The drama here confounds me. Eveybody needs to quit being a whiny bitch and get to some game discussion.

Well, Sett? Jim Profit essentially posted a death threat against me and my family, and threatened to try to "take down" this site through hacking.

Is that enough, in your world, for someone to be banned?

RPGPundit

Sett your idea that some kind of Barvarian Illuminati order is being installed here is false. Your would be combination of Freethought and Anarchism seem to be at odds with one another. While you dont seem to think of it as such, you are truely looking for this board to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. Looking to Punidit to be your Marx. But now you preceive him as being part of the Bourgeoisie. This is simply not true. This board has always been a Constitutional dictatorship. Where as the head of this board only only exercises his power during a time of need. Which has proved indeed to be a rare event.

Your would be crusade to return this place back to your imagined ideals. Is at best a foolhardy journey. For the only way to truely effect change to the would be politics of this board would be to launch a Guardian coup d’état. Which is quite imposssible.

Perhaps you would be better served to return to your self imposed exile. Instead of enduring this self inflicted gauntlet of menial mental combat. I think in the end it would best satisfy all parties involved.

Overall though KrakaJak probably has it right,

QuoteThe drama here confounds me. Eveybody needs to quit being a whiny bitch and get to some game discussion.

Quote from: HinterWelt;296235It could be Kyle one day, Stormbringer the next, Shalavayez the third and none of them agree.

I see your point, but I don't recall asking for anyone to be banned, although I have supported such measures in the past against certain posters.

Additionally, I seriously doubt Pundit has any awareness of me beyond "userid=3692".  I would have not even the merest fraction of influence on Pundit that JongWK would have, for example.  I have even less influence on the board as a whole, so rallying people to my 'banner' would be a lonely exercise, indeed.

Which I have no interest in doing, anyway.  I was an early supporter of CavScout getting dumped, as I could see quite clearly the pattern, and that it wouldn't really change.  His whole purpose for being here was to yell louder than anyone else.  Jackalope at least had a few interesting threads about rpgs, although they lagged far behind the other nonsense he was often on about.  However, I don't have the overall concern that any of them would be a problem that required the board to come together as a whole to fend off.  Admins and Mods are fully able to direct the board as they will.

Quote from: StormBringer;296263I see your point, but I don't recall asking for anyone to be banned, although I have supported such measures in the past against certain posters.

Additionally, I seriously doubt Pundit has any awareness of me beyond "userid=3692".  I would have not even the merest fraction of influence on Pundit that JongWK would have, for example.  I have even less influence on the board as a whole, so rallying people to my 'banner' would be a lonely exercise, indeed.

Which I have no interest in doing, anyway.  I was an early supporter of CavScout getting dumped, as I could see quite clearly the pattern, and that it wouldn't really change.  His whole purpose for being here was to yell louder than anyone else.  Jackalope at least had a few interesting threads about rpgs, although they lagged far behind the other nonsense he was often on about.  However, I don't have the overall concern that any of them would be a problem that required the board to come together as a whole to fend off.  Admins and Mods are fully able to direct the board as they will.

To be clear SB, I was just drawing names. I vaguely remember you supporting banning CavScout and maybe Jackalope? Regardless, I was merely trying to clarify for you Sett's point as I felt you had (quite understandably) missed it entirely. In a way, this is the underlying part though, in that you would be one of those "lending their voice" to the call to ban someone. Part of the clique so to speak.

A big point I think folks are missing to would be Sett's issue with WalkerP's banning. This is the first case where someone was banned for their activity outside of RPG forum. At least I think so. Nox might hold that title as I seldom could bring myself to read any of his posts.

Also, in case it appears otherwise, I do not support Sett's conclusions nor his stance. I was merely trying to clarify and as far as that goes, Sett may come in here and tell me I am way off base.

Quote from: HinterWelt;296265To be clear SB, I was just drawing names. I vaguely remember you supporting banning CavScout and maybe Jackalope? Regardless, I was merely trying to clarify for you Sett's point as I felt you had (quite understandably) missed it entirely. In a way, this is the underlying part though, in that you would be one of those "lending their voice" to the call to ban someone. Part of the clique so to speak.

Sure, I get that.  I just wanted to make sure people understood that you were citing examples.  So, when the proletariat rises up, I am not counted among the bourgeois.  

QuoteA big point I think folks are missing to would be Sett's issue with WalkerP's banning. This is the first case where someone was banned for their activity outside of RPG forum. At least I think so. Nox might hold that title as I seldom could bring myself to read any of his posts.

I wasn't entirely pleased with WalkerP either, but he did keep going on about a rather specious 'thought crime' issue.  One related to pedophilia, no less, which he had refused to let go.  Now, I was part of that conversation, but after it was closed, I recall imploring WalkerP to just let it drop in the new thread.

QuoteAlso, in case it appears otherwise, I do not support Sett's conclusions nor his stance. I was merely trying to clarify and as far as that goes, Sett may come in here and tell me I am way off base.

I suspected you weren't supporting Sett's position.

Quote from: HinterWelt;296235It 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.

Bill, you're way off mark here. As I responded to that lying scumbag, there have always been calls for bannings, started by a diverse range of voices since the beginning of this site. The only thing that's changed is that people have been actually banned. If Sett was sincere in questioning the banning of certain posters, he should make an argument for their unbanning, instead of engaging in his usual, deceptive style of "debating".

*It was kyle who suggested that post count be removed.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Settembrini;296134And those people are in the upswing, they feel they have power over who may post here. And the sad part is: It´s proven that they have that power.

I don't think so. I was against the banning of walkerp, for example. But as Pundit noted in his usual kind way, he doesn't take my advice on these matters.

Pundit thrives on opposition, it's nine-tenths of his online persona's schtick. He presents himself as the Lone Voice Of Truth Against The Heckling Crowd. If you want to influence him to do something, the wisest way would be to loudly insist on the opposite. I don't think anyone's been sneaky enough to do that so far.

Quote from: BenoistMost of us here believe in free speech but also believe that acting like a dick means you're not acting as a responsible individual, and thus you open yourself to sanction.

Free speech about rpgs here on therpgsite.

I mean, members of parliament have free speech, but if one stands up and starts talking about how his wife won't swallow after a blowjob, he'll be suspended from parliament - not because parliament has no free speech, but because the free speech is there for a particular purpose, to further expression of political ideas.

Or - I'm Jewish, and any place of worship is a public place. But I don't go to a Catholic church, sit in the front row and then at the moment of communion stand up and yell, "you're worshipping a dead guy on a stick!" On the one hand, it's a public place and we all have freedom of speech; on the other, why go to a place solely to stir shit?

There exist certain places where certain talk needs to be done freely, and other talk is at best irrelevant, and at worst disruptive.

The people banned usually didn't have much to say about rpgs, they were just here to talk politics or abuse people. Where they sometimes had something to say about rpgs, like walkerp, that's where their bannings were somewhat controversial.

Quote from: RPGPunditthe fact that Kyle might want this place to be one that bans people on the basis of who he doesn't get along with

Now you know that's not true.

I don't get along with Aos, but there's no way he should be banned. I thought walkerp was an utter cocksmock, but he should not have been banned. I get along alright with droog, but given he rarely talks about rpgs and just snipes at people, probably he should be banned. And so on.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, kyle has always said stuff like this, I´m not sure of this.

It's true. It's ultimately the reason for my permaban from rpg.net. I questioned the moderation. I supported them when I thought they were right, and criticised them when I thought they were wrong. They enjoyed the support but not the criticism, too egotistical to know those are the flipsides of the same coin, the coin of reasoned consideration of things.

Quote from: SettembriniNow the atmosphere is one were certain people idle around waiting when the next person comes over they can ban.

Well, actually some of us are here to talk about rpgs.

Unlike you.

You never come here to talk about rpgs, only to talk about how the place is run. This is what always fucked people off about Seanchai, from rpg.net Trouble Tickets days till today.

Quote from: HinterWeltIt is the culture of entitlement as it takes hold, as it makes its presence felt.

Yes, I believe we are entitled to not share our company with people enthusiastically endorsing paedophilia, threatening mass murder or murder of individuals on the board, and so on.

Lastly, I would like to point out the irony of a believer in unfettered free speech titling his thread after a subforum of rpg.net.

Quote from: David R;296289Bill, you're way off mark here. As I responded to that lying scumbag, there have always been calls for bannings, started by a diverse range of voices since the beginning of this site. The only thing that's changed is that people have been actually banned. If Sett was sincere in questioning the banning of certain posters, he should make an argument for their unbanning, instead of engaging in his usual, deceptive style of "debating".

*It was kyle who suggested that post count be removed.

Regards,
David R

David,
Emphasis mine. I think that is the root of the issue. If people were just screaming for banning into the void, this would not be an issue (it is not in my opinion either way). The issue, as I understand it, is that there appears to be a cadre of influence on Pundit;i.e. a group that calls for banning and can reasonably expect it to happen. Again, I should note this is not what I have observed but am trying to represent Sett's position in good faith.

The second part of it is that Pundit also allows his ego to interfere with impartial bannings of law breakers. Sett does admit that some few should be banned. This is nothing new, there are many who think Piundit should ban more just as many believe he should ban fewer. Even his supporters do not agree on this point.

As to my own position on bannings, I think someone up thread put it nicely when they said Pundit the Mod is very different from Pundit the Poster. It makes for a confusing environment in a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of way.

ETA: I do not think it is about individual bannings. It is about how the bannings came about, the environment where they came about. As he said, and I will give him this, when he was around for them he fought against the bannings. I think this thread is an abstract of those banning to the point of discussing what has occurred to make them acceptable and welcome.

Quote from: HinterWelt;296295The issue, as I understand it, is that there appears to be a cadre of influence on Pundit;i.e. a group that calls for banning and can reasonably expect it to happen. Again, I should note this is not what I have observed but am trying to represent Sett's position in good faith.

Oh, I get Sett's position. It's just that I think, he's coming from a very dishonest place. Posters like Seanchai, droog and Aos, making similar claims , I take in good faith. Look through their posts and you will see, that they have been against all the bannings. Sett's position, though, is a complete lie. He knows very well that nobody influences the Pundit. God knows he's tried. I have no idea why he is starting this up now.

QuoteThe second part of it is that Pundit also allows his ego to interfere with impartial bannings of law breakers. Sett does admit that some few should be banned. This is nothing new, there are many who think Piundit should ban more just as many believe he should ban fewer. Even his supporters do not agree on this point.

I don't think the Pundit has that many supporters, truth be told. There are many who like the light moderation of this site, but as you have said before, they are here in spite of him not because of him. I have had my issues with him before - extremely public ones - but as far as bannings are concerned, it very rarely happens without much consideration. Nobody has been banned because someone has called for it.

QuoteETA: I do not think it is about individual bannings. It is about how the bannings came about, the environment where they came about. As he said, and I will give him this, when he was around for them he fought against the bannings. I think this thread is an abstract of those banning to the point of discussing what has occurred to make them acceptable and welcome.

Perhaps. But he has done his own share witchhunting. He has attempted to curb free speech on this board when it suited his agenda. I have no sympathy for his position esp when it comes from such a dishonest place. How many times has he started this shit ?

Regards,
David R

I think we should ban Sett.  I'm going to bring this up at the next secret theRPGsite true roleplayers meeting.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;296290I get along alright with droog, but given he rarely talks about rpgs and just snipes at people, probably he should be banned.

Steady on!

Quote from: KrakaJak;296250The drama here confounds me. Eveybody needs to quit being a whiny bitch and get to some game discussion.

A Winner Is Jak.

Though I totally lose points for sitting here and reading this.

Old. Fucking. Shit.  Supposed to be about RPGS, and just discussing bans and Mod style and other such crap. Blah blah blah, Pundit banned my buttbuddy. WAH!
 
 If you shut the fuck up about it and just talk about RPGs, it would become less of a fucking issue. In fact, I would gather that Pundit's moderating style would also become a non issue than. Fucking a, your Nerd Wars are pathetic.

@jrients:

Look how two bannings started:

QuoteAs you know, these last few days we've been debating the future of political discussion on theRPGsite. At the same time, the Admins have been having some pretty intense discussions about two posters who have received more complaints than pretty much anyone in the history of this forum.

On the subject of politics, you will be able to see that the conclusion of the public consultation was quite clear that people here still do want to talk politics. It was less clear as to whether or not they wanted to keep a specific Politics subforum.

Now, I was never very sure of the politics subforum in the first place, myself. I agreed to its creation because at that time, it was the elections, there were more political threads than usual, and.. guess who?... Cavscout and Jackalope were turning many of those threads into flamewars that drowned out non-political threads on OT.

However, the voting was very close, and one can argue that the Politics subforum creates a separation that keeps that certain type of discussion away from other areas. [snip]

So, it all started with the "Mods" reacting to complaints by other users.

I think the real problem lies with those who complain. This problem is immensely blown up by the fact that it was acted upon. Sure: Reluctantly, and only after Pundit baited them into into a pissing match with himself.