suggests to me information, usefullness and whether it delivers what it promises, rather than a subjective view of other things like the rules set. I might be mistaken, but that's what i'm going on and under that criteria, i don't see a problem at all with the PH. :raise:

Isn't it necessarily personal?  I don't think that's one of his better reviews in fairness, as it should be possible to see why he hated it and so if the same reasons might be selling points to others.

I wasted my money is a personal thing, depending on whether the book gave any value to me or not.  Whether someone else would waste their money is another matter.  A good review gives enough detail that one can say "he may have wasted his money, but that sounds damn cool to me".

Bad reviews can often act as sales tools, if the tastes of the reviewer are clear and the review itself sufficiently detailed.

I agree by the way that it does what it set out to do, it's just that what it set out to do isn't something I particularly want.  You may have a point in fairness that he's not reviewing it against it's goals, which is wrong.

Quote from: One Horse TownI guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think it did everything it set out to do. I'm not sure what the 'substance' rating is actually meant to represent. It suggests to me information, usefullness and whether it delivers what it promises, rather than a subjective view of other things like the rules set. I might be mistaken, but that's what i'm going on and under that criteria, i don't see a problem at all with the PH. :raise:

On your way of viewing the substance test I'd probably give it a 4, it's very complete, but I would argue some rules (weapon speed say) are quite hard to understand and implement.

Quote from: BalbinusOn your way of viewing the substance test I'd probably give it a 4, it's very complete, but I would argue some rules (weapon speed say) are quite hard to understand and implement.

I should probably point out that i don't think it's the best book. I just think that there was little justification in the review for that sort of score, so it just seemed to be tacked on 'cos he doesn't like the game full stop. Mention of arbitrary level restrictions aside, i just don't see where that score came from.

You should all review Jeff Rients threefold model to even begin understanding my superiour insight.

Actually, you might want to review old dragon magazines around the time of 1st edition too. You should also lay close scrutiny to the merits RQ is supposed to have had at the time.

RQ players were the first generation of D&D haters, and mostly non-getters.

Even though I greatly appreciate RQ and Traveller (which happens to be my favorite system of all time), it must be made public, that the criticism against D&D most of the time was a grand misunderstanding of D&D.

That is to say: People wanted something that D&D never was made to cater to. And criticised it for lacking in those areas.

Like the old RQanista saying: "I´m interested in realism and deep character roleplaying. Those D&D players are all stupid and are only collecting items."

So I´m into strategic SciFi gaming, which is my own pretentiousness, as I look down upon reactive tactical challenges as being inferiour intellectual challenge. But I acknowledge the greatness that is all versions of D&D (except 2nd), because I understand their design and play principles. The old guard of RQanistas and D&D bashers didn´t get D&D. And Lev still doesn´t.

That is sad, very sad. He said in 2007 that RQ was for people interested in Roleplaying instead of...
What is there to say about it?

Only that I´m right. And Lev is roleplayologically retarded.
Which is no great feat, because it´s a thirty year old discussion. One only has to read about it. And one has to understand D&D.

And my friends I myself are of even higher pretentiousness than RQanistas, because I play Harnmaster, which beats your puny Staffordian wonkyness every day in regards to bean counting, harshness and "realism.

We did back then dislike D&D because it didn't do what we wanted, rather than because it did poorly what it was trying to do, and I think it's fair that we were unaware at the time that there was a distinction to be drawn in that regard (between failing to meet our requirements and failing to meet its objectives).

Hell, we were teenagers, on our view meeting our requirements was necessarily what everything's objectives should be.

Harn is basically to RQ what RQ is to D&D isn't it?  Great setting, quite good rules too, something I'd love to get into.

QuoteHell, we were teenagers, on our view meeting our requirements was necessarily what everything's objectives should be.

Yeah, and this is understandably and not to be lampooned. But thirty years later, strategic-military-realism-pretentiousness Settembrini and historical-realism-pretentiousness Balbinus can see the red box or RC and admire it´s sophistication in regards to ressource management and challenge generation, moreso we can look at the modules of D&D from as early as the seventies (Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Lost City, Against the Giants etc) and see constructed challenges that are of timeless quality, and of intellectual value.
We can read the 1st Ed: DMG or PHB and see sheer genius in Gygaxian writing. He´s spelling it all out, but we (mayhaps) didn´t see (or lived) it back then.

We read and we thought and we got older.

I´m asking, why can´t Lev do that?

Anybody who still takes up positions that have been falsified for over twentyfive years, is not worth of being taken seriously. Especially as he is making his statements not as one who desperately held out all those years, a crazed veteran so to say. No, he bluntly makes the same stupid "teenager-reflection" remarks all are trying to get the hobby out of. Like there wasn´t a discussion at all.

Quote from: SettembriniYeah, and this is understandably and not to be lampooned. But thirty years later, strategic-military-realism-pretentiousness Settembrini and historical-realism-pretentiousness Balbinus can see the red box or RC and admire it´s sophistication in regards to ressource management and challenge generation, moreso we can look at the modules of D&D from as early as the seventies (Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Lost City, Against the Giants etc) and see constructed challenges that are of timeless quality, and of intellectual value.
We can read the 1st Ed: DMG or PHB and see sheer genius in Gygaxian writing. He´s spelling it all out, but we (mayhaps) didn´t see (or lived) it back then.

We read and we thought and we got older.

I´m asking, why can´t Lev do that?

Anybody who still takes up positions that have been falsified for over twentyfive years, is not worth of being taken seriously. Especially as he is making his statements not as one who desperately held out all those years, a crazed veteran so to say. No, he bluntly makes the same stupid "teenager-reflection" remarks all are trying to get the hobby out of. Like there wasn´t a discussion at all.

This is so ridiculous. It's funny, I'll give you that Sett.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThis is so ridiculous. It's funny, I'll give you that Sett.

Regards,
David R

Ssshhhh. He's channeling Ron Edwards now.

Quote from: SettembriniYou should all review Jeff Rients threefold model to even begin understanding my superiour insight.

There's supposed to be a smiley after this, right?

It's self-mocking humor ... RIGHT?

There is no fun to be had with the revelations of Jeff Rients. You better go read them.

EDIT: http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html)

QuoteIt's self-mocking humor ... RIGHT?

No, mocking myself would take away all the carefully built internet credibility as a thougtfull and upright person that garnered worldwide respect through the careful nature of presenting his thoughts.

LOL.  Okay, now I don't even care whether you intended it as humorous.  I'm laughing either way.

Quote from: SettembriniYou should all review Jeff Rients threefold model to even begin understanding my superiour insight.

Okay, I am totally swiping that line and putting it on my blog.

OK, I don't know about you second-generation simulationist nerds, but the first thing we'd do when playing Trav back in '81 was plot a story map. Our best adventures were always psychodramas in jump space. A whole week locked up together in the Beowulf with nowhere to go and nothing to do. Well, except for smoking weed and cheating on each other in the (chuckle) fresher.

Quote from: SettembriniEven though I greatly appreciate RQ and Traveller (which happens to be my favorite system of all time), it must be made public, that the criticism against D&D most of the time was a grand misunderstanding of D&D.

That is to say: People wanted something that D&D never was made to cater to. And criticised it for lacking in those areas.
....................................................
Anybody who still takes up positions that have been falsified for over twentyfive years, is not worth of being taken seriously. Especially as he is making his statements not as one who desperately held out all those years, a crazed veteran so to say. No, he bluntly makes the same stupid "teenager-reflection" remarks all are trying to get the hobby out of. Like there wasn´t a discussion at all.

Okay, I see what you're saying now, and I think you've got a point. But so has Lev in saying that the PB wasn't all that hot. It was poorly organised; to the point where if I hadn't been a teenager with lots of time on my hands (to learn it by heart) it would have been very hard to use. AD&D as a whole also had some very screwy rules, and the DMG had a lot of fluff and padding (which was part of its charm, but made it harder to use).

I also think you're giving a lot of credit to Gygax for essentially being there first. I do not think the design of AD&D was as conscious as you imply, and I will point to the somewhat confused messages one gets from Gary's writing.

The modules, yes, they worked pretty well, but the G series, for example, was actually written for OD&D if I'm not mistaken. You're flipping about in time a bit. The red box, for example, didn't appear until after I had already stopped playing D&D.

The 1e PHB was extremely well organized overall, though the introductory sections were a little odd. But the organization isn't that different from 3e's, which people like so much, so...

The 1e DMG, now, that was a glorious fucked-up mess, one of the worst-organized books in the history of gaming. But the 1e PHB was not disorganized.

Lev's reviews on rpg.net are absurd. I think I'll go out and do a capsule review of Vampire 1e which consists entirely of pissing and moaning about goths - that would be more entertaining and about exactly as relevant to the game under consideration.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOK, I don't know about you second-generation simulationist nerds, but the first thing we'd do when playing Trav back in '81 was plot a story map. Our best adventures were always psychodramas in jump space. A whole week locked up together in the Beowulf with nowhere to go and nothing to do. Well, except for smoking weed and cheating on each other in the (chuckle) fresher.

You, sir, are a hilarious motherfucker...   :hatsoff:

I gotta see a game log of these "sessions" in Actual Play!



TGA

Quote from: CalithenaThe 1e PHB was extremely well organized overall, though the introductory sections were a little odd. But the organization isn't that different from 3e's, which people like so much, so...

The 1e DMG, now, that was a glorious fucked-up mess, one of the worst-organized books in the history of gaming. But the 1e PHB was not disorganized.

Well, maybe you're right and I'm thinking more of the DMG.

Well, 'extremely well organized' might be a stretch, but it's a book that you can easily flip through and make your character. The only real criticism I'd make of the organization is that there's a bit too much verbiage up front, but that's the EGGman for you.

I'd say it's better organized than most RPG books were up until about five years ago and still better organized than many.

The DMG though, man, infectious disease tables fifty plus pages before the hit and saving throw tables, that shit's crazy.

Quote from: CalithenaThe DMG though, man, infectious disease tables fifty plus pages before the hit and saving throw tables, that shit's crazy.

Nowadays I find the lack of organization in the DMG to be charming.  Whenever I re-read it (which I do from cover to cover every year or two), I find myself pleasantly surprised to rediscover something I had forgotten about since last read.

As a kid, I just thought it was stupid.  Clearly the hit charts and treasure tables should have been right in front.

Oh, I love the 1e DMG. I use it for lots of other games - heck, I pulled it out as part of prep for Hero's Banner the other day, to get Romanian-sounding noble titles (though I admit I found some better stuff on the web later) - the book is essentially a few rules together with EGGs compilation of all the stuff he found useful for running his D&D game and a lot of locally applicable tools.

And it contains two of the greatest charts in the history of gaming - the potion miscibility chart and the random prostitute chart. (The Wand of Wonder chart might be a third.)

But as a tool for Dungeon Mastering? Only if you've already been doing it for a while. I guess it does say 'Advanced' on the cover, but, um, it still could be a more clearly organized. Like, by throwing sections up in the air and assembling them randomly, you couldn't have done a lot worse.

I have sometimes wondered whether this was to make it harder for players to penetrate the DMs secrets, whether it was in some way intentional.

Yes, it is a bit of a stretch, Cali... Think of the spell info: about a third (IIRC) of the spells had additional (I guess "secret"?) write-ups in the DMG, causing much merriment during play as you had to flip through 2 books not 1 to check how they worked exactly. And as you say the saving throws and to-hit tables were in the DMG too, so the PHB is effectively unplayable on its own... unless saves and to-hit were "secret" too.

I learned English reading the DMG. Seriously, the DMG, and Sex Pistols lyrics. And the DMG was harder. The first couple of pages in particular... something about aquatic movement I could never figure out.

All of which is not to say that I agree with Lev. He seems to think exactly what Settembrini seems to think: that early D&D was ALL about resource-mongering your way through tournament-style dungeons. Where Lev and Sett disagree is on how well the PHB etc. met that purpose.

Of course that was part of it, but so was other stuff. We drifted the rules towards playing city adventures in Lankhmar. We hated the goddamn Slavers modules. The rules didn't bite us for it or anything. And you're much better equipped than me to say how Arduin was a rather more Runequest-y experience (and, perhaps, early Runequest a rather more Arduin-y experience?) than one might think.

Quotethat early D&D was ALL about resource-mongering your way through tournament-style dungeons.

No! I don´t think that!

I think the written rules are concerned with that.

I just DMed Hidden Shrine last week and Rift of th Frost Giant Jarl on Saturday.
There´s so much role-assumption and character play and background in those modules!
But that´s a given, I thought. But criticism against D&D was against it´s rules.

Settembrini, it's not like I disagree, but how does that mesh with your earlier statement--

QuoteThat is to say: People wanted something that D&D never was made to cater to. And criticised it for lacking in those areas.

Like the old RQanista saying: "I´m interested in realism and deep character roleplaying. Those D&D players are all stupid and are only collecting items."

That was the "correct" wrong argument the RQ-lovers made.
I was rehashing this age old conflict.

Okay, so when we say "People wanted something that D&D never was made to cater to," we mean that it wasn't made to cater to any ONE playstyle but to enable MANY (including but not limited to torunament dungeons)? If that's what we mean, then we do agree.

Yepp, but D&D was never made to be realistic.

"Realistic"? Good God, no. The horror.

I wonder how many people played RQ for its realism, though. I guess there were some. Presumably that means "realistic" combat? Well, there's that. But Glorantha wasn't about that kind of realism.

Settembrini:

:forge:

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI wonder how many people played RQ for its realism, though. I guess there were some. Presumably that means "realistic" combat? Well, there's that. But Glorantha wasn't about that kind of realism.

Me, I went to RQ because I'd been butting up against problems in D&D that I'd begun to house-rule, eg I changed the XP system, started to look at secondary skills etc. RQ just seemed like it did the job a lot more smoothly and simply. Less special cases, more opportunities to develop chrs in individual ways (speaking mechanically). The world seemed interesting and fun, and it went with the rules, so I used it.

I do seem to remember, but this is really ancient hazy memory for me, that there was a "More Realistic Than Thou" RQ crowd in Germany back in the day. I think. I had forgotten about it, because I never came across the idea in Britain or the US.

Anyway, I'm not competent to talk about RQ. I read it ages ago and never played it.

Because, well... uhm... I just don't like runes.

If it helps, I'll cop to being anti-D&D and pro-realism back in the 80's, with RQ being one of the games that came closest to meeting my ideals, along with Harnmaster & GURPS.

That said what really got up my nose was people who responded to me by saying D&D was "just as realistic", instead of saying, "fuck realism".

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf it helps, I'll cop to being anti-D&D and pro-realism back in the 80's, with RQ being one of the games that came closest to meeting my ideals, along with Harnmaster & GURPS.

That said what really got up my nose was people who responded to me by saying D&D was "just as realistic", instead of saying, "fuck realism".

I played both and enjoyed both, which is why i find the ad&d review posted by Lev to be so baffling. Still, i'm talking myself in circles over there, so i'll let it go...

I liked Runequest but it was for the character narratives and integration of character into setting. I've always been a 'high magic' guy though so I never made the switch.

Runequest was the game for realism-heads when it came out, no question. That part of its lineage includes stuff like Aftermath and Phoenix Command. Lots of people liked this, at least in theory, and Runequest was the game leading down that path. No mistaking it. And Lev's review is very much the spiritual descendant of this ancient battle, as it played out in the pages of Dragon, Different Worlds, and Alarums and Excursions years ago.

Quote from: CalithenaAnd Lev's review is very much the spiritual descendant of this ancient battle, as it played out in the pages of Dragon, Different Worlds, and Alarums and Excursions years ago.

That's for sure.

And his post #61 confirms you guys are right.

Wow, I wouldn't have thought the realism argument still flies.

Pundit, you're the worst kind of coward, and you disgust me.

You dish it out and dish it out like you're simon fucking cowell himself, then you whine and cry when someone tosses it back at you.

Try taking it like you dish it out, you spineless little worm. Quit talking about banning people who fire back at you after you've attacked them and either quit starting shit or try taking it when someone returns fire.

Christ, you're almost as bad on the "Dishes it out but can't take it" score as andy hackard, but, to your credit, you are slightly less obious that that scumbag because at least you haven't banned anyone for firing back on you after you've provoked it.

So, to maintain the shred of moral superiority you have to the mods on the purple toilet and the sjg forums just drop the whole fucking "Waah!I wanna ban someone because they throw shit back at me after I throw it at them! Waaah!"

BTW, what do you call someone who attacks people then uses force to prevent them from responding? "Fascist" might be applicable here.

You've already started some threads saying RPGPundit's a poopyhead, just post again in those, you're off-topic here.

Stop being boring, Nox.

Nox,

We are a long way away from developing a working implantable artificial uterus for women, much less men. So when Pundit says he's not going to father your child he is being honest with you.

I think this is proof of the kneejerk nature of Nox. His post would barely belong in the "What to do with nox?" thread. I guess he doesn´t know we are talking not about him, but about Lev here.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf it helps, I'll cop to being anti-D&D and pro-realism back in the 80's, with RQ being one of the games that came closest to meeting my ideals, along with Harnmaster & GURPS.

That said what really got up my nose was people who responded to me by saying D&D was "just as realistic", instead of saying, "fuck realism".

Quite so, preferring Runequest for being more realistic makes sense, preferring D&D for being better suited to heroic fantasy makes sense, arguing that D&D and Runequest are equally realistic does not.

Oh, for the person who queried Runequest as realistic, I agree that Glorantha is not a realistic setting but I think it's open to question how well suited Runequest as an engine ever was to Glorantha.  I think Greg Stafford is on record as saying Heroquest is far closer to the kind of game he actually wanted.

Quote from: One Horse TownInterestingly, he's just posted a review of the ad&d players handbook to that other place which rates the substance of the book "as a waste of my money." I can't get my head around that.

If you think it isn't I have ten copies to sell you ;-)

Let the record show that I'm being as lenient as humanly possible with Nox's crapulence.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditLet the record show that I'm being as lenient as humanly possible with Nox's crapulence.

So noted.


TGA

Quote from: Dominus NoxPundit, you're the worst kind of coward, and you disgust me.

You are a mighty warrior raging against the machine.  We get it.  Now get off the cross, shut up, and talk about something interesting.

:crucify:


TGA

Quote from: BalbinusQuite so, preferring Runequest for being more realistic makes sense, preferring D&D for being better suited to heroic fantasy makes sense, arguing that D&D and Runequest are equally realistic does not.

I have to say, I think it's RQ which does "heroic fantasy" better than AD&D, at least as Le Camp defines it. i.e.,

"Heroic fantasy" is the name I have given to a subgenre of fiction, otherwise called the "sword-and-sorcery" story. It is a story of action and adventure laid in a more or less imaginary world, where magic works and where modern science and technology have not yet been discovered. The setting may (as in the Conan stories) be this Earth as it is conceived to have been long ago, or as it will be in the remote future, or it may be another planet or another dimension.

Such a story combines the color and dash of the historical costume romance with the atavistic supernatural thrills of the weird, occult, or ghost story. When well done, it provides the purest fun of fiction of any kind. It is escape fiction wherein one escapes clear out of the real world into one where all men are strong, all women beautiful, all life adventurous, and all problems simple, and nobody even mentions the income tax or the dropout problem or socialized medicine. — L. Sprague de Camp, introduction to the 1967 Ace edition of Conan.

QuoteOh, for the person who queried Runequest as realistic, I agree that Glorantha is not a realistic setting but I think it's open to question how well suited Runequest as an engine ever was to Glorantha.  I think Greg Stafford is on record as saying Heroquest is far closer to the kind of game he actually wanted.

Glorantha is "realistic" in the sense that it simulates a mythic mindset and bronze age mentality, social norms and world perspective. In comparison Greyhawk adventurers were late 20th century personalities and perspectives mentally transported to a fantasy, rather than mythic, world.

Get him!

Ned

Hey Lev, congratulations, you're a Rune Master twice over:

(http://www.glorantha.com/graphics/rune-darkness.gif)(http://www.glorantha.com/graphics/rune-man.gif)

Quote from: lev_lafayetteIf you think it isn't I have ten copies to sell you ;-)

Got my own thanks Lev. :D

Thanks Lev for proving all I´m saying.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianYou are a mighty warrior raging against the machine.  We get it.  Now get off the cross, shut up, and talk about something interesting.

:crucify:


TGA

That's better

Nox, get down off that :crucify: , we've got phone lines to string.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteI have to say, I think it's RQ which does "heroic fantasy" better than AD&D, at least as Le Camp defines it. i.e.,

"Heroic fantasy" is the name I have given to a subgenre of fiction, otherwise called the "sword-and-sorcery" story. It is a story of action and adventure laid in a more or less imaginary world, where magic works and where modern science and technology have not yet been discovered. The setting may (as in the Conan stories) be this Earth as it is conceived to have been long ago, or as it will be in the remote future, or it may be another planet or another dimension.

Such a story combines the color and dash of the historical costume romance with the atavistic supernatural thrills of the weird, occult, or ghost story. When well done, it provides the purest fun of fiction of any kind. It is escape fiction wherein one escapes clear out of the real world into one where all men are strong, all women beautiful, all life adventurous, and all problems simple, and nobody even mentions the income tax or the dropout problem or socialized medicine. — L. Sprague de Camp, introduction to the 1967 Ace edition of Conan.



Glorantha is "realistic" in the sense that it simulates a mythic mindset and bronze age mentality, social norms and world perspective. In comparison Greyhawk adventurers were late 20th century personalities and perspectives mentally transported to a fantasy, rather than mythic, world.

If I rated Le Camp in the slightest, I would agree, but I don't.  To me S&S and heroic fantasy are plainly different genres.

And I'm not sure by that definition RQ is any better than D&D anyway, it looks comparable to me (edited, as originally I said it did, but on rereading I don't see much to choose between them on that definition, they just both fulfil it by different means).

Realistic in the sense of simulating a mythic mindset is IMO much the same as saying mythic rather than realistic, and I in no way defend Greyhawk btw.  I have no particular time for it, were I to cite a more realistic setting I would go for Harn, which explicitly sets out to create a setting that operates according to rational logic rather than mythic resonance.

I consider Glorantha's abandoning realism in favour of mythic resonance a feature, not a bug, by the way.  It's not a criticism.

Indeed, RQ and Glorantha are great, it´s only Lev that is flawed.

Quote from: mythusmageNox,

We are a long way away from developing a working implantable artificial uterus for women, much less men. So when Pundit says he's not going to father your child he is being honest with you.

 Thanks. That "spit take" with my drink was appreciated by my computer desk.

 This Lev guy - I've just seen the wordy post about Runequest so far.

 Where are the posts where he is pissing people off?

- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarThanks. That "spit take" with my drink was appreciated by my computer desk.

 This Lev guy - I've just seen the wordy post about Runequest so far.

 Where are the posts where he is pissing people off?

- E.W.C.

Buggered if I know, I've seen him post about rpgs and that's about it.

Same difference--he's pissed us off with his AD&D PHB review.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=313743

Here's the thing. The review itself is barely more than a neutral description of the contents with some reasonable criticisms (not enough criticisms, actually). Then, bang, comes the rating. And then, fizzle, ever so slowly the whole RQ realism subtext emerges.

You had me there, Lev. I thought you were not an ideologue. Next time you review a first-generation game, clarify your position upfront, in the body of the text.

Best post in defense of AD&D mechanic in the thread is by Fritzef, btw.

Actually, i wish i hadn't drawn attention to it now. He seems like a nice enough guy. Hopefully, one that isn't pushing an agenda.

Quote from: CalithenaHey Lev, congratulations, you're a Rune Master twice over:

(http://www.glorantha.com/graphics/rune-darkness.gif)(http://www.glorantha.com/graphics/rune-man.gif)

Oooh! In-joke!

Where's the wordy Runequest post? Linky? Please?

- Q

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySame difference--he's pissed us off with his AD&D PHB review.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=313743

Here's the thing. The review itself is barely more than a neutral description of the contents with some reasonable criticisms (not enough criticisms, actually). Then, bang, comes the rating. And then, fizzle, ever so slowly the whole RQ realism subtext emerges.

C'mon... How many criticisms does a game need to have - and often as core features - before it deserves a '1' for substance?

A complete lack of a systematic perspective? A bizarre distribution of ability bonuses? Arbritrary and even nonsensical racial-class level limits? Largely inconsequential racial ability bonuses? Class restrictions on weapons and armour? Cookie-cut classes and levels? Random hit point gains? A 5% defense bonus for a shield? Those weapon armour class adjustments and speed factors? The psionic points system?

In contemporary terms these are instances of a game that gets '1' for substance.

IMO, YMMV.

Not one of the considerations Lev brings up is of more than mild importance. Some are pure matters of preference, while others are glitches that might be replaced with modest improvement, but anyone who thinks that these are the things that make or break a role-playing game is still living in the eighties. They're really quite peripheral concerns from a play point of view.

Lev's viewpoint does represent a certain sort of 'conventional wisdom' that got enshrined as early as the late seventies as an anti-D&D approach to game design. Since the old Chaosium, Alarums and Excursions, and White Wolf crowds have taken over the game design conventional wisdom, someone could be forgiven for aping their aging platitudes, as Lev does; especially as the new design strains represented by Champions and Ars Magica were all effectively absorbed into this overall 'main line' of RPG design, by way of GURPS and Vampire respectively.

I think anyone who believes the foundational platitudes of this design school in 2007, with the state of role-playing today, is about as credible as a flat earther. Games designed for roleplayers who got disaffected with old D&D are not appealing to anyone except roleplayers who are disaffected with old D&D, plus noise around the edges (the pop culture vectors that brought people into vampire and continue to bring people into D&D 3 here and there, learning to roleplay from friends).

If you believe that roleplaying is fun, and want to design a good system for it that's not D&D, what you've got to do is go back to the place before D&D, and figure out how to create something out of that (informal make believe-games) that doesn't run up against the things you found problematic in D&D or AD&D. Every single thing that Lev mentions, and all the founding principles of the glib conventional wisdom that shapes it, is a weird kind of nervous reaction to things that happen in D&D's shadow. You can't fix things that way, and in fact what happens, pretty consistently for non-roleplayers, is that you fuck them up: first you hit the imaginary hiccup that bothered you in D&D and then you try to smooth it over with fancy math and an 'integrated system' (as if our imagination worked on some simple equation). It doesn't work: it's a proven failure to the degree that anything of this sort is, based on the failure of our hobby and industry to follow up D&D with one single game capable of capturing the public imagination more broadly.

Calithena, may I kiss you?

If anybody was in doubt of what I was trying to say, it´s the same direction of what he just said.

Well said, sir.  Well said.

I motion Pundit lock the thread immediately so we can go out on a high note of awesome.

I totally agree with everything Calilthena said; but we don't lock threads around here, as a rule.

Besides, it'll be more fun to watch Lev and his ilk make stumbling nonsensical half-assed efforts at rebuttals to this, the basic argument that they cannot possibly counter. Not that they won't desperately, incompetently try; knowing them...

RPGPundit

One of the things I love about this site is that incredibly intelligent people like Calithena (and many others!) say things with which I totally agree.

It makes me feel super smart.

I've got a question, Cal.

QuoteGames designed for roleplayers who got disaffected with old D&D

Does this include 3.x?

Apples and oranges.

Quote from: CalithenaNot one of the considerations Lev brings up is of more than mild importance. Some are pure matters of preference, while others are glitches that might be replaced with modest improvement, but anyone who thinks that these are the things that make or break a role-playing game is still living in the eighties. They're really quite peripheral concerns from a play point of view.

That's because roleplaying and the group is of primary importance and the system of secondary importance. However I am not reviewing roleplaying in general, or particular gaming groups. I am reviewing a game system, and as the game system is writ and most of the criticisms are "core features" of the game. Whether or not these can be changed is not the issue. The purpose of the substance review is, imo, to review the rules as they are given.

QuoteSince the old Chaosium, Alarums and Excursions, and White Wolf crowds have taken over the game design conventional wisdom, someone could be forgiven for aping their aging platitudes, as Lev does; especially as the new design strains represented by Champions and Ars Magica were all effectively absorbed into this overall 'main line' of RPG design, by way of GURPS and Vampire respectively.

Which simply adds further credence to what I am suggesting.

QuoteI think anyone who believes the foundational platitudes of this design school in 2007, with the state of role-playing today, is about as credible as a flat earther. Games designed for roleplayers who got disaffected with old D&D are not appealing to anyone except roleplayers who are disaffected with old D&D, plus noise around the edges (the pop culture vectors that brought people into vampire and continue to bring people into D&D 3 here and there, learning to roleplay from friends).

As above; at best you're saying that one shouldn't review older games because, well, they're out-of-date - which certainly isn't the case. Some of those old games have aged quite nicely and are still workable systems today. Some have not. In both cases this is a good thing.

QuoteIt doesn't work: it's a proven failure to the degree that anything of this sort is, based on the failure of our hobby and industry to follow up D&D with one single game capable of capturing the public imagination more broadly.

This in part suggests that RC D&D, AD&D2e and D&D3.x and d20 are not relevant and in part attempts to argue that Hagar The Horrible is better than the Poetic and Prose Edda because more people know about it.

Commercial success is not what is being reviewed. There are very good reasons for (A)D&D/d20s commercial success, but that is not the purpose of the review.

I like Lev.  Lev wants to talk about RPGs AND contribute to the online RPG community by writing reviews.  I think that rocks, and am glad to have him around creating those discussions.

Also, when he hasn't posted for a month and has forgotten the place, I can mention it and laugh, and then someone will email him and tell him to come back, and he will! Cool, that! ;)

droog -

3.x is an interesting case. It certainly did learn extensively from the design school I'm talking about, but it's also designed to attract people who still were playing or used to play old D&D and basically enjoyed it. So I think it's a little of both. The thread I started up in theory about d20 is in a way an attempt to explore which it's more of.

Tweet has other games that are 'mixed' in this way. I think Everyway for instance was an honest attempt to go back to 'the place before D&D' that I mentioned upthread that got partway there - there are these brilliant bits where something very cool shines through - but ultimately winds up being a kind of rules-lite, heavily GM-fiat driven descendant of Champions. 3e is so brilliant because it really learns from the D&D-knockoffs of the past, especially Runequest but also Palladium Fantasy/Rifts and The Fantasy Trip, Arduin and Tweet's own Ars Magica - it brings together a lot of what's best in those systems and combines them into an interesting whole. I find it too cumbersome for my purposes, so I don't play it any more, but I think it does manage to synthesize a lot of what's best about D&D with the 'improvements' Lev makes central to his review.

--------------

I want to make it clear that even though designers like Greg Stafford and Jonathan Tweet (among many others) are central creators of the conventional wisdom I'm here attacking, I respect them and their work tremendously. I also note that they're able to push up against and break this conventional wisdom when it suits them; they're working on another level from their acolytes.

---------------

Lev -

I've been riding you kind of hard and I want to apologize for that. That said, when I read your letter, I don't find any cogent replies to anything I wrote.  However, one reason I've sort of been nibbling around the edges instead of jumping in is that I've got other work to do, so I'll withdraw from the field.

------------

Oh, and to the original topic: I guess I don't see any reason Lev should be banned based on the fact that he has absurd positions about game design or whatever - what CWR says above seems right to me. I haven't been here long enough to know any history behind this, but I haven't seen anything odd or out of line in my brief time browsing.

I'm against banning Lev. Why should we be stuck with Dominus and not him?

Indeed.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, my game has more cheetos, motherfuckers!

Beat THAT.

Er, well, I make pizza for mine. You're still invited over, or whatever, but I'll bet excellent money you'd be able to make it better. ^_^;

I don't imagine that banning Lev is still an issue, and I think it was handled correctly. However, I'll say this; perhaps I don't agree with everyone on everything (or anything?), but I'm glad they're here. I don't understand the Swine Wars or braindamage, because both seem unbelieveably retarded on every level, but I like reading Levs posts.

Like, I dunno, I enjoy reading lots of peoples posts, I guess.