Sock puppets, spammers, and people who openly call for genocide are banned in this forum.
What about people who defend pedophilia?
Because, you know, I am not happy at all to see that here. Not one bit.
Was there a specific thread or poster you were referring to?
Just wondering, because I hadn't seen anyone recently talk about that kind of thing.
- Ed C.
Fritzs, in the RPG subforum.
QuoteWas there a specific thread or poster you were referring to?
Just wondering, because I hadn't seen anyone recently talk about that kind of thing.
I think there are at least 2 different threads discussing the subject at hand. Maid and Carcosa.
Fritzs I think might end up mocked into not posting, or at least shutting the fuck up, the way Settembrini was. No need to make it official.
I dont know, it can be tricky to generalize a rule. For example pedophilia currently includes 17 year olds (at least here), but that can even change in a month with a new law that moves the age bar, and suddenly its becomes ok.
Of course there are extreme examples that are more clear on which side they are, the challenge is not to drag the grey area in between. A trap easily triggered when drawing general rules.
There are quite a few people on the site who are only here to argue - no matter the subject. Why Fritzs chose that subject to make a stand is beyond me, but there you go.
Where's the line? A few months ago, i saw a thread elsewhere where a 'gamer' was suggesting a game where you played yourself and the GM could do anything he wanted to your 'character', in his words, "including raping your wife, girlfriend etc"
To borrow a line from Friends - "You crossed the line. No, you're so far over the line, the line is a dot to you."
There is difference between child molesting and pedophilia.
My stance:
Pedophilia=paraphilia, sexual deviation from common sexuality, in this specific case it is defined as:
-Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning sexual activity with a sexually immature child (usually age 13 or under).
-This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning.
-The patient is 16 or older and at least 5 years older than the child.
So as you can see, while pedophilia might result in child molesting, but pedophile isn't necessary child molester. The cause of pedophilia is presently unknown, but speculated to be result of changes in hypothalamus. Acording to psychnet-uk.com, pedophilia, like rest of paraphilic fantasies begin in late childhood or adoloescence and continue troughtfull life, so itisn't something you choose to be, but rather something you are born with/shaped into during childhood. Treatment is mixture of psychotherapy and medication.
Child molester=obviously someone who had molested child.
So taking one and one together, pedophile isn't necessarily child molester and child molester doesn't have to be pedophile.
Look how quickly the gang of censors come out when an issue comes up they don't agree with.
Nowhere do I see anyone promoting sexual interaction with children. Fritzs is trying to argue that pedophilia is a clinical psychological disease and those who have it should be treated. He's made a clear distinction between the act of child abuse and the predilection of pedophilia. A pretty standard distinction in psychology. Why should that be censored? Move it off-topic at this point, sure, but I don't see any lines being crossed here.
I think part of peoples problems with Fritz is his mastery of English, which can be at times somewhat poor. (I do think he tries very hard, but just doesn't always pull it off.) (And not everything he writes is poorly written, just some of the higher order stuff in my opinion.) Since we tend to judge each other on what we write, how we write it becomes very important.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258121Fritzs I think might end up mocked into not posting, or at least shutting the fuck up, the way Settembrini was. No need to make it official.
Instead of using laws to censor him, we'll just show up in gangs and shout him down.
Haven't seen much posting on RPG subjects recently, Kyle Aaron, but you sure seem to have time for a moral outrage post or two.
Quote from: walkerp;258176Look how quickly the gang of censors come out when an issue comes up they don't agree with.
Nowhere do I see anyone promoting sexual interaction with children. Fritzs is trying to argue that pedophilia is a clinical psychological disease and those who have it should be treated. He's made a clear distinction between the act of child abuse and the predilection of pedophilia. A pretty standard distinction in psychology. Why should that be censored? Move it off-topic at this point, sure, but I don't see any lines being crossed here.
I think that his argument changing from defending the right of people to do what they please as long as they don't break the law, at home, to the whole pedophile thing is what has disturbed some folk. As Serious Paul has said, the language barrier might be a contributing factor, but the possible link between his starting position upto the thread derail about pedophiles is what has a few peoples' blood up, i think (they can correct me, if i'm wrong).
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258121Fritzs I think might end up mocked into not posting, or at least shutting the fuck up, the way Settembrini was. No need to make it official.
I agree with Kyle. Fritzs has dug his his own credibility's grave. I say mock away until he figures this out for himself.
As most people know, I am steadfastly against official sanction for those that are just annoying, foolish, or don't agree with popular opinion. Fritzs fits into all three of those categories in spades, but doesn't warrant official sanction in my opinion.
TGA
Quote from: walkerp;258200Instead of using laws to censor him, we'll just show up in gangs and shout him down.
No, no. We mock and denigrate them, and thus make their time here unfulfilling for them. That is, inasmuch as they're saying vile things. If Fritzs wants to pop up in a roleplaying thread and discuss the actual topic I'm not about to start blathering about his defence of paedophiles. But if he
does defend them, then I'll mock and denigrate him.
No shouting's needed.
Quote from: walkerpHaven't seen much posting on RPG subjects recently, Kyle Aaron, but you sure seem to have time for a moral outrage post or two.
Then you haven't been looking. I have time for rpg posts
and mocking people. I'm flexible like that.
Of course, if you prefer then we can take Jong's suggestion and just ban the motherfucker.
Or is there a third option? To tolerate all views, no matter how retarded or vile? Ah, well then perhaps you'd enjoy Tangency over on rpg.net?
I put him on my ignore list.
So arguing for rehabilitation of criminals and freedom to behave as you please in your own home are considered retarded or vile views?
I guess the subject of child abuse energized the intolerant crew of therpgsite. Same thing happened with furries a month ago. You guys will probably disappear in a week or two and we can all sort of breath again.
We're done with this subject, as I consider that it is disrupting the functioning of theRPGsite. Fritzs in particular has been warned not to continue his obsession with this subject. I did a topic ban for Mythusmage, I see no reason why it shouldn't also apply to Fritzs. Its no better in this case that I don't really think Fritzs is actually a pedophile, it only makes it more of a disruption of the site, because he's not posting this stuff because he can't help it (the way Mythusmage apparently couldn't help himself), he's posting this stuff because he WANTS to disrupt this site.
RPGPundit
EDIT TO ADD: After seeing Walker's thread on Off-topic, this topic ban now extends to Walker too. I don't care whether its because they can't help themselves, because they're revealing their true desires; or because they simply want to harm this site and think this is their latest and best way of doing it. Either way, there's no reason this subject should be discussed in this way on this site. Its disruption, pure and simple.
I feel like I responsibly took the issue off the main page and brought it down to Politics where other disruptive topics are discussd. In no way am I motivated by trying to disrupt the site and I have been actively starting rpg topics (and getting barely any responses) and contributing to rpg threads. I don't really care about defending myself, because I think my motives are clear in my actual posts and posting behaviour. But I stick this here for the record.
Because this sounds a lot like the admin of the site doesn't agree with certain users' positions and will thus use his admin powers to restrict their ability to participate. Something that has already happened to me over at rpg.net (which is what brought me to this place initially).
"Topic ban"?! I mean come on, what the fuck. I thought we were above that.
walkerp you were being intentionally disruptive. There was no need for this particular topic to be dragged across the various sections of this board. I for one support the Pundit's mod ruling.
Regards,
David R
I know this will get me banhammered, so farewell to those few people around there, who don't hate me.
So, Pudny just send me this via PM:
Quote from: RPGPunditQuote from: My awesome selfI am not defending child molesters, I am defending pedophiles, who haven't molested any child. I't you know paraphilia, which means deviation from common sexuality,
Yes, and now its time you stopped. Mythusmage was topic banned because he couldn't shut up about this very topic.
The topic has been established as disruptive to the forum.
Whether you're saying this because you are sincerely pro-pedophilia or because you're just trying to disrupt this forum in a particularly grotesque way, you're done now.
Consider this a topic ban. ONE more fucking post where you even so much as mention pedophilia, and you get banned. Please, please, motherfucker, give me an excuse.
RPGPundit
You know, if you type: "therpgsite" into google you get this result:
Quote from: googletheRPGSite - [ Přeložit tuto stránku ]A forum for discussing roleplaying games. Speak your mind here without fear!
//www.therpgsite.com/ - 47k - Archiv - Podobné stránky
This line is pretty important I think and quite possibly the reason I spend so much time there. But obviously, it's not true, so it would be really nice, if you admins changed it afterwards I get banned into something more apropriate, like: "Forum for the prude and righteous" or "We suffer no witch to live"
The fact, that Pundy is worried about me distrubing his creation is actually quite bad excuse for baning me and it was bad excuse for baning that Mythusmage guy, because everyone could just add me into their ignore lists. But I am not angry at him, this is his forum and like I've said many times, do as you wish at your home.
Anyway I spend probably too much time there and as I got banned I could spend more time playing RPGs.
If you want to contact me for whatever reason, you can send me mail at: fritzs@seznam.cz
So, motherfucker, here you go:
Pedophilia FTW!Bye!
You missed the context:
A forum for discussing roleplaying games. Speak your mind here without fear!
Fritz you should just accept the topic ban and move on. You got yourself into a fucked spot and a topic ban is the best possible way out. For what it's worth, unlike some, I do think you make interesting comments but the whole Carcosa fiasco, did you no good.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: CavScout;258266You missed the context:
A forum for discussing roleplaying games. Speak your mind here without fear!
I don't feel like I can speak my mind here without fear. I thought I made some valid and interesting questions in the thread in politics. My goal was not to be disruptive but to question the assumptions that some people were making. It's clear that RPGPundit doesn't like my presence here because of positions I take on games and other things and is looking for an excuse to be rid of me.
Quote from: RPGPunditQuote from: walkerpQuote from: RPGPunditThis thread is closed. You, Walker, have earned yourself a topic ban identical to Fritzs. You're only talking about this to try to intentionally disrupt this site. Talk about pedophilia again, and you're gone.
Here's our PM exchange so you can see that. At the very least, he is being honest with me.
RPGPundit
Did you see the thread I already started in politics?
I agree that the topic may be considered disruptive, but then it should be kept isolated down in politics. Topic ban is stolen right from the rpg.net pagebook. I guess that even the most idealistic of us start to default to mod-control tendencies when the topic is one that one feels strongly about. Too bad. I was enjoying the site and generally appreciative of your moderation policies, even if I think you are and insane megalomaniac when it comes to your actual beliefs.
So I'm going to keep on talking about pedophilia down in Politics (though not for long, because I don't have that much of an attention span for these kinds of things). Ban me if you will. I think you are making a mistake.
You brought this on your fucking self. You don't give a flying fuck about pedophiles or their rights. You start the thread in the off-topic section, make it as inflammatory as possible, and then go into the Help forum thread Jong started and talk about how "intolerant" we are.
That's site disruption, fuckhead. And like I said, just give me a fucking excuse. Just one. I would love to have an utterly legitimate reason for getting rid of you. It will please me far more than with Mythusmage or Nox, both of whom I feel a little sorry for. I think both of them have serious problems, and can't help what they do.
Whereas you, you're just an asshole. Give me a reason; you will not be missed.
RPGPundit
I'd like to say that I had some great conversations here and really enjoyed the overall level of discourse, both when it was intelligent and reasoned and when it was humourous and even when it was ugly and excessive. I'm kind of bummed because therpgsite does have value to me, but I really can't participate in a place where I feel my voice is going to be checked. I weathered the gang-up tactics of the intolerant minority, but mod manipulation is just going too far for me.
Happy gaming everyone! May your dice roll well.
later,
WalkerP
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, fuckhead.
RPGPundit
Quote from: walkerp;258280but I really can't participate in a place where I feel my voice is going to be checked.
Seriously?
This subject is that important?
Really?
Quote from: walkerp;258280I don't feel like I can speak my mind here without fear. I thought I made some valid and interesting questions in the thread in politics. My goal was not to be disruptive but to question the assumptions that some people were making. It's clear that RPGPundit doesn't like my presence here because of positions I take on games and other things and is looking for an excuse to be rid of me.
"A forum for discussing roleplaying games. Speak your mind here without fear!"You can speak your mind about RPGs without fear. Doesn't say, nor does it imply, that you can speak your mind about how much you like pedophiles and the like.
If he wanted to get rid of you for your positions on RPGs he would "topic ban" you on the topics of RPGs. That you think you need to be able to promote pedophilia to talk about RPGs is not only strange, it is sad.
Not sure why you think you will become, or why you want to try, a martyr.
Quote from: Idinsinuation;258294Seriously?
This subject is that important?
Really?
Some people's priorities are really out of whack.
After most of Evil Avatar's regular userbase made their exodus to Colony of Gamers, a small group of rather embittered and vocal individuals went off to another site entirely instead solely because there wasn't a dedicated politics forum yet.
This on a site about
video games. I just don't get that mind set at all.
Hope you're satisfied, Jong. You got walker banned instead of Fritz.
For the record, I've never seen so much geek hysteria in one small place, and I think walker's banning was entirely unmerited. Good on you, grannies.
walkerp and Fritzs are undoubtedly cocksmocks, but should not have been banned [Edit: is that Czech idiot banned? I could have sworn I saw it under his nametag, but now...?] Give the topic ban a day or two to settle in before stomping on them when they break it.
This is a bit like when at the gaming table players are angrily arguing about something, and the GM says, "alright you two, stop right now!" Of course they usually won't, there'll be a minute or two while they settle down and the last bursts of babble dribble out.
So, give walkerp and Fritzs a day or two for the topic ban to settle in, and only if they continue to break it should they be banned.
At the moment it's all heated and confrontational, plus there's a bit of the old anti-Pundit macho pride stupidity, they seem to want to boast about being banned from therpgsite. But that'd be forgotten in a couple of days, and maybe they'd go back to talking about rpgs. Now me, I wouldn't miss their contributions - but others would, and a discussion forum is worth nothing more nor less than the contributions of its members.
Leave the topic ban, remove the bans.
I'd say keep the ban in place.
FritzS was smart enough to shut the fuck up about the subject he was asked to shut the fuck up about, no ban that I can see beyond a topic ban.
Walkerp decided that a request to shut the fuck up about a subject was an invitation to become a martyr, and he has been banned as far as I can tell. This is not new for him since he has done this same behavior pattern twice on tBP (and then came here to bitch about the trouble he'd gotten himself into). The only one responsible for the results of his stupidity is himself. Tough shit, let him live with it.
Let's never mind that walker is more worth to the whole forum than Fritz and isn't even a Forgista. Truly, cutting off your nose to spite your ugly face.
Shockingly, I find myself in complete agreement with JimBob.
Mythusmage was a creep. Fritzs is a loser, and walker is... walker.
Since when is being a loser or being walker banworthy? Under that description half therpgsite's membership should be out the door.
In recent usage the term "disruptive" has gotten pretty fucking expansive. This whole site is "disruptive." That's why I'm posting here, idiot.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;258331In recent usage the term "disruptive" has gotten pretty fucking expansive.
Please note.
Got a problem with your eyesight, droog?
Actually, I thought certain others might. Apparently they can't see the forest for the trees.
I will have to agree. Walker has much more to contribute than the latest nonsense, and the contributions far outweigh the nonsense. I would give him a day or two to mull things over, then lift the ban.
Fine fuckers, walkerp was not being disuptive. I just think that starting up a thread on a subject which was so fucking stupid in the first, merely to prolong the dumb, was disruptive to the the normal hatefests of this place. He's not be banned only topic banned, so what's the big deal ?
Regards,
David R
Did I completely miss something? What did walkerp do to merit a banning? I'm not feeling well right now, so I'm having trouble paying attention. He seemed like a productive member of this site, aside from his retarded statement a long time ago about wanting humanity to be destroyed. Maybe he's just having a bad day? We all have those.
So ...while I was at work , then at a D&D game...the original Walkerist up and walked?
Is that the gist of what happened today?
- Ed C.
Ah, shit. First CavScout, then this crap. Looks like it's 2 AM and someone's dimming the lights on this place. Time to move on.
!i!
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;258386Did I completely miss something? What did walkerp do to merit a banning? I'm not feeling well right now, so I'm having trouble paying attention. He seemed like a productive member of this site, aside from his retarded statement a long time ago about wanting humanity to be destroyed. Maybe he's just having a bad day? We all have those.
As near as I can tell? He was topic-banned, and then immediately posted a new thread in violation of the ban.
(This happened in the Politics subforum of Off Topic, which I don't normally read.)
EDIT:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12308
Quote from: walkerp;258285I know this thread is a deliberate attempt to get myself banned.
That would be the long and short of it, yes. It was his equivalent of "Ban me, motherfucker". I was more than happy to oblige: he's been hell-bent on trying to disrupt the site, and I don't give a twopenny fuck about his motherfucking moral conundrums, especially when it seems clear to me that there isn't even any real conviction behind them, merely an effort to try to claim that this site is full of "bigots" or whatever.
RPGPundit
Yeah, you know what? I may just change my mind about the value of an Off Topic forum here. Let'em go to Tangency.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;258395Ah, shit. First CavScout, then this crap. Looks like it's 2 AM and someone's dimming the lights on this place. Time to move on.
That you'd throw you lot in with a friend of pedophiles says something....
Quote from: David Johansen;258403Yeah, you know what? I may just change my mind about the value of an Off Topic forum here. Let'em go to Tangency.
I'm with you, mate.
But on the other hand, this whole nonsense started in the roleplaying forum...
So walkerp won the ban that was inteded for me...? Wasn't the whole thing planed as banbait for walkerp...? It looks like that.
Anyway to quote myself
Quote from: MyselfSo, motherfucker, here you go:
Pedophilia FTW!
Bye!
So where's my fucking ban...?:confused: Do you lack the balls it take to ban me...?:pundit: What did walker do to get banned before me...? :eek:Wasn't this whole thing made in order to ban me instead of walkerp...?:mad:
I DEMAND MY BAN!
So does this count as the RpgSite's first flameouts? (since Nox and MythusMage looked to be on borrowed time the moment they arrived)
It's regrettable, but I'm still kind of shocked they felt the need to flame out over a subject that is nearly universally reviled. What's next, a couple of posters start posting in sympathy for holocaust-deniers?
I think Pundit tried to do the right thing here with the topic ban. It's one of those subjects you really, really don't want your site associated with and is bound to be disruptive because it will offend half the people here. And frankly, for those two to continually post such ignorant, and even dangerous* statements, well I just can't imagine how they weren't being a bit intentionally disruptive over it. And the fact that both of them seemed to take the topic ban as a ticket to martyrdom seems to confirm that.
* I refer here to the infamous "they would never hurt someone they love" statement, because that's the kind of harmful stupidity that leads to all kinds of problems for victims
So why haven't anyone banned me...? walkerp started discussionin fucking politics subforum, because ti clearly was political issue and he go banned for that.
I am convinced, that there is no such topic that should not be discussed. That "ignorance is streng" thing, that your Warhammer 40k rulebook told you don't apply to real world.
Quote from: Fritzs;258441So why haven't anyone banned me...?
The masochist said to the sadist, "hurt me."
The sadist smiled and said, "no."
That's why.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258408I'm with you, mate.
But on the other hand, this whole nonsense started in the roleplaying forum...
Yech don't remind me...
Anyhow I'm not sure pedophillia is really the problem. The question was one of the difference between thought and deed. Whether pedophillia when not acted upon is a THOUGHT CRIME.
And, I know that in the philosophical basis of our laws in most of the western world you just can't prosecute people for bad thoughts.
On the other hand I got through only two and a half pages of the Carcosa thread before being so disgusted that I changed my mind about censorship.
Quote from: Fritzs;258441So why haven't anyone banned me...? walkerp started discussionin fucking politics subforum, because ti clearly was political issue and he go banned for that.
I am convinced, that there is no such topic that should not be discussed. That "ignorance is streng" thing, that your Warhammer 40k rulebook told you don't apply to real world.
WalkerRP had "the balls" to post outside of this thread. Please, Fritzs, have the balls.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jgants;258435So does this count as the RpgSite's first flameouts? (since Nox and MythusMage looked to be on borrowed time the moment they arrived)
Unless I recall incorrectly, neither of those people is actually banned.
RPGPundit: What the fuck, I've allready broken the "topic ban" by saying "Pedophilia FTW" in this specific thread. It seems like you are bending your own statements in my favor.
So you actually like me around there... then I have to ask: Don't you fell some twisted sexual desire towards shit I am posting there? Really, I can see no other reason for not banning me. I even asked you to get banned. Ban me! Do it!
Nox is, for sockpuppeting.
RPGPundit
Yup, that'll do it just fine, Fritzs. Thank you, honestly, for making it blatantly obvious that you were going to keep right on disrupting this site, in a way that makes it absolutely clear that you could not be allowed to continue being here.
I am deeply pleased, giddy even, at this particular banning. You were never on here for any reason other than to attack me, you were a fucking waste of space. Now you can go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.
RPGPundit
It's like a fire sale on bannings.
not even of interest to me until it's discussable without people wailing and gnashing teeth
Quote from: CavScout;258406That you'd throw you lot in with a friend of pedophiles says something....
And this is a perfect example of what I meant. That last RPGsite dust-up over at RPG.net a couple of months back brought over Tangency dregs like this whose only goal is to ratchet up conflict, and now we're seeing the bannings we were told would never happen.
!i!
This site is rapidly shedding what little moral superiority it has over RPG.net.
Losing walker is a tremendous blow for the forum's quality, since he was a valued, frequent poster with interesting opinions on many subjects, both RPG related and otherwise.
Fritzs' topic ban and ban were stupid and silly, especially considering that he was not advocating or praising illegal or unpopular acts, merely attempting to explain them (Poorly, but that's beside the point). The argument was stupid, but it was no more stupid than half the other discussions that happen on the site. Considering the bad blood between Fritzs and Pundit, this seems more like score-settling than a justified ban.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;258489This site is rapidly shedding what little moral superiority it has over RPG.net.
Losing walker is a tremendous blow for the forum's quality, since he was a valued, frequent poster with interesting opinions on many subjects, both RPG related and otherwise.
Fritzs' topic ban and ban were stupid and silly, especially considering that he was not advocating or praising illegal or unpopular acts, merely attempting to explain them (Poorly, but that's beside the point). The argument was stupid, but it was no more stupid than half the other discussions that happen on the site. Considering the bad blood between Fritzs and Pundit, this seems more like score-settling than a justified ban.
So are both Fritzs and walkerp completely banned from the site? Let's not get carried away here. Just let them continue posting in the rpg sections, but ban 'em both from
Off Topic for a while, at least until they settle down, and come back to their senses. It must be a full moon. There's weird shit going on lately...
Edit: Oh, wait. They were topic-banned, and posted outside of it. Or at least Fritzs did. Ooops..:(
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12312&page=3
Edit Number Two: I now see that Fritzs was begging for a banning, and you had no other recourse but to ban him. But I still think a banning for walkerp is overkill. He just needs to be prevented from going into
Off Topic for a while, until he cools off. Well, that's my two cents...
Edit Number Three: You know what? Couldn't we just tell Fritzs to stop being a twat, and leave it at that? Maybe he'll drop this nonsense, and focus on the rpg stuff again. Or am I being naive?
Fritz contributed nothing but noise clogging up the signal ratio.
Walker by contrast was a good poster who I valued highly, and I consider his banning a real loss to the site, I also think his breach of the topic ban understandtable in the circumstances.
The Walker banning was wrong, the Fritz banning frankly overdue. Did he even discuss rpgs? Did he play any?
Walker plays games, and posts here about the games he plays, stuff that interests me too such as Aces & Eights. Banning him was an error and should be reversed.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;258505Just let them continue posting in the rpg sections, but ban 'em both from Off Topic for a while, at least until they settle down, and come back to their senses.
Better still, ban
everyone from Off Topic, and its bastard mutant child Politics. Just close the fuckers down. This is the
rpgsite, ain't it?
QuoteI now see that Fritzs was begging for a banning
Which is exactly why he
shouldn't have been banned.
Even if he
was a Forger commie mutant traitor.
Quote from: Balbinus;258514Walker plays games, and posts here about the games he plays, stuff that interests me too such as Aces & Eights. Banning him was an error and should be reversed.
The problem with Walker's banning, if I read his posts correctly, is that he essentially declared that he was quitting and requested the ban as insurance that he wouldn't and couldn't come back. The error, to my mind, is that Pundy obliged, and in doing so lending lie to his own pledge.
Another matter that bothers me is the real grounds for all this drama. The rationalisation for the banning is ostensibly for being a "disruptive" influence. But Walker's and Fritzs' particular disruption focused on a particular topic of social and political controversy, while a good handful of our newer members here carry on with regular "disruption" and precious little, if any, discussion of roleplaying games. What was the real cause for the confrontation and banning here?
!i!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258547Better still, ban everyone from Off Topic, and its bastard mutant child Politics. Just close the fuckers down. This is therpgsite, ain't it?
A perfect way to completely ruin the RPG section.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;258480And this is a perfect example of what I meant. That last RPGsite dust-up over at RPG.net a couple of months back brought over Tangency dregs like this whose only goal is to ratchet up conflict, and now we're seeing the bannings we were told would never happen.
!i!
Actually, Ian, I have said from DAY ONE that I was almost 100% certain I'd have to ban people. It amazed me that the site ran for so long without banning anyone at all.
What I did say is that no one would be banned for their speech alone. People are not banned here for engaging in "ideologically incorrect" speech, or saying nasty things about me, or whatever. People who are banned from this site are so banned because they are intentionally trying to disrupt this site's usability.
So people who've consistently spoken ill of me, or well of Forge games, or whatever, have been able to post here since day one and continue to do so, as long as they are doing so in a way that isn't otherwise intending to derail this site.
But people who are engaging in posting activity that is only meant to give this site a bad name, or make it less likely regular gamers will enjoy being here, or that are meant to derail and sabotage threads, etc etc. will not be tolerated by hiding under a banner of "free speech". They're spammers, and will be treated as such.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;258505So are both Fritzs and walkerp completely banned from the site? Let's not get carried away here. Just let them continue posting in the rpg sections, but ban 'em both from Off Topic for a while, at least until they settle down, and come back to their senses. It must be a full moon. There's weird shit going on lately...
Edit: Oh, wait. They were topic-banned, and posted outside of it. Or at least Fritzs did. Ooops..:(
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12312&page=3
Edit Number Two: I now see that Fritzs was begging for a banning, and you had no other recourse but to ban him. But I still think a banning for walkerp is overkill. He just needs to be prevented from going into Off Topic for a while, until he cools off. Well, that's my two cents...
Edit Number Three: You know what? Couldn't we just tell Fritzs to stop being a twat, and leave it at that? Maybe he'll drop this nonsense, and focus on the rpg stuff again. Or am I being naive?
Walker did the exact same thing Fritzs did, in fact he did it first. He started a brand-new thread about pedophilia the moment after I topic-banned him on it. And since Walker has said he only posts here for "revenge"; and Fritzs has made it obviously clear in his time here that the only reason he was on this site was to attack me, I don't think losing either of them will be particularly detrimental to this site.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Balbinus;258514Fritz contributed nothing but noise clogging up the signal ratio.
Walker by contrast was a good poster who I valued highly, and I consider his banning a real loss to the site, I also think his breach of the topic ban understandtable in the circumstances.
How, how was it fucking "Understandable": I didn't do anything to him other than tell him to stop posting about child molestation. He wasn't banned from posting about RPGs, he wasn't banned from posting in Off Topic, even; the only thing he had to do was not post about pedophilia, and he went right ahead and did that. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT "UNDERSTANDABLE"?
That's nothing but saying "ban me, motherfucker".
RPGPundit
Just as long as you don't have to get banned to be part of the kewl kids klub. In hindsight that's when rpg.net jumped the shark. It got so being banned for certain opinions and attitudes was rewarded with massive surges in popularity and status. In fact the queen of that disaster was the one who coined the phrase "ban me motherfucker!"
It was that vicious little cycle on Tangency that led to the increased levels of moderation and the new rules and all the rest of it.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;258550Another matter that bothers me is the real grounds for all this drama. The rationalisation for the banning is ostensibly for being a "disruptive" influence. But Walker's and Fritzs' particular disruption focused on a particular topic of social and political controversy, while a good handful of our newer members here carry on with regular "disruption" and precious little, if any, discussion of roleplaying games. What was the real cause for the confrontation and banning here?
!i!
Simple. Fritzs was defending pedophilia because the storygames feature it; and I'm against the storygames, and therefore both Storygames and Pedophilia MUST be good things, because the Pundit is not for them.
So he went on to post incessant and absurd defenses of pedophilia and claiming that regular roleplayers were evil for not wanting pedophilia-themed RPGs.
Then, when topic banned about that, and only that, subject, he went on to violate said ban.
Walker, meanwhile, for essentially the same reasons (except not obsessively about my person specifically, but regular gamers in general) set about to defame this site by setting up conditions where he claimed there was a "witch-hunt" of "prudes" equivalent to the "christian right" and the nazis, and god knows what else over here, even though he himself had started a thread on this subject with the intention to keep fanning the flames and being able to continue using this unpleasant subject as evidence that Regular Roleplayers were "obsessed" with this subject.
Having judged him to be the one obsessed, and intentionally trying to flood this site with discussions on a fringe issue that was not central to RPGs and was intended to attract negative attention of all kinds to the site, I topic banned him on the subject.
He went on to immediately (faster even than Fritzs) start a new thread about the subject in Off-topic, which earned him his banning.
He certainly worked very very hard and made enormous effort to earn it. They both did. Its extremely difficult to be banned from theRPGsite, short of being an out-and-out spammer.
And that's pretty much the whole story.
RPGPundit
I understand and respect the decision to ban both posters, but I'm still not thrilled about the walkerp banning. I guess I'll just leave it at that.
Huh? walkerp banned?
Disrupting this site?
This is now a category of consideration?
WTF?
Errr...Pundit, you lost me now. Fuck, aren´t YOU now the one who is disrupting this site? By shaking it´s foundations, undermining it´s raison d´être?
If ANYTHING is really disrupting this site it is stupidity, and many people chose not take offence in that (and Kyle, this is the reason why I´m basically not posting anymore. Because of stupidity so large it can´t even manage it´s own argumentative stances). I think Fritzs is an idiot of gigantic proportions, and walkerp is a cocksmock, but banning them?
That´s highly ridiculous. The Pundit of yesteryear would have fought them and mocked them. Instead you mentally abandonded this site long ago, and now you use the lazy solution.
Undo your decision.
Quote from: Settembrini;258669Huh? walkerp banned?
Disrupting this site?
This is now a category of consideration?
From the very beginning, you ass, this has been the ONLY category of consideration. "Disrupting the site" is the reason Nox was banned, its the reason Mythusmage was topic-banned (and eventually essentially banned himself), its the reason all those animalball idiots were banned, and its the reason walker and fritzs were banned. Its the only reason anyone ever has gotten banned, and its been the policy of this site from DAY FUCKING ONE.
And the fact that you think this place should be one where we spend time trying to argue with viagra salesmen and nigerian princes rather than just banning them as the disruptive vermin they are doesn't mean you should try to practice revisionist history and act like you've never heard of this before, you german dumbfuck.
RPGPundit
I don't think they were disruptive overall. In the last couple of days with these two stupid fucking games and supplements, yes. But overall? Nope.
I certainly find both walkerp and Fritzs annoying at times, so can certainly imagine that Pundit would find them even more so, but we need something better than "he annoys me sometimes." Otherwise we have to ban Engine and Jackalope and a whole swag of other blokes like that.
Bring 'em back.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258715...we need something better than "he annoys me sometimes." Otherwise we have to ban Engine and Jackalope and a whole swag of other blokes like that.
My sentiments exactly. Yes, Walker and Fritzs crossed a particular line drawn in the sand, but the real underlying message appears to be that they were "disruptive". As merely being "disruptive" clearly isn't all it takes to get banned here, this situation appears to have devolved into a silly pissing match that revolved around Trad v. Story Game philosophies.
Lift the bans, or start culling the other "disruptive" members we've collected.
!i!
Quote from: droog;258325Hope you're satisfied, Jong. You got walker banned instead of Fritz.
I know this might be a shock for you, but I don't have mind-controlling powers over Walkerp.
Quote from: JongWK;258741I know this might be a shock for you, but I don't have mind-controlling powers over Walkerp.
I... am... stunned.
But that was probably because of your Ego Whip.
Quote from: Settembrini;258669That´s highly ridiculous. The Pundit of yesteryear would have fought them and mocked them. Instead you mentally abandonded this site long ago, and now you use the lazy solution.
Honestly from my perspective, and I'm speaking generally here, I'd rather people just get banned and be done with it than trying to ridicule them into submission. One of my (many, MANY) problems with rpg.net isn't so much the bannings but the hyena, piling on mentality of the posters. It's ugly and immature and judging from a few of the threads on the Politics subforum they only devolve into "You're stupid," "No YOU'RE stupid!" dickwaving.
Lock threads and/or ban people if they deserve it, but be professional about it. Internet tribalism should have no place here.
Quote from: RPGPundit;258699you german dumbfuck.
RPGPundit
Huh? Where did that come from?
And If you would honour history as you imply I should, you´d know I was harshly against the Animalball bannings. They were unneeded too. And it´s pretty weak rhetoric trick from someone like you to include spambots into the policy I proposed. That you must resort to such name calling and twists of rather unelegant design shows you are in a argumentative cul-de-sac.
Honestly, there are other posters that are way more "disruptive" to this site than walker´s antics or fritzs stupidity.
And that´s why I´m pretty astonished that you now interpret this so widely.
Walker baited you, and you jumped on it. Now, who´s the greater fool?
Quote from: Pete;258768I'd rather people just get banned and be done with it than trying to ridicule them into submission.
Well, the raison d´être of theRPGsite was to exactly counter this line of thinking. Let the arguments reign freely!
At least that´s what I understood it to be, maybe I was wrong.
bait-bans and ban-baits are what was to be avoided, IIRC.
Quote from: Settembrini;258776Walker baited you, and you jumped on it. Now, who´s the greater fool?
I fail to see the logic in this, and you're not the first to state it. In essence, it gives free reign to anyone wishing to violate what ever rules have been laid down, doubly so if they have some past history with Pundit. A line was drawn and they voluntarily decided to test Pundit's resolve on the matter.
Pundit recently reminded posters that links or images of pornography was forbidden and would lead to banning. If some poster, deciding that porn should be more openly tolerated, decided to start a few threads about porn and include links/images, would folks be jumping to his defense if Pundit banned him? Would it matter if the poster had a "history" with Pundit or not?
In the end, two folks were told not to post any new threads on pedophilia. Pedophilia, not "forge" games, not "I love Maid" threads, not "Pundit is an a-hole" threads. Pedophilia.
Why the fuck are folks rallying around those who rallied around the topic of pedophilia?
Quote from: CavScout;258781Why the fuck are folks rallying around those who rallied around the topic of pedophilia?
I'm wondering the same thing.
Did they really defend & condone it? I don´t think so.
I think walkerp played "who chickens out" with Pundit, that´s what happened.
And Firtzs is just a fool whom you could attribute to have said anything you like. Everyone should have him on his IL, out of personal insight, but nothing more.
Remember, walkerp also says all humans should die. He wasn´t banned for that, no? Why, I wonder if it´s really about the actual content of the debate and not some pissing match.
EDIT: To make my stance on the alleged debate more clear, I was and am in full agreement over banning Mythusmage.
Quote from: Settembrini;258788Did they really defend & condone it? I don´t think so.
Their basic premise sure seemed to be "you need to be more tolerant of pedophiles, they haven't done anything wrong.... yet." They were defending them from what they considered
QuoteI think walkerp played "who chickens out" with Pundit, that´s what happened.
Over pedophilia.
QuoteAnd Firtzs is just a fool whom you could attribute to have said anything you like. Everyone should have him on his IL, out of personal insight, but nothing more.
Remember, walkerp also says all humans should die. He wasn´t banned for that, no? Why, I wonder if it´s really about the actual content of the debate and not some pissing match.
If they didn't continue with the "content of the debate", in this case pedophilia, they'd still be here in their silly "pissing match" with Pundit.
That's what keeps be ignored or missed. Pundit didn't forbid them to fuck with him, he didn't limit what games they could post about and he didn't forbid them from being general a-holes on the site. He forbid them from talking about pedophilia. It was this, and only this, that led to their demise.
Look, technically you are right. But if there hadn´t been a topic ban, what would have happened?
The moment there was a topic ban it stopped being about the content and it was all about pride from that moment on.
Quote from: Settembrini;258791Look, technically you are right. But if there hadn´t been a topic ban, what would have happened?
The moment there was a topic ban it stopped being about the content and it was all about pride from that moment on.
All violations of a topic ban (be it porn, spam or what not) are test of the moderators will. The only way to avoid it is to have zero restrictions on how or what can be posted.
But was a topic ban needed? To what end? With Mythusmage it was clear to me. But walker just is a relativistic sophomoric douchebag. He would defend anything just to be contrary or shopw off how ultra-open-minded he is. And there was a time such antics were revealed and mocked, as they deseve. ESPECIALLY with such a grave issue.
What walker did was just the purest form of swinery: taking a controversial issue, taking an unpopular stance just to show off his "deep open-mindedness". Swinery, for sure, but that´s still not a bannable offense.
Sorry, I see where you are coming from, but I remain unconvinced.
Anyhoo, nobody has to convince me, so there you go. ust wanted to makes sure WHY I don´t like them being banned.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258715I don't think they were disruptive overall. In the last couple of days with these two stupid fucking games and supplements, yes. But overall? Nope.
I certainly find both walkerp and Fritzs annoying at times, so can certainly imagine that Pundit would find them even more so, but we need something better than "he annoys me sometimes." Otherwise we have to ban Engine and Jackalope and a whole swag of other blokes like that.
Bring 'em back.
I hope Jackalope doesn't mind me posting about this, and I figure he won't, but let me give you an example that explains the difference. When I warned Fritzs, he went right on doing exactly what he was doing. Later I topic banned him, and kept right on going. That's disruption.
With Jackalope, he recently went way over the line in a personal attack on Koltar. I gave him a strong warning in that thread, and (like I try to do) mailed him the warning in a PM. Here's his reply, including my warning:
QuoteCopy. Next time I will limit myself to calling him a fuckhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGPundit
And speaking of mudslinging, Jackalope, it is completely inappropriate for you to be hefting those kinds of personal accusations at Koltar. There are limits, even here, and the frequency and severity of the personal attacks you've made on Koltar borders on stalking.
Please don't make things escalate here. Just stop saying shit like this, about Koltar. Its enough for you to say that you don't like him and you think he's a fuckhead. Next time you feel like saying what you said above, just say that instead, and we won't have a problem. Though frankly it might be wiser if you just ignored him.
RPGPundit
In other words, Jackalope was reasonable, and agreed to desist. I don't ban people because I don't like them, I ban people because they fail to desist in disruptive behavior.
Jackalope responded to a reasonable request. And he was able to do so because he was not out to damage this site.
Then people are aghast in wonderment and shock that I would have to ban fuckheads like walker and fritzs. If either of them had just said what Jackalope said above, there would have been no problem. But of course, they WANTED to get banned (or at the very least, they had no point in being on this site if they couldn't keep disrupting it, because that was their reason for being here).
RPGPundit
This clusterfuck is already done, so there's nothing we can do about it. My question is....if the two posters simply provided a sincere apology, would the bans be lifted?
Quote from: Settembrini;258788Did they really defend & condone it? I don´t think so.
Yes. Fritzs LITERALLY did. Walker just attacked anyone who didn't condone it claiming that they were "prudes" at he same level as the "christian right".
QuoteRemember, walkerp also says all humans should die. He wasn´t banned for that, no? Why, I wonder if it´s really about the actual content of the debate and not some pissing match.
OF COURSE its about the pissing match. That's the whole point. I wouldn't ban someone over "content". I'd ban them over the fact that their personal pissing matches get so hyperinflated that they make it damaging to this sites functioning or reputation as a whole.
QuoteEDIT: To make my stance on the alleged debate more clear, I was and am in full agreement over banning Mythusmage.
The precedent is exactly the same. Mythusmage was not actually banned, but only because he left, basically. So inasmuch as he was "banned" it was NOT because he was a pedophile, it was because he COULDN'T STOP TALKING about his pedophilic interests.
Nox wasn't banned because he was anti-islamic. He was banned because he COULDN'T SHUT UP about his anti-islamic ideas.
Walker and Fritzs weren't banned because of their defence of pedophilia or the pedophilic elements in Maid or Carcossa; nor were they banned because they didn't like me. They were banned because they COULDN'T STOP TALKING about these things.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;258804OF COURSE its about the pissing match. That's the whole point. I wouldn't ban someone over "content". I'd ban them over the fact that their personal pissing matches get so hyperinflated that they make it damaging to this sites functioning or reputation as a whole.
The precedent is exactly the same. Mythusmage was not [...]
RPGPundit
1) Good to see you think it´s about the pissing match too. @CavScout: see?
2) ...and that´s why it´s totally NOT like Mythusmage. Walker just didn´t stop the pissing match. I do not believe he couldn´t resist talking about "it" in the way Nox couldn´t resist talking about genocide.
So it´s about the pissing match. But you, the RPGPundit raised the stakes to bannings, in a way baiting them, daring them. So, what I´d be interested in would be the answer to SacLambs question:
If they/he apologized, would the ban be lifted?
If they cooperated like Jackalope?
Quote from: Settembrini;2588061) Good to see you think it´s about the pissing match too. @CavScout: see?
Are you pissing too, Sett?
This is ridiculous.
Let's look at what happened...
1) Derail a thread in the RPG section. This derail included a rather foul post by Fritzs that rightly drew him a lot of heat.
2) Walkerp rides in on his white horse and defends poor beleagured Fritzs.
3) The thread goes to hell in a hand-cart, with plenty of stupid posts by both of them.
4) They get told to desist from discussing a subject that the site has precedence in wanting to control.
5) The subject is obviously of so much importance to them that they can't possibly stop talking about it. Going so far as trying to scare away a new poster with a load of bollocks and the transparent new thread by walkerp, posted under the pretense of actually looking at the subject - but as we all know, it was really just an adolescent tantrum. Don't forget that at every turn, he was quite willing to either a) kill us all, or b) tell anyone who happened to read his posts how awful and nasty and bigoted we all were.
That is disruption, no?
6) Suddenly, folk who were disgusted by the antics of those two are now clamouring over the end result of their bans and creating internet drama when they
really know what it was all about. It wasn't about a game discussion, it wasn't over a clash with the admins, it wasn't about story vs trad games, it wasn't over a fight against the close-minded masses. It was about arguing the toss over something that was pathetic. Why do you argue the toss over something that has no relevance to the site and, in the final analysis, was a pathetic argument to argue the toss over anyway? What would such people be looking to achieve with those arguments?
Shit stirring, that's what, or put another way, disruption.
I fully concur with your analysis in so far as it´s what happened. And if you look at your own analysis, you´ll see that a ban is pretty much unneeded, as walker just did what he always does.
With that definition of disruption you just fielded, you could have banned them from day one, both of them.
Sett, take a quick look at droog's involvement in those threads. He was also calling people prudes, and defending poor Fritz/maid/etc.
The difference was, droog didn't feel the need to start all kinds of other disruptions. He kept his obnoxiousness confined to the thread and didn't go crazy with it.
I think droog represents the non-disruptive yet obnoxious person person involved in the topic while walker and fritz were disruptive and obnoxious. I can see the difference there.
Quote from: Settembrini;258830I fully concur with your analysis in so far as it´s what happened.
Then there's nothing more to talk about, is there?
It's all about the drama.
Maybe we need some Drama-mine!
HA! I slay me!!
:D
OneHorseTown: I see how the bans came to be. I remain unconvinced that they were needed/without alternative, and I fear the damage done will be greater than without a ban.
I guess that´s the point were we have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Settembrini;258838OneHorseTown: I see how the bans came to be. I remain unconvinced that they were needed/without alternative, and I fear the damage done will be greater than without a ban.
I guess that´s the point were we have to agree to disagree.
There
was an alternative. Both of them could have been mature enough to engage with the site without trying to undermine it at every turn. Sadly, this is where the pissing match you mention comes in. Have the fucking maturity to accept the one time when you are asked not to do something on a site which in 99.9% of cases asks you to do nothing. But no, they couldn't do that, it was too much trouble for them and they wanted to 'prove' how oppressed they were being. Sod 'em.
Quote from: jgants;258833I think droog represents the non-disruptive yet obnoxious person involved in the topic while walker and fritz were disruptive and obnoxious. I can see the difference there.
I'm just smart.
Quote from: RPGPundit;258802In other words, Jackalope was reasonable, and agreed to desist. I don't ban people because I don't like them, I ban people because they fail to desist in disruptive behavior.
Sure. I'm just saying that you ought to have given the topic ban a day or two to settle in. As I originally said, it's like interrupting a heated argument at the game table - you can't expect it to stop instantly. If they continue, sure, chuck 'em out. But give them a day or two to settle down.
Give them a chance to shut the fuck up about the topic at the time, a decent chance. If it happens over weeks or months, fair enough.
Quote from: One Horse TownSuddenly, folk who were disgusted by the antics of those two are now clamouring over the end result of their bans and creating internet drama when they really know what it was all about. It wasn't about a game discussion,
No, it wasn't over a game discussion. But while we have non-game discussions at the
rpgsite, we have to deal with them. And anyway this was all about a topic which arose from two game discussions,
Maid the pervert rpg, and
Carcosa the "would you rape and murder a child to save a thousand lives, or just for another spell on your spell list? Let's describe and explore that in detail" supplement.
If we have these non-gaming topics at all - which I think we shouldn't, it should be all games and stuff which inspires games like movies and history, no politics and so on - then we have to expect bullshit to come from them. It wasn't discussions of rpgs that got rpg.net all its stupid rules, it was politics and shit like that. Cessna warned us a while back - this is how it all starts.
We have to have a bit of give and take, sometimes understanding that people need a day or two to calm down, and that any stupid fuck who actually asks to be banned should not be, because it encourages the martyr mentality which then leads to more bullshit and rules and so on. And encouraging martyrs disrupts the site.
I'm amazed how verbose some members get on this topic. Some guys play with fire. They know what they're doing. They get warned. They go on. They get banned. Simple.
I've seen enough boards turn to shit because of trolls in my twelve years of internet wandering. At some point one has to amputate the infected limb.
So says the mods at rpg.net, boulet.
We don't want to go that way.
Even 4chan has to ban people now and again.
Quote from: J Arcane;258909Even 4chan has to ban people now and again.
Isn't that kind of like the prisoner other inmates shun at the Supermax? You really don't want to run into that guy, even on a bright sunny day in the middle of the police sponsored gun show.
Quote from: RPGPundit;258802I don't ban people because I don't like them, I ban people because they fail to desist in disruptive behavior.
It seems to me that "disruptive behavior" is defined as whatever you need it to be in order to ban the folks who you want to ban.
I thought - and clearly I was wrong - that there weren't any rules or moderators slapping our hands here, that we were expected to be adults and react in an adult manner. But now "disruptive behavior" seems to be defined more and more like it would be on TBP.
If you're going to ban a spammer for disruptive behavior, so be it. But banning folks because they don't share your views?
Yes, they were discussing pedophilia. Big deal. Re-read the part about being adults. If someone is discussing a subject like that and you're not happy with the discussion, say your peace and then leave. Ignore it. Don't read it. Problem handled.
That's what I did with the Maid thread.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;259005If you're going to ban a spammer for disruptive behavior, so be it. But banning folks because they don't share your views?
Yes, they were discussing pedophilia. Big deal. Re-read the part about being adults. If someone is discussing a subject like that and you're not happy with the discussion, say your peace and then leave. Ignore it. Don't read it. Problem handled.
Can't we do the same for "spam" as well, just ignore it? Or should they still be banned?
Quote from: boulet;258892Some guys play with fire. They know what they're doing. They get warned. They go on. They get banned. Simple.
I am with Boulet on this one. I see this site as RPG Pundit's place and as the host of the party, he can kick people out who craps on his lawn and since he's paying the bills, he alone gets to define what crap on his lawn looks like. He is decent enough to warn people before banning them. It's a bummer we lost Fritz and walkerp, but they chose to keep crapping on the lawn.
For the record, I thought Fritz made more sense than his detractors. But it's RPG Pundit's place so I am cool to either abide by his rules or leave. If someone desperately needs to make a "personal statement", they can start a blog...or their own damn forum.
BTW, in Carcosa, if you want to be a sorceror who saves people from monsters, you cast banishing rituals. These rituals do not involve any sacrifices. Its the rituals where you summon Cthulhu beasties and bind them to your will that require the foul deeds. It is totally possible to be the shining knight of goodness as a sorceror in Carcosa...it just means you need to say no to greater power to protect your humanity and you have to endure the social stigma until people realize where you stand.
Are you getting commission? ;)
Quote from: CavScout;259008Can't we do the same for "spam" as well, just ignore it? Or should they still be banned?
You can ignore it. But it's much easier to objectively point out a spammer than it is to point out what's objectively "disruptive."
Now Pundy can't say whatever he'd like is "disruptive," but it seems to me that the moderators over at TBP ought to be posting a Pundy-style I-Told-You-So blog right about now because it seems like the RPGSite is definitely moving closer to their style moderation...
Seanchai
Quote from: StormBringer;258982Isn't that kind of like the prisoner other inmates shun at the Supermax? You really don't want to run into that guy, even on a bright sunny day in the middle of the police sponsored gun show.
Appropriately enough to this discussion perhaps, child pornography is one of the bannable offenses . . .
Quote from: Seanchai;259039You can ignore it. But it's much easier to objectively point out a spammer than it is to point out what's objectively "disruptive."
Now Pundy can't say whatever he'd like is "disruptive," but it seems to me that the moderators over at TBP ought to be posting a Pundy-style I-Told-You-So blog right about now because it seems like the RPGSite is definitely moving closer to their style moderation...
"Objectivity" on what is a "disruption" is simply in the eye of the beholder. Spam to one could certainly be interesting tid-bits to another. Although, I don't see how anyone would state, objectively, that taking on the site's very little moderation and direction wouldn't be disruptive activity.
Again, I point to Pundit's reminder in an earlier thread that links to or images of porn would forbidden on the site. If someone decided to say a big-old "fuck you" to Pundit and posted links or images, would folks be rallying around their banning?
Fritz and Walker both were told to not post threads on a specific topic only, pedophilia. They weren't to they couldn't post other things, or, like Fritz, continue his little hate-relationship with Pundit. They were told "no more" to one, very narrow topic.
That people are still trying to question the site's moderation, what little there is, instead of asking why anyone would go down in flames over a super-narrow topic ban on pedophilia. Really, was that going to restrict their postings of RPGs so much if they weren't able to tell the rest of us to have more tolerance of pedophiles?
People keep talking about personal conflict and how they blame that on the bannings instead of asking why the two individuals decided to fall on their swords over such a bizarre and useless topic. I do think personal conflict led to the bannings, except I see the onus on the two that let that personal conflict drive their violation of a super narrow, and frankly reasonable, topic ban.
Quote from: CavScout;259056"Objectivity" on what is a "disruption" is simply in the eye of the beholder. Spam to one could certainly be interesting tid-bits to another.
And yet still suck up bandwidth, increase post counts, link to unsafe sites/viruses, etc.
Quote from: CavScout;259056Again, I point to Pundit's reminder in an earlier thread that links to or images of porn would forbidden on the site. If someone decided to say a big-old "fuck you" to Pundit and posted links or images, would folks be rallying around their banning?
I don't know - where they posting pictures of Michelangeo's David and Pundy is calling it porn?
Quote from: CavScout;259056Fritz and Walker both were told to not post threads on a specific topic only, pedophilia. They weren't to they couldn't post other things, or, like Fritz, continue his little hate-relationship with Pundit. They were told "no more" to one, very narrow topic.
And topic bans are very TBP.
Quote from: CavScout;259056That people are still trying to question the site's moderation, what little there is, instead of asking why anyone would go down in flames over a super-narrow topic ban on pedophilia.
Because, to my understanding, you could talk about anything here. The subject matter doesn't matter - it's Pundy saying, "You won't be banned, moderated, or censored on the RPGSite," and then banning and moderating folks.
Yeah, it's just a tad bit of moderation. For now. And, more to the point, as I understood it, there would be none.
Quote from: CavScout;259056People keep talking about personal conflict and how they blame that on the bannings instead of asking why the two individuals decided to fall on their swords over such a bizarre and useless topic.
Probably because it doesn't matter.
Seanchai
I'd still vote for a temporary ban for WalkerP but I somehow doubt he would ruin his grand exit by coming back anytime soon. I mean, all percieved prejudice aside, he did say, "Ban me mother fucker!"
Quote from: Seanchai;259070I don't know - where they posting pictures of Michelangeo's David and Pundy is calling it porn?
The pedophilia discussion could hardly be compared to Michelangelo's David. It was more like an angry art student venting their frustrations on a canvas until they're both covered in paint. I should know, I've been there before.
Quote from: Idinsinuation;259083I'd still vote for a temporary ban for WalkerP but I somehow doubt he would ruin his grand exit by coming back anytime soon. I mean, all percieved prejudice aside, he did say, "Ban me mother fucker!"
The pedophilia discussion could hardly be compared to Michelangelo's David. It was more like an angry art student venting their frustrations on a canvas until they're both covered in paint. I should know, I've been there before.
Exactly. I lament Walker had to hit critical mass over something like this, but it is just about the same attitude that leads someone to encase a religious icon or symbol in human or animal waste, then pretend to be shocked over the utterly predictable outcome, and display outrage that people would be trying to censor their
art.
Quote from: Seanchai;259005It seems to me that "disruptive behavior" is defined as whatever you need it to be in order to ban the folks who you want to ban.
I thought - and clearly I was wrong - that there weren't any rules or moderators slapping our hands here, that we were expected to be adults and react in an adult manner. But now "disruptive behavior" seems to be defined more and more like it would be on TBP.
If you're going to ban a spammer for disruptive behavior, so be it. But banning folks because they don't share your views?
Yes, they were discussing pedophilia. Big deal. Re-read the part about being adults. If someone is discussing a subject like that and you're not happy with the discussion, say your peace and then leave. Ignore it. Don't read it. Problem handled.
That's what I did with the Maid thread.
Seanchai
The problem wasn't that they were trying to discuss it, its that they were trying to flood the forum with discussion about it, to try to make out theRPGsite to be "that site where all they talk about is pedophilia". That's disruption.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Seanchai;259039You can ignore it. But it's much easier to objectively point out a spammer than it is to point out what's objectively "disruptive."
Now Pundy can't say whatever he'd like is "disruptive," but it seems to me that the moderators over at TBP ought to be posting a Pundy-style I-Told-You-So blog right about now because it seems like the RPGSite is definitely moving closer to their style moderation...
Seanchai
Yes, the hordes of people banned over at RPG.net, and people temp-banned for using the word "gay" in their post about Changeling, and the topic-banning of the Brain Damage issue because talking about that upsets the Forgers, and the banning of people for not agreeing with the mods about politics, or religion, or sexuality, or exalted, is EXACTLY like me banning one guy who ADMITTED he was only posting on here "for revenge" and another guy who was obviously only posting on here to attack me; and only doing so after they provoked this site for months, and even then only after they both chose to intentionally violate an extremely narrow topic-ban about a topic that has no business being central to an RPG-discussion forum and thus wouldn't have affected their presence here in the least, had they been here in good faith. EXACTLY like that. :rolleyes:
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;259098Yes, the hordes of people banned over at RPG.net, and people temp-banned for using the word "gay" in their post about Changeling, and the topic-banning of the Brain Damage issue because talking about that upsets the Forgers, and the banning of people for not agreeing with the mods about politics, or religion, or sexuality, or exalted, is EXACTLY like me banning one guy who ADMITTED he was only posting on here "for revenge" and another guy who was obviously only posting on here to attack me; and only doing so after they provoked this site for months, and even then only after they both chose to intentionally violate an extremely narrow topic-ban about a topic that has no business being central to an RPG-discussion forum and thus wouldn't have affected their presence here in the least, had they been here in good faith. EXACTLY like that. :rolleyes:
RPGPundit
Not to mention that both of them
explicitly mentioned they were trying to get banned.(Also note that there are
plenty of people said "ban me!" to RPGPundit in the past, to which he responded "Why should I?" So even deliberately trying to get banned is no guarantee of success.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;259098Yes, the hordes of people banned over at RPG.net, and people temp-banned for using the word "gay" in their post about Changeling, and the topic-banning of the Brain Damage issue because talking about that upsets the Forgers, and the banning of people for not agreeing with the mods about politics, or religion, or sexuality, or exalted, is EXACTLY like me banning one guy who ADMITTED he was only posting on here "for revenge" and another guy who was obviously only posting on here to attack me; and only doing so after they provoked this site for months, and even then only after they both chose to intentionally violate an extremely narrow topic-ban about a topic that has no business being central to an RPG-discussion forum and thus wouldn't have affected their presence here in the least, had they been here in good faith. EXACTLY like that. :rolleyes:
RPGPundit
You're being defensive.
The "exactly" part is your invention.
Quote from: hgjs;259191Not to mention that both of them explicitly mentioned they were trying to get banned.
(Also note that there are plenty of people said "ban me!" to RPGPundit in the past, to which he responded "Why should I?" So even deliberately trying to get banned is no guarantee of success.)
Well, apparently it is now.
That being the point: a noticeable shift in policy, from transparent to murky.
Good riddance I say. Fuck em right in the ear, posting here is not a right, it's a privilege. And whomever else don't fucking like it, you can't let the door slam on your ass fast enough.
Here I thought I might get some decent RPG discussion, and the most I've seen so far is ranting by douchenozzles that cannot get a clue that this forum's main topic IS rpgs, and everything else is secondary, tertiary, etc.
If somebody got their ass banned, then they fucking earned the shit. And from what I have experienced, it's awfully damned hard to get banned from here.
My .02.
Quote from: shalvayez;259223.
If somebody got their ass banned, then they fucking earned the shit. And from what I have experienced, it's awfully damned hard to get banned from here.
"earned; deserved; valuable poster"
-- from the dictionary of Blockwartville, Subjectonia.
Really, THAT`S the stuff that´s more disconcerting to me than the actual bannings. the shift in the audience.
It is very RPG.net talk.
Quote from: shalvayez;259223Here I thought I might get some decent RPG discussion, and the most I've seen so far is ranting by douchenozzles that cannot get a clue that this forum's main topic IS rpgs, and everything else is secondary, tertiary, etc.
This is very different from the attitude at rpg.net.
Quote from: shalvayezIf somebody got their ass banned, then they fucking earned the shit. And from what I have experienced, it's awfully damned hard to get banned from here.
This is not.
droog, Kyle and me on the exact same boat?
Weird times.
Quote from: Settembrini;259251droog, Kyle and me on the exact same boat?
Weird times.
Doesn't make them right, though.
Not exactly the same.
droog doesn't really seem to care so long as he can give people shit without any nosey moderators interfering.
Settembrini is a complete libertarian when it comes to forums.
And I say that certainly we should ban persistently disruptive people, but that this is not really the case here. That they literally asked for it is extra reason
not to ban them. It encourages a martyr mentality, "ZOMFG I GOT BANNZORZED FROM THERE TEHY R TEH OPPRESSORZ!111!" and that encourages more cocksmocks to wander in and try to get themselves banned.
It's better just to cut them off from their source of drama and let them wander off from disinterest.
A simple forum ban from Off Topic would have done the job with walkerp and Fritzs, I reckon. If walkerp and Fritzs could only talk about rpgs, we'd soon see whether they were really here for that.
I repeat my past suggestions that Off Topic should be one or more of,
- a privilege people earn after being here a while - say, six months, or 500 posts
- a separate subforum you have to sign into (as they do at CotI the Traveller forum for the political stuff) so that it doesn't appear in "new posts" and is forgotten by all but the truly dedicated
- not present at all; as an rpg discussion site, we definitely need places to discuss films and books and games, since they tie into rpgs. But we can live without a place to discuss Sarah Palin and paedophilia and environmentalism or whatever
Any of those would be an improvement on the present situation, and prevent the rpg.netting of the place which comes from an Off Topic/Tangency, and all the moderation questions that naturally arise from non-rpg issues being discussed, thus all sorts of bigotry and stupidity, and also all that "but we're a community!" nonsense.
Banning Fritzs from OT would have achieved nothing, since he was posting about pedophilia in the RPG subforum.
Not so. The threads in question were no longer about rpgs, which is why RPGPundit locked them; further threads on the same topic - focusing simply on paedophilia - would have been locked or moved to Off Topic.
Nope, I wouldn't attribute my attitude to RPGnet, though they would be a convenient scapegoat. Not that I even HAVE anything against RPGnet for the most part. My attitude reflects on personal responsibility, and if you post CRAP on a messageboard that, for all intensive purposes is privately owned, then you get a rightful boot in the ass. Personal responsibility.
If one is coming here with no other intention but to piss in everybody's Cheerios, then "до свидания", don't let the door hit you on the ass. Anybody who's a true Libertarian would actually recognize this as nothing more than taking responsibility for one's fuckups. They fucked up, they got the boot.
до свидания
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;259283droog doesn't really seem to care so long as he can give people shit without any nosey moderators interfering.
If that's what I want, I've got it.
Quote from: shalvayez;259305...for all intensive purposes is privately owned...
Intents and purposes.
Sorry, pet peeve. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;259093The problem wasn't that they were trying to discuss it, its that they were trying to flood the forum with discussion about it, to try to make out theRPGsite to be "that site where all they talk about is pedophilia". That's disruption.
That's bullshit. I stopped reading the Maid thread and didn't notice any other threads or discussion about the subject. For folks trying to flood the forum with discussion about pedophilia, they did a piss poor job...
Quote from: RPGPundit;259093EXACTLY like that. :rolleyes:
Tilt at your little strawmen all you like. Fact is, the recent behavior of the moderators here have definitely brought the RPGsite a step closer to the moderation policies of TBP.
Seanchai
Quote from: hgjs;259191(Also note that there are plenty of people said "ban me!" to RPGPundit in the past, to which he responded "Why should I?" So even deliberately trying to get banned is no guarantee of success.)
So I'm guessing Pundy should be dropping the whole, "They asked to be banned!" line from his defense, right?
Seanchai
Quote from: StormBringer;259314Intents and purposes.
Sorry, pet peeve. :)
No problem, coffee was still in the brewer when I posted that.
Jeez, stick a fork in it already. It's done.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;259283A simple forum ban from Off Topic would have done the job with walkerp and Fritzs, I reckon.
No, it wouldn't have. Both Walker and Fritzs were engaging in the majority of their asshattery in the RPG FORUM. The Off Topic forum only entered into it at the very end of the whole affair. So banning them from off-topic would have been useless in this case.
Banning someone from off topic is useful if someone is here to talk about RPGs, but for some reason can't stop themselves from posting things they shouldn't on the Off-topic forum.
Its not particularly useful for someone who's attitude is "Hehe let's cause trouble in the site!", or "This one guy is such an asshole, I've come onto this site just to hound him at every turn and try to wreck the stuff he's saying and doing".
QuoteI repeat my past suggestions that Off Topic should be one or more of,
- a privilege people earn after being here a while - say, six months, or 500 posts
- a separate subforum you have to sign into (as they do at CotI the Traveller forum for the political stuff) so that it doesn't appear in "new posts" and is forgotten by all but the truly dedicated
- not present at all; as an rpg discussion site, we definitely need places to discuss films and books and games, since they tie into rpgs. But we can live without a place to discuss Sarah Palin and paedophilia and environmentalism or whatever
Any of those would be an improvement on the present situation, and prevent the rpg.netting of the place which comes from an Off Topic/Tangency, and all the moderation questions that naturally arise from non-rpg issues being discussed, thus all sorts of bigotry and stupidity, and also all that "but we're a community!" nonsense.
You know, Kyle, for someone who constantly rails against off-topic, you sure LOVE TO SPEND A SHITLOAD OF YOUR FUCKING TIME THERE.
Would you perhaps like it if I banned YOU from off-topic? Then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Plus your sanctimonious claptrap wouldn't sound quite so hypocritical.
RPGPundit
Quote from: shalvayez;259223douchenozzles
That is an awesome word. It's like schnitzel, but offensive. I like it!
Douchenozzle!
Quote from: RPGPundit;259379No, it wouldn't have. Both Walker and Fritzs were engaging in the majority of their asshattery in the RPG FORUM. The Off Topic forum only entered into it at the very end of the whole affair. So banning them from off-topic would have been useless in this case.
Banning someone from off topic is useful if someone is here to talk about RPGs, but for some reason can't stop themselves from posting things they shouldn't on the Off-topic forum.
Its not particularly useful for someone who's attitude is "Hehe let's cause trouble in the site!", or "This one guy is such an asshole, I've come onto this site just to hound him at every turn and try to wreck the stuff he's saying and doing".
You know, Kyle, for someone who constantly rails against off-topic, you sure LOVE TO SPEND A SHITLOAD OF YOUR FUCKING TIME THERE.
Would you perhaps like it if I banned YOU from off-topic? Then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Plus your sanctimonious claptrap wouldn't sound quite so hypocritical.
RPGPundit
lol, you know...it wouldn't be a terrible idea to do just that. Kyle complains incessantly about the existence of Off Topic, yet can't seem to stop posting in it. Should we just save Kyle from himself? :D
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;259401lol, you know...it wouldn't be a terrible idea to do just that. Kyle complains incessantly about the existence of Off Topic, yet can't seem to stop posting in it. Should we just save Kyle from himself? :D
He hates it because he hates himself. :D
RPGPundit
Might it be worth changing off topic to a Genre sub-forum?
This place could be for discussing books, films etc that have relevance to the RPG part of the site.
Quote from: One Horse Town;259467Might it be worth changing off topic to a Genre sub-forum?
This place could be for discussing books, films etc that have relevance to the RPG part of the site.
We already do that ....sometimes. Although I remember a long, long while ago I started a thread about movies that are like RPGs and I think it got moved to the RPG section after a few pages.
- Ed C.
Quote from: One Horse Town;259467This place could be for discussing books, films etc that have relevance to the RPG part of the site.
And we could call this place -
Medium Cool, after the Haskell Wexler film.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;259495And we could call this place - Medium Cool, after the Haskell Wexler film.
Regards,
David R
I freely admit to not knowing what the fuck that means. :D
See, because it's a place for different types of mediums - books, films, music...and I just thought...it's "cool" ...nevermind, here's a link to what the film was about : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Cool
Regards,
David R
Quote from: One Horse Town;259467Might it be worth changing off topic to a Genre sub-forum?
This place could be for discussing books, films etc that have relevance to the RPG part of the site.
And eliminating the politics sub-forum and restricting all completely-non-RPG-related subject matter? I'd support that. And calling it "Medium Cool"*. :)
!i!
(*Any reference to Marshall McLuhan is all right with me.)
Quote from: David R;259500See, because it's a place for different types of mediums - books, films, music...and I just thought...it's "cool" ...nevermind, here's a link to what the film was about : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Cool
Regards,
David R
Ah, groovy. I'm slow tonight...
Quote from: RPGPundit;259379No, it wouldn't have. Both Walker and Fritzs were engaging in the majority of their asshattery in the RPG FORUM.
Which ignores my point that the threads in question would get locked (as two were) or moved to Off Topic when they were derailed with non-rpg stuff. A discussion of the differences between a paedophile and a molestor, and whether one is as evil as the other, is not rpg-related.
If a poster derails an rpg thread with non-rpg stuff and it's then locked or moved to Off Topic, then if they don't have access to Off Topic they'll be removed from the conversation - but they'll still be able to talk about rpgs in other threads, which is the central purpose of therpgsite. Posters will thus have an incentive to keep rpg threads about rpgs, and not derail them with bullshit.
And you'll be much less likely to ever have to fully ban anyone.
Quote from: RPGPunditBanning someone from off topic is useful if someone is here to talk about RPGs, but for some reason can't stop themselves from posting things they shouldn't on the Off-topic forum.
Its not particularly useful for someone who's attitude is "Hehe let's cause trouble in the site!", or "This one guy is such an asshole, I've come onto this site just to hound him at every turn and try to wreck the stuff he's saying and doing".
If the "causing trouble" involves bringing non-rpg stuff into rpg threads, as I said all they'll be doing by derailing threads is removing themselves from the conversation. This will frustrate them.
If they're here to hound a particular person, obviously that's a different matter. But I'm afraid that if you're going to adopt a confrontational persona online, modelling yourself after Hunter Thompson, then you're going to attract such people. Yes, you attract a lot of attention and it brings people to therpgsite, that's the good part; but the bad part of attracting people hounding you is the flipside of that coin.
Obviously there are limits to what anyone can put up with, I'm just saying don't be surprised that it happens.
Quote from: RPGPunditYou know, Kyle, for someone who constantly rails against off-topic, you sure LOVE TO SPEND A SHITLOAD OF YOUR FUCKING TIME THERE.
I'm not railing against it. I'm simply saying that it's not essential to an enjoyment or for the working of the
rpgsite. Which is why I suggest that posting to it be a privilege earned by posters after some time on therpgsite, that it require a deliberate sign-in, or that it be removed entirely. Only one of those three options can be read as a condemnation of the thing. The other two are just to ease the pressure in there, so to speak.
I'll note also that your response is the standard given by rpg.net moderators about Tangency. If anyone has made even one post to Tangency, or shows evidence of having ever read it, well then you're not allowed to criticise it at all - and
everything that's not glowing praise of it is taken as criticism.
And if you've never posted to or read it then how can you criticise? So whether you use the subforum or not, you're not allowed to criticise. In other words, you're just not allowed to criticise.
This is how it all starts.
Quote from: RPGPunditWould you perhaps like it if I banned YOU from off-topic? Then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Plus your sanctimonious claptrap wouldn't sound quite so hypocritical.
Go ahead. Just create a "Media" subforum so I can still talk about books and movies and games which might be relevant to rpg stuff.
However, I would prefer it if we adopted one of the three options I suggested above: requiring time and/or posts before new members can post to Off Topic, requiring a deliberate sign-in, or removing it entirely.
That, coupled with locking or moving to Off Topic rpg threads that've been derailed with non-rpg talk (about paedophilia or whatever) would deal with most of the troublemakers like walkerp and Fritzs, and then full bans would be even rarer.
Yes, well, you haven't just made "one post" to Off-topic. You're a regular, frequent poster there. Often you will make a number of posts related to off-topic threads on the very same day as you complain (there or elsewhere) that off-topic is just distracting people from the RPG forum.
There seems to be some projecting going on there...
RPGPundit
Why not give kyle's suggestion(s) a try ?
Regards,
David R
Because it's garbage of the highest order and won't solve a fucking thing. More so it may actually hurt this site. What's next? We get together and measure our dicks with rulers?
How do you know it won't solve a thing ? I mean we could try it for a while and see how it goes. If it works, great. If not, no big deal.
Regards,
David R
I guess I can never be for more restrictions as solution. I work in a prison, and one thing it's taught me is less is more.
Fair enough Serious. I think (know ?) I'm in the minority on this issue. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;259550How do you know it won't solve a thing ? I mean we could try it for a while and see how it goes. If it works, great. If not, no big deal.
How about we start with the fact that the bullshit that led to the bannings
started in the
RPG section....
I think someone's worried that if we didn't have an Off Topic forum and had controls on threads that stray off-topic he'd have no reason to post here.
!i!
Quote from: CavScout;259563How about we start with the fact that the bullshit that led to the bannings started in the RPG section....
Kyle already addressed this point with the Pundit upthread. Why don't you read comments before posting.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Ian Absentia;259564I think someone's worried that if we didn't have an Off Topic forum and had controls on threads that stray off-topic he'd have no reason to post here.
And I suspect a few miss the other's site control on what kind of politics are discussed so they hope to get rid of them all if they can't protect their own.
PS: Unless you don't post there complaining about those who do is high hypocrisy. Practice what you preach.
Quote from: David R;259565Kyle already addressed this point with the Pundit upthread. Why don't you read comments before posting.
Kyle's a dumb-ass hypocrite. Perhaps you should read comments before posting...
Quote from: CavScout;259570Kyle's a dumb-ass hypocrite. Perhaps you should read comments before posting...
Whether he's a hypocrite or not is beside the point. He already addressed the point you raised, upthread. Again, if you actually read comments posted, you would not raise points already answered or if you were not satisfied with the answer, you would direct further questions to the appropriate poster.
Regards,
David R
Please outline the posting and reading habits a poster would have to have to make their critique valid and worth listening to?
It's a nice Catch-22.
Either you post to and read Off Topic in which case you can't complain about it.
Or you don't post to or read Off Topic in which case why should it bother you? and you can't complain about it.
Whatever you do, you can't complain about or criticise Off Topic.
That's very much like rpg.net.
And the rpg.net response is also, "then fuck off and don't post here at all." The idea that a person could think "this place is pretty good, but could be better, and here's my suggestions for it" is never accepted. It's just "ZOMFG U CRITZSED ME U R A LOOSER!!!1!"
Two out of my three suggestions did not involve removing Off Topic. These were not responded to. It was just this childish "are so!" nonsense in response.
Quote from: David R;259571Whether he's a hypocrite or not is beside the point. He already addressed the point you raised, upthread. Again, if you actually read comments posted, you would not raise points already answered or if you were not satisfied with the answer, you would direct further questions to the appropriate poster.
Perhaps you shouldn't be his shield maiden then...
Quote from: CavScout;259575Perhaps you shouldn't be his shield maiden then...
Which part of "if you were not satisfied with the answer you should direct further questions to the appropriate poster" do you not understand or leads you to believe that I was acting as kyle's sheild maiden. Or are you afraid to quote kyle directly and make your point - if you have one that is ?
Regards,
David R
So you can't stop then...
Quote from: CavScout;259569And I suspect a few miss the other's site control on what kind of politics are discussed so they hope to get rid of them all if they can't protect their own.
It's all about how they're discussed, not the politics themselves -- we've had a pretty good track record on that score. You're a reminder that including a political forum on a non-political website is an invitation for some who post for the satisfaction of stirring up a ruckus, not for any sort of meaningful exchange. You went out of your way to do it on Tangency, and you came here to Off Topic like a shit-stain on someone's shoe to do it here. How many weeks was it before you posted to a thread that had anything to do with playing RPGs? Two weeks. 150+ posts. Jackalope's racked up a better record than you.
Dollars to doughnuts, if the Off Topic forum went away tomorrow, you'd stop posting here inside a month.
!i!
So, I am right.
When are you guys going to learn?
Not half soon enough, it would seem.
!i!
Quote from: David R;259565Kyle already addressed this point with the Pundit upthread. Why don't you read comments before posting.
Regards,
David R
Yes, but not in a particularly satisfying way. If the answer to this sort of thing was just to move any thread that was disrupted over to off-topic, and not taking any direct action against the person doing the disrupting, then it would be ridiculously easy for someone to utterly fuck up this site by just adding off-topic posts to every thread.
And again, the presence of Off-Topic has not, in any measurable way I've seen, added to the disruption of the main RPG forum. Whereas, getting rid of off-topic would almost guarantee that people would start bringing many off-topic discussions into the main RPG forum.
So neither "just move the threads" nor "get rid of off-topic" are pretty brilliant ideas. Nor is "limit off topic as a reward to frequent posters". Off-topic is not a reward, its a safety valve.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;259587Off-topic is not a reward, its a safety valve.
Or an attractive nuisance.
!i!
Quote from: RPGPundit;259587Yes, but not in a particularly satisfying way. If the answer to this sort of thing was just to move any thread that was disrupted over to off-topic, and not taking any direct action against the person doing the disrupting, then it would be ridiculously easy for someone to utterly fuck up this site by just adding off-topic posts to every thread.
Yes and the act of just adding OT posts to every thread would be the kind of offense that warrants a banning. It would be evidence that the poster in question is not here to talk about rpgs but other stuff or just to disrupt the RPG section.
QuoteAnd again, the presence of Off-Topic has not, in any measurable way I've seen, added to the disruption of the main RPG forum. Whereas, getting rid of off-topic would almost guarantee that people would start bringing many off-topic discussions into the main RPG forum.
I dunno. Having an Other Media section would solve part of the problem....but it's not about taking away OT, it's about making it less accesible to people who are only here to talk about OT stuff.
QuoteOff-topic is not a reward, its a safety valve
Maybe not as a reward but maybe just less accesible. I don't see how it's a safety valve at this moment for this place. It's not like there is a big rush to post in OT.
Anyway if you don't think it's a good idea, fair enough. I just thought it would not hurt to at least try
one of kyle's suggestions.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: RPGPundit;259587Yes, but not in a particularly satisfying way. If the answer to this sort of thing was just to move any thread that was disrupted over to off-topic, and not taking any direct action against the person doing the disrupting, then it would be ridiculously easy for someone to utterly fuck up this site by just adding off-topic posts to every thread.
That's a fair point.
However, if the thread-moving were coupled with limiting access to Off Topic (either general as I suggested earlier, or through subforum bans for troublemakers), this becomes much less likely. People who start fires like to hang around to watch them flare up. Let's imagine Fritzs and walkerp were unbanned, but couldn't post to Off Topic. Would they really want to drag the thread to where they couldn't comment on it anymore? Possibly, but it seems unlikely.
It's possible they could go to each thread in the roleplaying subforum and post "Sarah Palin is a legend" to it or something, but really it seems unlikely. The rpg threads sometimes drift into non-rpg talk, but they're rarely dragged there by force of personality and posting. There's the occasional thread which pops up beginning as non-rpg, or at least with the potential. But most of those are pretty obvious and can be locked or moved.
Quote from: RPGPunditOff-topic is not a reward, its a safety valve.
So said rpg.net about Tangency, and now most of their posts are there, and most of their rules come from conversations there. I don't think we need a safety valve. We're here to talk rpgs, we're not negotiating peace in the Middle East or something.
And that still misses the suggestion of making it a subforum you have to sign into separately. You can see this forum (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php) as an example.
*****
Political Pulpit (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
If you want to talk politics it goes in here. This forum is private so that the topics here will not appear in the Daily Topics List. The password to enter (if you really must...) is:
letmein
*****
And of course its posts don't appear in the "new posts" search. I think it's fair to say that the sort of people who stir up shit on forums are generally extremely lazy. If they were hard-working they'd have something better to do. If they have to physically sign into a separate subforum to stir shit, they'll add to it less often than if they can just sit there hitting the "new posts" button to see if anyone's replied to their shit-stirring yet.
And again, it means we wouldn't have to ban as many people. I do think that with bannings like these, there's a danger of attracting martyrs and sock-puppets, which in the long run would be more disruptive than those two cocksmocks ever could be.
Quote from: CavScout;259582So, I am right.
So, Walkerp gets banned and yet this doofus gets to hang around. This is the kind of topsy-turvy result I thought this site was trying to avoid.
Ned
There is a certain delicious irony in listening to those who are lamenting the bannings of two folks, who decided that pedophiles needed more respect on these forums, are extremely interested in limiting, or in effect out-right banning, political talk they disagree with.
I also doubt it is coincidence that those fervent about limiting or eliminating off-topic have no qualms about using it themselves and happen to fall along a certain political spectrum.
Shut up, doofus.
Ned
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
This incident highlights that for several reasons Pundit has abandoned his (and doesn´t trust our) efforts at being vigilant, and now favors the easy way.
FYI: walkerp felt the need to comment on my blog, if anyone cares check out yestardays entry.
This change in persona/policy really disappoints me. No matter what detractors might say, I built this site too. So I´m invested, but I´m seriously questioning whether I share Pundit´s vision for theRPGsite anymore.
If you, RPGPundit would clarify what the raison d´être of theRPGsite as of now should be, and which role you you have in it, I´d be grateful.
If you think it speaks for himself, then I know what it looks like and will base future decisions on that impression.
Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey;259644Shut up, doofus.
Classic.
Quote from: Settembrini;259645FYI: walkerp felt the need to comment on my blog, if anyone cares check out yestardays entry.
His claim that he would have ceased if asked nicer is fallaciousness of epic proportions. It smacks of one who realizes the position taken was insane and instead needs to add principle to their "stand" over the content for which they decided to make it.
Quote from: Settembrini;259645The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
This incident highlights that for several reasons Pundit has abandoned his (and doesn´t trust our) efforts at being vigilant, and now favors the easy way.
FYI: walkerp felt the need to comment on my blog, if anyone cares check out yestardays entry.
This change in persona/policy really disappoints me. No matter what detractors might say, I built this site too. So I´m invested, but I´m seriously questioning whether I share Pundit´s vision for theRPGsite anymore.
If you, RPGPundit would clarify what the raison d´être of theRPGsite as of now should be, and which role you you have in it, I´d be grateful.
If you think it speaks for himself, then I know what it looks like and will base future decisions on that impression.
Seconded, Pindick.
Well, what about in "dubio pro reo"?
Walkerp and Pundit agreed on this being more about the pissing match than everything else. So what leads you to the conclusion he was actually writing on "the" subject to actually talk about it, AND that he would continue for the rest of his posting life to do so?
"Smacks of..., deserve, reward, safety valve, valueable poster etc." are words flying around here.
I don´t like the mindset that produces such words.
EDIT: the above is a response to CavScout.
@droog: what´s a pindick?
Quote from: Settembrini;259656@droog: what´s a pindick?
It's a paranoid neurotic fool who runs a website about RPGs. AKA RPGPindick.
I may disagree with CavScout on a lot, but he is right - Kyle's arguments for off-topic are dumb and are extremely weak in addressing how they actually relate to the latest incident which, again, was largely confined directly to the on-topic subject of why people would/wouldn't want pedophilia in RPGs.
Oh, you meant Pundit and not me.
Quote from: Settembrini;259656Well, what about in "dubio pro reo"?
Where's there doubt?
QuoteWalkerp and Pundit agreed on this being more about the pissing match than everything else. So what leads you to the conclusion he was actually writing on "the" subject to actually talk about it, AND that he would continue for the rest of his posting life to do so?
Oh, I don't know... the fact thatt he was "writing on the subject" or that the only violation would have been "writting on the subject".
If his "real" point was to argue against a topic ban, he should have argued against a topic ban and not said "ban me I want to talk about pedophiles!"
Sett has a blog??? (!!)
Just checked it....It's not in English (or tlhIngan) kind of difficult for some of us to read then. If there was a click spot for an english version - I didn't see it.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey;259608So, Walkerp gets banned and yet this doofus gets to hang around. This is the kind of topsy-turvy result I thought this site was trying to avoid.
Ned
In my opinion, Cavscout has never done anything actually disruptive. I've received a great deal of complaints about him, but they've all boiled down to "I really hate his politics" or "He's an asshole".
That's the sort of thing we DON'T ban.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Settembrini;259661Oh, you meant Pundit and not me.
Yes, I thought that your remarks were ultimately intended for his eyes.
Quote from: Settembrini;259656Well, what about in "dubio pro reo"?
Walkerp and Pundit agreed on this being more about the pissing match than everything else. So what leads you to the conclusion he was actually writing on "the" subject to actually talk about it, AND that he would continue for the rest of his posting life to do so?
"Smacks of..., deserve, reward, safety valve, valueable poster etc." are words flying around here.
I don´t like the mindset that produces such words.
EDIT: the above is a response to CavScout.
@droog: what´s a pindick?
You know, when you write posts that motherfucking Droog can just say "Me too" at, you might want to start wondering what YOUR raison d'etre is anymore, dude.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;259668You know, when you write posts that motherfucking Droog can just say "Me too" at, you might want to start wondering what YOUR raison d'etre is anymore, dude.
Your problem is that you think that the games people play are a reliable guide to the rest of their thought. Well, one of your problems....
If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that this is one thing we've agreed on since Day One.
Quote from: RPGPundit;259668You know, when you write posts that motherfucking Droog can just say "Me too" at, you might want to start wondering what YOUR raison d'etre is anymore, dude.
RPGPundit
Well, are you implying I´m "disruptive"?
Anyhoo, despite your aggressive responses I calmly asked you some questions. I only get insults back, second time now.
Will you answer, or not?
It´s important to me.
EDIT: What happened to the public consultation threads?
Quote from: CavScout;259640I also doubt it is coincidence that those fervent about limiting or eliminating off-topic have no qualms about using it themselves and happen to fall along a certain political spectrum.
Are you fucking serious? Do you have to yell 'liberal' everytime your shitty arguments fall to pieces, which is pretty much every time? Get back on your medication, you fucking non contributing douchebag.
This only proves Ian's assertion. You would be gone within a month if there wasn't a politcal forum.
Quote from: RPGPundit;259664In my opinion, Cavscout has never done anything actually disruptive. I've received a great deal of complaints about him, but they've all boiled down to "I really hate his politics" or "He's an asshole".
Thanks for playing right into his persecution complex, though. Now he will be utterly convinced the correctness of his position.
Quote from: StormBringer;259694Are you fucking serious? Do you have to yell 'liberal' everytime your shitty arguments fall to pieces, which is pretty much every time? Get back on your medication, you fucking non contributing douchebag.
This only proves Ian's assertion. You would be gone within a month if there wasn't a politcal forum.
Again, so I am right that the loudest voices for closure are going about it because of politics.
Quote from: RPGPundit;259664In my opinion, Cavscout has never done anything actually disruptive. I've received a great deal of complaints about him, but they've all boiled down to "I really hate his politics" or "He's an asshole".
That's the sort of thing we DON'T ban.
RPGPundit
You shouldn't ban either of em.
Ned
Quote from: RPGPundit;259664That's the sort of thing we DON'T ban.
You've stated that the sort of thing you
do ban is people who show up for the sole intent of disrupting the site. Granted, your primary concern is people who come along to disrupt traditional RPG discussion with Forge/story-game RPG talk, but what about people who come along to disrupt any discussion with no talk about RPGs at all?
Simply being an asshole may be permissible, but being an asshole for the sake of derailing discussion seems to be running against your goals. As I stated up-thread, even Jackalope twigged to that notion -- still an asshole with objectionable politics, but clearly one who plays RPGs and likes to talk about them constructively.
!i!
Quote from: RPGPundit;259664In my opinion, Cavscout has never done anything actually disruptive. I've received a great deal of complaints about him, but they've all boiled down to "I really hate his politics" or "He's an asshole".
That's the sort of thing we DON'T ban.
RPGPundit
I want to know exactly who complained about him because I don't really believe anyone here who disagrees with this doofus would actually direct a complaint to you. Cavscout (if I'm not mistaken) is the guy who got banned from TBP for starting trollbait threads and then hitting the report button for nearly all the responses he got and apparently flooding the Mods PM with direct quotes from these threads or some shit like that.
Ed got banned for threatening a lawsuit. Jackalope for threatening to disrupt a Seatle meet up and throwing shit. This doofus got banned for frantically pressing the report button. I don't mind their RPG Open rejects....hell most of us here fit that profile, but a Tangency one....
So, unless you can actually name the people who supposedly complained about him, I'll take it to mean that your claim, is just a little BS to describe the kind of acts that are ban worthy.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: CavScout;259697Again, so I am right that the loudest voices for closure are going about it because of politics.
No, you fucking moron, you said it was because of politics. No one agreed with you. Now you are saying it is because of politics.
You can barely hit a key without trying to drag everything to politics. You are a non-contributing douchebag.
Quote from: David R;259712I want to know exactly who complained about him
Are you being serious?
EDIT:
That's not going to happen except if someone was using a sockpuppet to report him, or the people decide to identify themselves. Breaching confidentiality would be a fantastically bad idea.
(This post sort of implies I know who's been reporting that, but I don't. I see reported posts, but I usually don't pay attention unless it's about spam or a software glitch.)
Quote from: hgjs;259716Are you being serious?
(This post sort of implies I know who's been reporting that, but I don't. I see reported posts, but I usually don't pay attention unless it's about spam or a software glitch.)
Yes I was being serious. However if you say that there has been reports, I'll take your word for it.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: StormBringer;259715No, you fucking moron, you said it was because of politics. No one agreed with you. Now you are saying it is because of politics.
You can barely hit a key without trying to drag everything to politics. You are a non-contributing douchebag.
Of course, those who disagree with my politics, crying out for the forum to be closed, aren't going to simply say it's because of it. But like I said, you can plot who wants to close it based on politics. Perhaps purely coincidence, perhaps not.
Quote from: CavScout;259729Of course, those who disagree with my politics, crying out for the forum to be closed, aren't going to simply say it's because of it. But like I said, you can plot who wants to close it based on politics. Perhaps purely coincidence, perhaps not.
It is purely in your mind, because you view everything through your political filter.
And the people around here aren't gigantic whining pussies. Those who disagree with your politics come out and say it, and then show the colossal stupidity of your every statement. It's not a matter of shutting down a forum to silence your 'truthiness'.
Which is a tacit admission that you would be gone if the forum was closed down. There are plenty of others who share your political views that aren't whinging about a 'liberal conspiracy' to silence them. Of course, they are also talking about RPGs quite a bit.
Quote from: hgjs;259716Are you being serious?
EDIT:
That's not going to happen except if someone was using a sockpuppet to report him, or the people decide to identify themselves. Breaching confidentiality would be a fantastically bad idea.
Why? It has been done before at the convenience of the owner of the site. I see no reason since there is no explicit promise of anonymity of reporting someone.
Bill
I don't recall seeing one but I've always thought it was implicit.
If there have been exceptions on the past they shouldn't prevent adoption of that as a policy now. The only exception that'd be legit would be if someone was banned for abusing the report feature and that needed to be explained.
Quote from: StormBringer;259732Which is a tacit admission that you would be gone if the forum was closed down. There are plenty of others who share your political views that aren't whinging about a 'liberal conspiracy' to silence them. Of course, they are also talking about RPGs quite a bit.
So, then, the goal of lamenting about the Off Topic is rooted in the belief that by closing it one can drive off another? You deny it but keep coming back to it.
I say we find the pussy-ass motherfucker who uses Report and give him a wedgie.
Quote from: droog;259738I say we find the pussy-ass motherfucker who uses Report and give him a wedgie.
Wet Willies too!
Quote from: CavScout;259737So, then, the goal of lamenting about the Off Topic is rooted in the belief that by closing it one can drive off another? You deny it but keep coming back to it.
No, that was entirely your invention. I was pointing out that when you are off your meds, you start making stuff up like this.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;259736I don't recall seeing one but I've always thought it was implicit.
One would think so but no, it can be used as a tool to root out those not properly patriotic to the Sta..ah, Sith....ah, Site and her glorious leader.
Bill
Quote from: StormBringer;259742No, that was entirely your invention. I was pointing out that when you are off your meds, you start making stuff up like this.
You're not making any sense now.... Unless your point is I believe what I believe... which is odd, because I think you believe what you believe...
Quote from: droog;259738I say we find the pussy-ass motherfucker who uses Report and give him a wedgie.
Your first victim (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259746&postcount=206).
"I've already reported you for trolling RPG. Just pile on some more evidence that you're here to lawncrap rather than discuss RPGs. I would love seeing you get banned."-Jackalope :kjtw:
Quote from: David R;259712I want to know exactly who complained about him because I don't really believe anyone here who disagrees with this doofus would actually direct a complaint to you.
I've certainly never complained about CavScout to RPGPundit, neither with the report button nor a PM.
A while back when gleichman was going on one of his "moslems r t3h 3vil!! but some of my best friends are ragheads, honest" binges and I tangled with him (I might have reported a post of his or PMed about him after Pundit demanded evidence he was a racist fuck, I can't remember), RPGPundit asked me to put the guy on ignore for the sake of peace and quiet. I did, using a Firefox addon. About the same time I whacked CavScout and a few others on ignore, too - basically anyone who could barely express a coherent argument and who never talked about rpgs anyway.
Then recently I had computer troubles and everything got lost, so those guys are all off ignore. But in the intervening period the Politics subforum was created so just by not going in there I barely ever see those guys. I presume gleichman is off on one of his Giving Up The Net Forever holidays, Morrow finally found a game group, and so on.
To be honest I'd entirely forgotten about them. I couldn't really tell you what CavScout's exact politics are, though most posters who give themselves vaguely military screen names are somewhat uncompromising and uncompassionate in their political views. Just by their screen name they're Making A Statement. I don't know what the fuck he's going on about blathering about his politics, perhaps in the recent spate of bannings he feels left out and not persecuted enough? He seems very keen to be Righteously Angry about things, he should join the International Socialists.
Quote from: David RI don't mind their RPG Open rejects....hell most of us here fit that profile, but a Tangency one....
... will be attracted to a completely open Off Topic subforum.
And yes, I'm suspicious of the claim of oodles of people sending in complaints. I suspect it's just two or three, tops, a few of the semi-commies like Jackalope. Probably there were quite a few PMs back and forth with Jackalope saying he was a dirty dog and Pundit saying "yes but what's he
actually done?" and Jackie getting "all butt-hurt about it", as one bloke banned from rpg.net said once.
Quote from: David RYes I was being serious. However if you say that there has been reports, I'll take your word for it.
hgjs didn't actually say that there had
been reports, only that
if there were, he couldn't name who'd put them in since (a) he didn't remember, and (2) it would breach privacy.
Anyway I don't think we should ban CavScout, just as I don't think walkerp and Fritzs should be banned. Certainly their stupid ideas should be mocked, but not banned. CavScout is not here to talk rpgs, but given the current state of Off Topic with the little special place just for politics, that's not a bannable offence. Walkerp and Fritzs just had a pissing match with RPGPundit, is all. As WOPR said, the only way to win a pissing match is not to play.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;259756Anyway I don't think we should ban CavScout, just as I don't think walkerp and Fritzs should be banned. Certainly their stupid ideas should be mocked, but not banned. CavScout is not here to talk rpgs, but given the current state of Off Topic with the little special place just for politics, that's not a bannable offence. Walkerp and Fritzs just had a pissing match with RPGPundit, is all. As WOPR said, the only way to win a pissing match is not to play.
I don't want him banned either. And mocking is just a waste of time. I think I'll just go back to the rpg section and try to lure Sett into posting again by giving him something real to worry about. Maybe I should start a rumour that Mearls is thinking of doing
5E.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;259776I don't want him banned either. And mocking is just a waste of time. I think I'll just go back to the rpg section and try to lure Sett into posting again by giving him something real to worry about. Maybe I should start a rumour that Mearls is thinking of doing 5E.
Regards,
David R
Pffft. Tell him Mearls' is manoeuvring to get his hands on
Der Schwarze Auge and do an update.
Der heldenhafte Schwarze Auge aus Eisen or something. ;)
Das Schwarze Auge would profit from it, sad as it might sound.
Careful, DQ's - an RPG discussion might break out in this thread.
Quote from: James J Skach;259795Careful, DQ's - an RPG discussion might break out in this thread.
Fucking lies! I am told I never post in RPG threads!
Quote from: David R;259776I don't want him banned either. And mocking is just a waste of time. I think I'll just go back to the rpg section and try to lure Sett into posting again by giving him something real to worry about. Maybe I should start a rumour that Mearls is thinking of doing 5E.
Oh, sure, make the innocent suffer...
Seanchai
Quote from: HinterWelt;259744One would think so but no, it can be used as a tool to root out those not properly patriotic to the Sta..ah, Sith....ah, Site and her glorious leader.
Bill
It can, or rather it could, but I don't think it should be, and now that this has been raised I think it it would behoove Pundit to say what his policy will be on this issue from now on.
My recommendation is that the only justifiable reason for publicly revealing that a given person made a Report is if that person abused the function to the point that they had to be banned.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;259826It can, or rather it could, but I don't think it should be, and now that this has been raised I think it it would behoove Pundit to say what his policy will be on this issue from now on.
My recommendation is that the only justifiable reason for publicly revealing that a given person made a Report is if that person abused the function to the point that they had to be banned.
I don't think the issue Hinter refers to was about revealing who reported what. IIRC, it was some poll question and someone voted one way and the began posting they actually voted on the poll another way.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;259826It can, or rather it could, but I don't think it should be, and now that this has been raised I think it it would behoove Pundit to say what his policy will be on this issue from now on.
My recommendation is that the only justifiable reason for publicly revealing that a given person made a Report is if that person abused the function to the point that they had to be banned.
I am not advising you on what I believe should be the policy but what has been done on this site in the past. There is no assurances, implicit or explicit, that anything shared with the admins of this site will be held confidential. I would assume you would believe a poll that does not list users and their votes would be confidential, implicitly, yes? Well, I can tell you from experience, no, it is not on this site. I think it would be wise to assume a persons reports will not be either.
Bill
Quote from: Settembrini;259693Well, are you implying I´m "disruptive"?
Anyhoo, despite your aggressive responses I calmly asked you some questions. I only get insults back, second time now.
Will you answer, or not?
It´s important to me.
EDIT: What happened to the public consultation threads?
The Raison D'etre for this site is, and has always been, to have a place where people can discuss regular RPGs without being obliged by force to assume that Forge-Theory is taken as an implicit reality, and where they don't have to worry about being banned for their opinions on RPGs.
Neither of those are particularly relevant to the current debate, except possibly in the sense that the posters who were banned obviously came here at least in part because they took issue with the existence of this site as a place where Forge-style-theory did not dominate and regular RPGs were given precedence.
As for the public consultations, anyone who wants to can start one; I haven't started any lately because I've gotten more of a hang on what the majority of the posters here seem to want, and because those threads too often turned into a soapbox for the bad-faith posters to come on and attack either me or this site in general, without anything really productive coming out of it. Most consultation threads seemed to conclude with the majority of good-faith posters just frustratedly telling me "yes, we agree with you, now go ahead and DO IT already".
RPGPundit
Quote from: StormBringer;259696Thanks for playing right into his persecution complex, though. Now he will be utterly convinced the correctness of his position.
I tend, more often than not, to disagree with Cavscout's political position. I have endorsed Obama, you know. I just don't see much of what he's doing as being very different than what other posters do here, except for it being on an end of the political spectrum that the majority of posters here do not subscribe to.
I do think that at times he ends up being annoying on the site, particularly when he gets swept up in a feud with another poster (like he recently has with Jackalope, for example), but "being annoying" alone is not a measure for any kind of moderation on this site.
RPGPundit
PS: If you disagree, and you think he's being directly disruptive of the site, feel free to build a case against him on a thread here, and I'll consider it. If he has, he's managed to do so in a way that has avoided my noticing.
Quote from: David R;259712I want to know exactly who complained about him because I don't really believe anyone here who disagrees with this doofus would actually direct a complaint to you. Cavscout (if I'm not mistaken) is the guy who got banned from TBP for starting trollbait threads and then hitting the report button for nearly all the responses he got and apparently flooding the Mods PM with direct quotes from these threads or some shit like that.
Ed got banned for threatening a lawsuit. Jackalope for threatening to disrupt a Seatle meet up and throwing shit. This doofus got banned for frantically pressing the report button. I don't mind their RPG Open rejects....hell most of us here fit that profile, but a Tangency one....
So, unless you can actually name the people who supposedly complained about him, I'll take it to mean that your claim, is just a little BS to describe the kind of acts that are ban worthy.
Regards,
David R
Quite a few people have complained about him. You'll have to take my word for it, because I don't go around "naming names", that would be counterproductive. Of course, if someone wants to step up and admit to having complained about him, there's no problem with that. Suffice it to say I've gotten more than a couple of PMs or emails from more than a couple of different posters about him, the latest one just today.
Also, I'll say that to my recollection, Cavscout has never reported anyone here, though that might just be because he realizes the futility of such an action on a site like this, for anything other than a serious case of disruption/stalking/spam.
RPGPundit
Bill and Cavscout, I know what you're talking about, I remember the time that happened. And there's no denying it bears on the issue of confidentiality of the "report" feature--but to what degree, is unclear. This is all the more reason for Pundit to say now what the policy will be in the future, because the "report" feature is implicitly confidential to most/many people, but not everyone.
Quote from: HinterWelt;259846I am not advising you on what I believe should be the policy but what has been done on this site in the past. There is no assurances, implicit or explicit, that anything shared with the admins of this site will be held confidential.
That's true, but I'm also not going to go around "naming names" just because someone chooses to believe I'm just making shit up. Pretty well anyone who knows me, like me or not, should also know that I'm not a liar, when I say something I always say (at the very least what I believe to be) truth.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;259858Bill and Cavscout, I know what you're talking about, I remember the time that happened. And there's no denying it bears on the issue of confidentiality of the "report" feature--but to what degree, is unclear. This is all the more reason for Pundit to say now what the policy will be in the future, because the "report" feature is implicitly confidential to most/many people, but not everyone.
I'm not going to create a single fixed-in-stone policy about that, that's just an invitation for people to later on start abusing such a "rule" in one way or another, or to use that policy against me.
Suffice it to say that, IN GENERAL, people who feel the need to report someone will not be publicly named if there's no good reason for that to occur.
While I'm at it, I should also note that its usually pretty fucking pointless to report someone if the only thing you have to accuse them of is "this guy is an asshole" or "I don't like what he's saying". If its a spambot, you can report that if you like, though usually the mods are pretty good about catching these in a relatively short period of time.
Likewise, if you have a legitimate reason to feel that someone is "stalking" you here, following you around on more than one thread and attacking you in a way unrelated to the subject of the thread and in an off-topic fashion (ie. posting in threads where you post and saying "Joe is a fucktard"), or makes some particularly defamatory accusation about you (ie. "Joe is a rapist") or if someone is engaging in seriously disruptive behaviour (ie. posting something you know is not allowed on this site, or engaging in blatant thread sabotage, or sockpuppeting, etc), then go ahead and report them.
I'll just mention that easily 75% of reported posts or users receive no action on our part, because the reports are seen as either frivolous or not of a sufficient severity to warrant any mod action.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;259854If you disagree, and you think he's being directly disruptive of the site, feel free to build a case against him on a thread here, and I'll consider it. If he has, he's managed to do so in a way that has avoided my noticing.
Okay, Pundy, here’s the logical disconnect for me.
Folks like Walker, or Engine, or Fritzs, or AndyK, or whomever, turn up in the RPG forums talking story-games, or Forge-like theory, and you’re all over them like a bad suit, threatening them that if all they’re here to do is to disrupt the site with non-trad game talk, you’ll exercise your authority and ban them.
Now, CavScout comes here straight off a ban from RPG.net for his trolling and harassment in Tangency, heads straight for Off Topic and immediately begins the same sort of behavior there, taking no less than two weeks and more than 150 posts to begin posting to the RPG forums, but only to start arguments and fling insults there, too. He learns that sock-puppetry is a bannable offense, so inside of a month he’s accusing StormBringer or me of using andar as a sockpuppet in hopes of getting any one of us banned. He posts, on average, more than 20 posts a day, the bulk of which consist of one-sentence taunts, insults, or accusations intended to drag out and derail threads. Almost 1,600 posts in less than three months, and only a handful of them discuss RPGs. Jumping on the recent controversy, he takes every opportunity to accuse anyone who objects to the ban on Walker or Fritzs as supporting pedophilia. But you’re giving him a pass because he’s just an asshole or espouses unpopular politics.
Screw his politics or his social skills. He’s not here to talk about RPGs. How is CavScout disrupting this site any less than a story-gamer turning up to talk nothing but non-trad RPGs? He came here only because Off Topic serves as the same attractive nuisance that Tangency is to RPG.net.
Like I said up-thread, if he couldn’t post to Off Topic, he’d be gone inside a month. But you want to use a scalpel instead of a hammer? Fine. Take a closer look at what he’s here to do and the effect he has on your site. How specific would you like me to get?
!i!
It's probably no surprise that i agree with much of what Ian has said, but let's not get on the witch-hunt train, here. Tell him he's a cunt and move on. He sucks in a new victim every now and then and i have to put up with reading endless to and fros that are basicaly, "i know you are, but what am i?" This would be removed if he was told what a prat he was and then not engaged with again.
I also think that RPG posts should consist of more than just commenting on the comments of others, but that's just me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;259867I'm not going to create a single fixed-in-stone policy about that, that's just an invitation for people to later on start abusing such a "rule" in one way or another, or to use that policy against me.
Okay, I understand the logic here; it strikes me as excessively cagey, but there's no doubt that it causes less harm than would ensue if you actually did state a strict policy and then went against it.
By the way, I know you're just giving examples above, but I do use my real name on this site and I'd prefer not to have seriously defamatory sentences appear with my name in them even as examples, lest they turn up in Google summaries or such. So I'd appreciate if you'd edit your post.
Quote from: RPGPundit;259854I tend, more often than not, to disagree with Cavscout's political position. I have endorsed Obama, you know. I just don't see much of what he's doing as being very different than what other posters do here, except for it being on an end of the political spectrum that the majority of posters here do not subscribe to.
No, I think he is a good deal more extreme than other posters, but perhaps not so much 'different'.
QuoteI do think that at times he ends up being annoying on the site, particularly when he gets swept up in a feud with another poster (like he recently has with Jackalope, for example), but "being annoying" alone is not a measure for any kind of moderation on this site.
I would hope not, and I would not endorse booting anyone for that reason.
QuotePS: If you disagree, and you think he's being directly disruptive of the site, feel free to build a case against him on a thread here, and I'll consider it. If he has, he's managed to do so in a way that has avoided my noticing.
I think he is starting to drag politics all over his threads now, as was done in this thread. It's not possible that people don't like him around because he never actually engages in a conversation, oh no, it has to be because of the 'liberal conspiracy' that is out to quash his 'TROOFS' that anyone even slightly left of him can't handle.
What I was actually referring to, however, is that people that think like him, that they have the ultimate truth that is plain to see, tend to have that re-inforced by the number of people that disagree with it or attack them personally. You mention that there are a crapload of reports that say "I hate his politics", which only makes him that much more convinced that he has 'the TRUTH!'.
What I am starting to see happen is that now he is waving his politics around on other forums, as a banner. I already mentioned that I have personally had run-ins with others who share his political views, but on RPG related topics, politics doesn't enter into it. I think Mr Skach and I agree on a good deal more relating to RPG matters than we disagree. I am not sure if Jeff37923 and I could be any more seperated on the political spectrum, but we both totally dig Traveller (he sent me a copy for free!) in an unholy manner, and have other RPG views that are similar.
The point I am driving at is: any of those with which I normally disagree with politically will concede a point in an RPG thread, if presented well. I have conceded points to others, when they are presented well. I haven't found an occasion to call any of them a douchebag. Mr Morrow presented points to argue against, at the very least.
Walker had his meltdown and is probably enjoying his martyr status, which is unfortunate, as he had a good record of contributions otherwise. But if dragging a topic up across forums is bannable, I think crying 'leftie' at every opportunity should merit at least a warning. And I agree with Kyle on one point: drop Politics from the New Posts listing.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;259877Okay, I understand the logic here; it strikes me as excessively cagey, but there's no doubt that it causes less harm than would ensue if you actually did state a strict policy and then went against it.
By the way, I know you're just giving examples above, but I do use my real name on this site and I'd prefer not to have seriously defamatory sentences appear with my name in them even as examples, lest they turn up in Google summaries or such. So I'd appreciate if you'd edit your post.
Ok, done, but someone named Joe is going to be seriously pissed off.
RPGPundit
Quote from: StormBringer;259880What I am starting to see happen is that now he is waving his politics around on other forums, as a banner. I already mentioned that I have personally had run-ins with others who share his political views, but on RPG related topics, politics doesn't enter into it. I think Mr Skach and I agree on a good deal more relating to RPG matters than we disagree. I am not sure if Jeff37923 and I could be any more seperated on the political spectrum, but we both totally dig Traveller (he sent me a copy for free!) in an unholy manner, and have other RPG views that are similar.
Ok, fair enough: Cavscout, consider this a very initial and mostly pre-emptive warning: don't start bringing your politics into the regular RPG topics.
Likewise, don't start posting in a thread just to insult or attack another poster if you have no interest or nothing significant to say about the subject matter of the actual thread at hand.
Feel free to post more about RPGs, rather than politics.
RPGPundit
Huh? Now shamusing, dobbers, report buttons, warnings?
Sorry, that doesn´t mesh with my vision.
Bye.
Well, bye.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;259887Ok, fair enough: Cavscout, consider this a very initial and mostly pre-emptive warning: don't start bringing your politics into the regular RPG topics.
Likewise, don't start posting in a thread just to insult or attack another poster if you have no interest or nothing significant to say about the subject matter of the actual thread at hand.
Feel free to post more about RPGs, rather than politics.
No worries, I won't start doing any of those. Probably not worth it to point out any number of RPG threads I've been in where none of this has occured to counter the claims that I "always" do this or that, is it?
Quote from: Settembrini;259890Huh? Now shamusing, dobbers, report buttons, warnings?
Sorry, that doesn´t mesh with my vision.
Bye.
See you next week.
Quote from: CavScout;259894Probably not worth it to point out any number of RPG threads I've been in where none of this has occured to counter the claims that I "always" do this or that, is it?
I think it's entirely worth pointing out. I meant it as a compliment when I commented on our brief exchange in the "2300 AD" thread, but it didn't go down well.
!i!
Quote from: StormBringer;259880I think Mr Skach and I agree on a good deal more relating to RPG matters than we disagree.
Dude, leave me out of it. Don't go dragging me into your little world and ascribing relatively reasonable behavior - my reputation will be in the squat-box in no time at all.
Quote from: StormBringer;259880Walker had his meltdown and is probably enjoying his martyr status, which is unfortunate, as he had a good record of contributions otherwise. But if dragging a topic up across forums is bannable, I think crying 'leftie' at every opportunity should merit at least a warning. And I agree with Kyle on one point: drop Politics from the New Posts listing.
On a more serious note: I've noticed people reference the dragging of a specific theme across posts and forums - and I have to wonder if part of this might be the actual content involved. In other words, what CS drags his politics (I drag my laziness, my wooden leg, and my propensity to break wind at the slightest hint of confrontation), while the recently banned were dragging the technical difference between a mental illness classification and the action that results from it - the latter of which, in this case, is considered by most (if not all) here as one of the more reprehensible acts known to us.
So while dragging a ball and chain around to every thread might well be considered "disruptive" to others, I would be interested in hearing if it's as disruptive to the site as when it's combined with content of a less desirable nature (perhaps that being the breaking point) - Pundit?
As for walkerp (I ignored Fritz for the most part, though not through IL), while I disagreed with him most vehemently - even on some gaming related topics (see our first exchange, it's a doozy!), I think he was a decent contributor. But I have a weird sense that there was a motive beyond any of this and that all of this, though apologized for on Sett's blog, was
the point.
Quote from: James J Skach;259918Dude, leave me out of it. Don't go dragging me into your little world and ascribing relatively reasonable behavior - my reputation will be in the squat-box in no time at all.
Ha! Foolish mortal! I will show the world how level-headed you are!
QuoteOn a more serious note: I've noticed people reference the dragging of a specific theme across posts and forums - and I have to wonder if part of this might be the actual content involved. In other words, what CS drags his politics (I drag my laziness, my wooden leg, and my propensity to break wind at the slightest hint of confrontation), while the recently banned were dragging the technical difference between a mental illness classification and the action that results from it - the latter of which, in this case, is considered by most (if not all) here as one of the more reprehensible acts known to us.
I can see that, but Walker was sticking to his topic, albeit to his detriment. In other words, he was railing against his bizarre notion of the restriction of free speech around here in an RPG thread, then took the argument to an off-topic thread. If he started wandering into threads and pointing out that some people were trying to silence him because they didn't share his views on wholly unrestricted free speech, I would be all over that, too.
I agree that the topic they chose to make a stand with was unfortunate.
QuoteSo while dragging a ball and chain around to every thread might well be considered "disruptive" to others, I would be interested in hearing if it's as disruptive to the site as when it's combined with content of a less desirable nature (perhaps that being the breaking point) - Pundit?
I'm not answering for Pundit, of course, but I did want to address the point. Let's say a certain acorn loving squine was going into several threads a day and mentioning how well this game or that would play using
Squirrels in the Vineyard, or
Squirrel'd. Initially, probably not too much disruption, but at some point, everyone is going to start jumping on them to
shut up about the squirrels, already. It's not the posting, in my opinion, that causes the disruption. It's the inevitable consequence when those posts, no matter how short, start eliciting responses for them to just go play with their nuts. Which may or may not encourage others of a like mind to join in, because hey, squirrels.
QuoteAs for walkerp (I ignored Fritz for the most part, though not through IL), while I disagreed with him most vehemently - even on some gaming related topics (see our first exchange, it's a doozy!), I think he was a decent contributor. But I have a weird sense that there was a motive beyond any of this and that all of this, though apologized for on Sett's blog, was the point.
As I mentioned before, I was hardly the most avid reader of Walker's posts, so your gut feeling, coupled with Pundit's declaration of Walker's intent is enough to convince me his motives here weren't entirely altruistic. Nonetheless, as you mention, his RPG contributions were solid.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;259915I think it's entirely worth pointing out. I meant it as a compliment when I commented on our brief exchange in the "2300 AD" thread, but it didn't go down well.
But it "didn't go down" in the RPG forums now did it? See, that's the point, you've got folks making demonstratively false claims that I "always" do this or that in RPG threads. When someone makes such a claim, it takes but a single instance to prove it to be untrue.
Quote from: CavScout;259929But it "didn't go down" in the RPG forums now did it? See, that's the point, you've got folks making demonstratively false claims that I "always" do this or that in RPG threads. When someone makes such a claim, it takes but a single instance to prove it to be untrue.
For my part, I didn't say 'always'. A careful reading of my post shows the phrase 'starting to see', for which Pundit would have told me to fuck off over if he disagreed or thought I was stirring shit.
The fact of the matter is, you did such
in this very thread.
Quote from: RPGPundit;259855Quite a few people have complained about him. You'll have to take my word for it, because I don't go around "naming names", that would be counterproductive. Of course, if someone wants to step up and admit to having complained about him, there's no problem with that. Suffice it to say I've gotten more than a couple of PMs or emails from more than a couple of different posters about him, the latest one just today.
I'll take your word for it based on our interactions in PM about administrative matters. Cavscout's politics is not the issue. His disruptive behaviour is his lies and evasion tactics that disrupts the threads he's participating in. I think it says a lot that this guy was banned from Tangency for reporting others on troll threads he started. This is the kind of poster he is. So, you warning him about not dragging his politics into other threads misses the point. We are talking about a social activity here. Our individual politics of course infleunces the way how we see this activity.
There are many Republicans/Conservatives (Democrats/Liberals) on this board who bring their politics into gaming discussions without having to resort to lies and evasions. And remember, Cavscout himself admitted that the only reason why he keeps posting is to provoke a response. If a warning has to be issued, it shoud not be about him dragging his politics into the RPG section but rather of his dishonest posting style.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: StormBringer;259936For my part, I didn't say 'always'. A careful reading of my post shows the phrase 'starting to see', for which Pundit would have told me to fuck off over if he disagreed or thought I was stirring shit.
The fact of the matter is, you did such in this very thread.
Not exactly in RPG is it now...
Quote from: David R;259940I'll take your word for it based on our interactions in PM about administrative matters. Cavscout's politics is not the issue. His disruptive behaviour is his lies and evasion tactics that disrupts the threads he's participating in. I think it says a lot that this guy was banned from Tangency for reporting others on troll threads he started. This is the kind of poster he is. So, you warning him about not dragging his politics into other threads misses the point. We are talking about a social activity here. Our individual politics of course infleunces the way how we see this activity.
There are many Republicans/Conservatives (Democrats/Liberals) on this board who bring their politics into gaming discussions without having to resort to lies and evasions. And remember, Cavscout himself admitted that the only reason why he keeps posting is to provoke a response. If a warning has to be issued, it shoud not be about him dragging his politics into the RPG section but rather of his dishonest posting style.
I must admit it is funny seeing complaints about "cross forum" issue, that realy don't exisit, comming from some like this guy who is fucking dragging issues across SITES!
Quote from: CavScout;259894No worries, I won't start doing any of those. Probably not worth it to point out any number of RPG threads I've been in where none of this has occured to counter the claims that I "always" do this or that, is it?
I made a point of looking at your posting record, and while you do post an awful lot of one-liners and political posts, you certainly do also post stuff that is neither. You could always do more of that, though.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;259948I made a point of looking at your posting record, and while you do post an awful lot of one-liners and political posts, you certainly do also post stuff that is neither. You could always do more of that, though.
Cool beans.
Walker got banned?
:(
Quote from: CavScout;259945Not exactly in RPG is it now...
More importantly, it's not in Off-Topic: Politics.
Quote from: Aos;259953Walker got banned?
:(
How did you get over 2600 posts by only stopping in every six months? ;)
Quote from: StormBringer;259957More importantly, it's not in Off-Topic: Politics.
But it is a thread about it, or at least has become about it. Only in a strange, bizarre world of Stormie would talk about getting rid of the Politics Forum, or Off Topic, preclude anyone actually talking about why folks would actually want to get rid of said forum(s).
One would think what happens in a forum, under discussion by some for removal, would actually be germane to the discussion at hand.
Oh, for crying out loud, man. You dodge a bullet with a warning and agree to not post just for the sake of making irritating one-liners, and here you are, inside of a half-dozen posts, wheedling people in this very thread over every technicality you can think up. How's that for a show of good faith, Pundy?
I'll have to take Dan's advice, call you a cunt, and be done with it.
!i!
Quote from: StormBringer;259958How did you get over 2600 posts by only stopping in every six months? ;)
I'm only here these days when I've got a little extra time- or, as is currently the case, when I have no time at all and I am fleeing from responsibility.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;259964Oh, for crying out loud, man. You dodge a bullet with a warning and agree to not post just for the sake of making irritating one-liners, and here you are, inside of a half-dozen posts, wheedling people in this very thread over every technicality you can think up. How's that for a show of good faith, Pundy?
I'll have to take Dan's advice, call you a cunt, and be done with it.
Dodged a bullet? Seriously, do you believe your own tripe? I guess if you think calling people on their bullshit, like the "he always does this...", is just a "technicality" you must.
Only you'll have trouble finding where anyone said "he always does that". I didn't say it. StormBringer didn't say it. David didn't say it. Least ways, not in this thread we didn't. Trying to claim that if criticisms of you aren't absolutely and invariably true invalidates them completely is, yes, wheedling around on technicalities. Especially when your claim is factually untrue. Did you just misread what we wrote and see what you wanted to see, or were you just making it up in spite of what you actually read?
Oh! But look. I'm replying to you again. Shame on me.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;260001Only you'll have trouble finding where anyone said "he always does that". I didn't say it. StormBringer didn't say it. David didn't say it. Least ways, not in this thread we didn't. Trying to claim that if criticisms of you aren't absolutely and invariably true invalidates them completely is, yes, wheedling around on technicalities. Especially when your claim is factually untrue. Did you just misread what we wrote and see what you wanted to see, or were you just making it up in spite of what you actually read?
Oh! But look. I'm replying to you again. Shame on me.
Of course... it's not like you said that I wouldn't be here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259579&postcount=163) or post here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259564&postcount=154) if Off Topic wasn't around... no.. no.. you didn't...
Stormie didn't say that I "always" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259694&postcount=189) do something when I try and make a point... nor did he just agree with what you didn't claim above...
It's also a good thing you didn't claim I am here to just "derail discussions (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259702&postcount=193)" or anything like that.
Doubly true that Stormie didn't claim I see "everything" through a political view (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259732&postcount=199) or what not.
It's also good that Kyle never claimed I "never (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259756&postcount=209)" talked about RPGs... that would be sad, wouldn't it? It wouldn't have sucked if he had actually said I "don't talk RPGs" or something like that.
I would have been depressed if I had foudn you stating that I
only post "arguments" and "insults (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259870&postcount=225)", you know only those things there, in the RPG forums. It would have been horrendous if you had said that I wasn't "here to talk about RPGs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259870&postcount=225)", 'cause then you know we have to ignore the threads where I do.
What the fuck would we do if Stormie had claimed I "drag politics all over his threads now"? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259880&postcount=228) or I "
never (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259880&postcount=228) actually engages in a conversation". Heaven forbid.
It would have sucked if any of that happened in this very thread!
:eek:
Quote from: Ian Absentia;260001Only you'll have trouble finding where anyone said "he always does that". I didn't say it. StormBringer didn't say it. David didn't say it. Least ways, not in this thread we didn't. Trying to claim that if criticisms of you aren't absolutely and invariably true invalidates them completely is, yes, wheedling around on technicalities. Especially when your claim is factually untrue. Did you just misread what we wrote and see what you wanted to see, or were you just making it up in spite of what you actually read?
Oh! But look. I'm replying to you again. Shame on me.
!i!
Shame on you indeed. Seriously, how do you not get how he works by now? Your post serves just as well as a generic response to every last thing he's ever posted on this site.
Quote from: Aos;259966I'm only here these days when I've got a little extra time- or, as is currently the case, when I have no time at all and I am fleeing from responsibility.
That is how I get most of my exercise these days. :)
Quote from: J Arcane;260018Shame on you indeed. Seriously, how do you not get how he works by now?
Yeah, yeah. I give. Cunt, cunt, cunt.
Okay. I'm done.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;260023Yeah, yeah. I give. Cunt, cunt, cunt.
Okay. I'm done.
Would be good to bow out now since your claim was so easily repudiated.
Quote from: CavScout;260015What the fuck would we do if Stormie had claimed I "drag politics all over his threads now"? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259880&postcount=228)
"I think he is starting to drag politics all over his threads now, as was done in this thread."
As in, I think you are starting to drag politics into the threads you participate in. Your mis-quote of what I said makes it appear that I was complaining that you are doing something to disrupt threads I am in, or that I feel some sense of ownership for all threads. In other words, you should read a bit more closely.
Quoteor I "never (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259880&postcount=228) actually engages in a conversation". Heaven forbid.
"It's not possible that people don't like him around because he never actually engages in a conversation, oh no, it has to be because of the 'liberal conspiracy' that is out to quash his 'TROOFS' that anyone even slightly left of him can't handle."
In your rush to mis-represent my statement, you mangled the sentence. However, to the point, this is the most oft-repeated complaint I read from people. That you lack reading comprehension, lack an understanding of the basic discussion at hand, that you are evading and using juvenile rhetorical ploys, or any number of other ways of pointing out that you are not engaging in the conversation at hand.
You seem to think that spewing words in the general direction of a conversation is contributing, and when people remind you that you have, once again, failed to make or grasp several points under discussion, that seems to be the trigger for the onslaught of rhetorical tricks that follows.
And it is occuring in this exact exchange. You aren't engaging in the conversation whatsoever. You are scrambling to cover for an earlier mistake that was easily pointed out, instead of taking the adult route of owning up to it and moving on.
I have already pointed out that many of the posters here have wildly divergent views on any number of topics. But, for the most part, we can still concede a point to each other, and take both defeat and victory with grace and humility. I would far prefer you learn how to engage with a conversation in a similar manner than have you removed. Currently, the latter seems far more likely than the former, if you continue your current trajectory.
How about closing this one, Pundit? Too many meta topics all in one thread.
Probably this thread should be locked. Few posters have had anything new to say for the last hundred posts or so, the thread's just turned into everyone bashing CavScout.
Which is something that encourages a martyr complex in the victim, and hunting the victim from thread to thread for the attackers, both of which disrupt rpg discussion.
I agree.