OK, I think there´s nothing to be said here anymore for me. I beg you Pundit, look what you have created, and ask yourself if it really is what you want.

Unban the banned!

Were guys like CavScout around when the site was running according to your principles?
Wouldn't it be possible that what changed was the popularity of theRPGsite which attracted dicks to dispose of?

Yes, Sett, someone trolling who is here exclusively to try to fuck up the site has ALWAYS been a bannable offense.

Just like with Nox, just like with Cavscout, etc etc.  As long as they were just assholes, they were able to post here; but the second that evolved into actual SITE DISRUPTION they were banned. Which was my policy from DAY FUCKING ONE.

The fact that you never liked that, and preferred to have some vision of... what? A place where anyone could post any shit whatsoever here including having people come on to make sure that no conversation could ever happen here posting shit to destroy the site?.. doesn't mean that this was EVER the plan anywhere other than in your own imagination; just like the fact that Kyle might want this place to be one that bans people on the basis of who he doesn't get along with doesn't make it so anywhere outside of his imagination.

You say that something here has "changed" that has made Kyle "able" to say shit like he does. He has ALWAYS said that kind of shit, since he first got here. He was here like, a week before he started trying to tell people how this place should be run, including banning people.

So fuck off with the revisionist history already.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;296181Were guys like CavScout around when the site was running according to your principles?
Wouldn't it be possible that what changed was the popularity of theRPGsite which attracted dicks to dispose of?

Nothing actually changed. Sett has created some kind of fantasy in his mind. The fact that I went a year without banning anyone was mainly because it took a year before a really serious site-disrupting level of troll (Nox) showed up.

Had Nox showed up and done the same things on day1 of my running this site, I'd have banned him then, too.

Had Cavscout been around in the beginning, the only difference is I'd have done a "public consultation" thread before banning him. I had given up on those as largely useless (because people who's opinions I valued would rarely post there, and instead it became an opportunity for all the Rogues Gallery to come out and throw their fecal matter at me). But he'd have been banned for the same actions.

RPGPundit

This is addressed to the Pundit and all the Mods. Look through all my spats with Sett. I have rarely engaged with him, when he goes on about 4E. The only interactions I have had with him, are the times when he goes on about Forge gamers/games, theory and well the whole Swine BS. I think this falls into the freedom of speech about rpgs this board is about - and I am not the only one who has brawled with him about his fucked up views. If any of you think I'm stalking him, topic ban me or something.

Because honestly I'm sick of his bullshit. Every damn point he has made on this thread, I've have refuted with examples. And don't worry. I wont be a whiny bitch about it. Accusing someone of being a stalker is the type of behaviour that goes on in tBP. This dishonest turd, comes here, makes statements and wants it to go unchallenged, That's his idea of free fucking speech.

Edit: Where the fuck did I "[DavidR] implicitly acknowledges there are different phases in regards to bannings. ?. Now outright lies.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;296182You say that something here has "changed" that has made Kyle "able" to say shit like he does. He has ALWAYS said that kind of shit, since he first got here. He was here like, a week before he started trying to tell people how this place should be run, including banning people.

So fuck off with the revisionist history already.

RPGPundit

Well, kyle has always said stuff like this, I´m not sure of this. But let´s say for a moment that might be true: now he´s speaking with people behind him that want the same shit. And you have been influenced by them into banning people, or have banned people PURELY because of your own ego (WalkerP).

In regards to "revisionist history": It´s like this. I perceive a change, that´s even happening right now. Others do so, too. Hell, even DavidR implicitly acknowledges there are different phases in regards to bannings. So when you tell me you have not changed anything in the policy...

a) I & others have a perception problem
b) you have a perception problem

What is interesting for me, is that you now say that your stance hasn´t changed at all. That in effect means our stances now DEFINITELY don´t go together.
 
Whereas back in the day, theRPGSite had an atmosphere that invited trolls, who tried how hard they could push (many, many people understood your policy as "no bannings EVAR";  so they tried to get banned; remember how many times you felt the need to post "Oh I never said I´d never ban anybody" afterwards?).

Now the atmosphere is one were certain people idle around waiting when the next person comes over they can ban. That´s a fundamental difference in my eyes.

Quote from: shalvayez;296162He hasn't banned enough jackasses, IMHO. The site-stalkers who follow him from thread to thread waving their "We Don't Like Pundit" placards might as well be banned.

Dude, step back for a moment and separate the Pundit as moderator from the pundit as a poster. As mod he's is for the most part not so bad (I'm against the bannings, personally, but overall he does a good job) as a poster he thrives on controversy and disagreement. Which, by his own standards and the standards of the site as a whole, is completely cool. He flings shit people fling back- he doesn't appear to have too much of a problem with it (to his credit) maybe you should follow his example and take the fucking stick out of your ass.

Quote from: Settembrini;296175Not entirely. Illegal stuff needs to be prevented.
I´m not an anarchist.

And yet, the douchebag you are pitching a fit over has already admitted to illegal behaviour (pirating) and suggested further illegal behaviour (shooting up WotC's offices).

So...  Ban them is what you are saying?

Quote from: StormBringer;296200And yet, the douchebag you are pitching a fit over has already admitted to illegal behaviour (pirating) and suggested further illegal behaviour (shooting up WotC's offices).

So...  Ban them is what you are saying?

Sett's point has nothing to do with the poster. It has to do with the change in attitude to that of one where we can rally the villagers with thier pitchforks and torches to banish the outsider because he displeases us.

In short, it is not about Jim Profit but about Kyle and more accurately, about the attitude Kyle embodies in his post, a sense of being able to call for preemptive banning based on popular or cliquish appeal.

Quote from: Settembrini;296193Well, kyle has always said stuff like this, I´m not sure of this. But let´s say for a moment that might be true: now he´s speaking with people behind him that want the same shit. And you have been influenced by them into banning people, or have banned people PURELY because of your own ego (WalkerP).

Oh please. How many MONTHS were Nox and Cavscout both here before either of them got any kind of ban??
There were people from DAY ONE calling for Cavscout and Jackalope to be banned, both of them lasted months.

When I ban someone its not because of "peer pressure". There are some people who get banned after a prolonged campaign by other posters calling for them to be banned (cavscout, nox), there are others who get banned without any such demands (walker). I ban people for only one reason: because they have broken my rules and disrupted the site.
People could, for example, call for Abyssal Maw's banning till their faces turn blue, but unless he did something radically different than what he does now, it would never ever happen no matter how many people demanded it.

This whole thread is absurd. You're essentially complaining about a bunch of people exercising their free speech, while complaining about me supposedly listening to their unsolicited advice, while giving me unsolicited advice. :rolleyes:

Quotea) I & others have a perception problem
b) you have a perception problem

What is interesting for me, is that you now say that your stance hasn´t changed at all. That in effect means our stances now DEFINITELY don´t go together.

I don't think either of our positions ever changed, sett. The difference is back then you had created this illusion for yourself that I agreed with you, and when it turned out not to be so you now thought "He's changed!", when if you look back to the rules and mission statement I set up from DAY ONE here it was clear that I was completely willing to ban people for site disruption, cyber stalking or other activities that would damage this site; and considered that essential to avoid a gang of Forger-Kamikazes coming in here and trying to ruin this place to prove a point.

You somehow lied to yourself thinking that this place would be All free-speech all the time. You say you're not an anarchist but what you are suggesting is essentially anarchy.  It is apparently less stringent rule than even 4chan has. It would mean that a dozen posters could come on here and post images of pedobear a thousand times over and over again making it impossible for people to carry on conversations, but we'd have to let them destroy any usefulness this site has in the name of "free speech".  

My free speech NEVER meant "you can post absolutely anything and do whatever the fuck you want"; it ALWAYS meant "you will never be banned here because you have a certain opinion about RPGs", and I've stuck to that, and even extended it to a certain degree to things like politics or religion.  No one has ever been banned here for being a forgie, or a storygamer, or a right-winger, or a christian, or an atheist; or for loving D&D, or for hating Amber, or for playing Vampire, or anything else along those veins.
For fuck sake, I was reluctant to ban a guy who was an apparent pedophile.  It took an obvious racist like Nox MONTHS to get banned.  And Jim Profit is an obvious little turd wanker, but I haven't banned him, yet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWelt;296221Sett's point has nothing to do with the poster. It has to do with the change in attitude to that of one where we can rally the villagers with thier pitchforks and torches to banish the outsider because he displeases us.

In short, it is not about Jim Profit but about Kyle and more accurately, about the attitude Kyle embodies in his post, a sense of being able to call for preemptive banning based on popular or cliquish appeal.

Sure but Kyle has also ALWAYS had that attitude. He desperately wants to be in charge of his own little clique, wants people to listen to him and think he's smarter than the average aussie (not hard). He's been on I don't know how many crusades to have his way, like hypocritically spending lots of time on off-topic while calling for off-topic to be banned, since the day he got here.

He might have a couple of people who think he's cool shit, but no one important around here gives a fuck about what he thinks.  So Sett is setting up a red herring. It wouldn't matter if 200 people rallied behind Kyle's call for banning someone. If that someone didn't do something, and on THIS site, to merit banning, I wouldn't ban him.
That's the difference between this place and RPG.net. The  self-styled "cool kids" don't run things. The guy with the pipe and the spiked baseball bat of great justice does. And that's what makes this place so good compared to other larger or far lesser sites.

RPGPundit

Does anybody actually think 'mob action' will get Pundit to change his mind about anything?

Quote from: RPGPundit;296224Sure but Kyle has also ALWAYS had that attitude. He desperately wants to be in charge of his own little clique, wants people to listen to him and think he's smarter than the average aussie (not hard). He's been on I don't know how many crusades to have his way, like hypocritically spending lots of time on off-topic while calling for off-topic to be banned, since the day he got here.

Just going from what Sett has posted here, again, I think this misses the point. It is not about Kyle. It is about the attitude presented by Kyle and propagated in others, that is, the sense that "My post count is high/I am one of Pundit's supporters/I am a REAL RPGer" and there fore they can call for the banning of people premptively.

Quote from: RPGPundit;296224He might have a couple of people who think he's cool shit, but no one important around here gives a fuck about what he thinks.  So Sett is setting up a red herring. It wouldn't matter if 200 people rallied behind Kyle's call for banning someone. If that someone didn't do something, and on THIS site, to merit banning, I wouldn't ban him.

No, but I am only going on my understanding of what he has posted, this again misses the mark. It does not matter is no one gets behind Kyle. It could be Kyle one day, Stormbringer the next, Shalavayez the third and none of them agree. It is the culture of entitlement as it takes hold, as it makes its presence felt. Sett then goes on to, of course, state that you are influenced by these people. This culture would mean nothign if they could not influence you and those you ban.

It should also be noted a second point is given by Sett about the centralized power and banning that you do based on your ego (he sites WalkerP banning).

Quote from: RPGPundit;296224That's the difference between this place and RPG.net. The  self-styled "cool kids" don't run things. The guy with the pipe and the spiked baseball bat of great justice does. And that's what makes this place so good compared to other larger or far lesser sites.

RPGPundit

See, Sett has set up a somewhat clever argument here. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You can be "catering to cliques" or you can be an "ego driven" petty dictator. In this statement, you favor the later.

Quote from: jrients;296233Does anybody actually think 'mob action' will get Pundit to change his mind about anything?

No, but I can only speak for me.

Quote from: jrients;296233Does anybody actually think 'mob action' will get Pundit to change his mind about anything?

I don't think at all.