Quote from: Spinachcat;1056576We're might need LoLz-Anon after this! Too many drunken LoLz binges!



a) Does that tactic produce maximum LoLz? Cuz being "honest and effective" with asshats sounds like effort.

b) The creator and his clown car posse have already clearly stated wrongthinkers are NOT welcome in their community. The people banned on RPG.net weren't even championing wrongthink, they were just questioning the premise of the virtue signaling nonsense.

True.  The only way to participate there and not get banned is to say that you hate bad people and free speech and signal the quantity the hatred, as in 8 out of 10.  Each post must up the hatred, 10 out of 10, 11 out of 10, "no, I'm 12 out of 10", etc.  Failure to keep up means you're a nazi.  This will continue until the only one left is the moderator who hates bad people and free speech "infinity times eleventy-leven jillion ... plus one ... out of ten".  I'm glad I tapped out early at respecting free speech and hating nobody.

I went back to see how putrid the simmering turd of this thread's topic had become and DAMN! Words cannot express how stupid those people are! Everyone knew that already, but holy fuck are they some hateful, hypocrites. What's really funny is the game isn't even part of the conversation, just ignorant, Lefty dipshittery. I wonder how much longer rational people need to endure the disease of SocJus and its spin-off crazy. Ugh. I need a drink...

Quote from: RPGPundit;1056603The game looks like shit, but his declaration got him what he wanted: money from people who will never play the game.

What he wanted was money.  That's all you had to say.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1056576Does that tactic produce maximum LoLz? Cuz being "honest and effective" with asshats sounds like effort.

It puts them in a position where they must reveal their cards on something as mainstream as Kickstarter, with is pretty LoL worthy. Because by making the statements they have they've established that selling you their game is the equivalent of welcoming you into the community and endorsing you as a individual.

• So if they welcome you, then they've confirmed you're not a Nazi, which will put them in conflict with anyone who thinks you are.
• If they don't, then they're engaging in the same kind of gatekeeping they claim to be against, which they can't do without implying you're a Nazi and thereby violating Kickstarter's ToS.
• If they refuse to answer, then they're not actively curating their community and enforcing their code of conduct, which would imply this virtue signaling was only done to garner more sales.

Trolling them for the LoLz on the other hand only justifies everything they're doing. It's just the other side of the same worthless coin.

Quote from: Vidgrip;1056610The only way to participate there and not get banned is to say that you hate bad people and free speech and signal the quantity the hatred, as in 8 out of 10.

We're talking about Kickstarter however. Rpg.net has absolutely no problem with telling someone "you are not welcome here" and banning them on a whim. Kickstarter can be held to a higher standard.

I mean this is the very definition of virtue signalling right? I mean was there a particular existing issue with "Nazi" and "MRA" types liking this product? I think it was a way to get Rpg.net to responsively virtue signal with their wallets.

I'm tempted to make this response there but it'll just get me banned and I don't see the point.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1056702It puts them in a position where they must reveal their cards on something as mainstream as Kickstarter, with is pretty LoL worthy. Because by making the statements they have they've established that selling you their game is the equivalent of welcoming you into the community and endorsing you as a individual.

• So if they welcome you, then they've confirmed you're not a Nazi, which will put them in conflict with anyone who thinks you are.
• If they don't, then they're engaging in the same kind of gatekeeping they claim to be against, which they can't do without implying you're a Nazi and thereby violating Kickstarter's ToS.
• If they refuse to answer, then they're not actively curating their community and enforcing their code of conduct, which would imply this virtue signaling was only done to garner more sales.

Trolling them for the LoLz on the other hand only justifies everything they're doing. It's just the other side of the same worthless coin.



We're talking about Kickstarter however. Rpg.net has absolutely no problem with telling someone "you are not welcome here" and banning them on a whim. Kickstarter can be held to a higher standard.

I'm not a lawyer, however they seem to have covered their asses with this:

"Projects that promote discrimination, bigotry, or intolerance towards marginalized groups", as Nazis aren't accepted as marginalized, even though they actually are, but whatever.

This one might be an avenue for a legal poke, but I don't know for sure:

"Offensive material (e.g., hate speech, encouraging violence against others, etc)." In the US, the "hate speech" bit won't hold water, but the ambiguity of "encouraging violence against others, etc" could cut either way.

I don't see KS giving any shits defending whatever's right and I would bet my next paycheck they'd scurry to defend SJW behavior long before risking the Leftist mob's wrath. You know, the tolerant ones?

Quote from: MWMattei;1056704I mean this is the very definition of virtue signalling right? I mean was there a particular existing issue with "Nazi" and "MRA" types liking this product? I think it was a way to get Rpg.net to responsively virtue signal with their wallets.

I'm tempted to make this response there but it'll just get me banned and I don't see the point.

Is it really a bad thing to be shunned by mentally stunted morons with hearts of the blackest hate?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1056707Is it really a bad thing to be shunned by mentally stunted morons with hearts of the blackest hate?

Is it worth the effort to provoke one of the increasingly ugly reactions. I think I'm just done with rpg.net, this is the straw after the straw that broke the camel's back. (Apparently someone got banned for hinting at being a Biblical literalist regarding homosexuality.)

The good and bad news is we will likely see more of this kind of "game for the right kind of people" gambit but I suspect as the novelty wears off it's overall effect will be a negative, rather than saving a project teetering on the edge of success and failure.

At least the thought police will self-identify so I'll know to avoid them.

Quote from: MWMattei;1056715Is it worth the effort to provoke one of the increasingly ugly reactions. I think I'm just done with rpg.net, this is the straw after the straw that broke the camel's back. (Apparently someone got banned for hinting at being a Biblical literalist regarding homosexuality.)

The good and bad news is we will likely see this kind of "game for the right kind of people" gambit but I suspect as the novelty wears off it's overall effect will be a negative, rather than saving a project teetering on the edge of success and failure.

At least the thought police will self-identify so I'll know to avoid them.

Well-said. After reading my post that you quoted again, I realized I was asking myself the same question.

Huh.  You'd think they would have taken their Kickstarter announcement down from Page 10 of the thread at the top of the forum...

Quote from: MWMattei;1056704I mean this is the very definition of virtue signalling right? I mean was there a particular existing issue with "Nazi" and "MRA" types liking this product? I think it was a way to get Rpg.net to responsively virtue signal with their wallets.

   They're definitely afraid that there might be such an issue--if you read the thread, there is serious fear of the hobby being 'infiltrated' and 'co-opted' by such sorts.

   To be honest, if the declaration's taken at face value, I don't have much of a problem with it, at least the first part. I detest the Nazi ideology root and branch, and my only problems with World War II are some of the means we chose to fight it (the US internment camps, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ...) and the fact that we had to make alliance with the other archfiend, Josef Stalin, to beat Hitler. "MRAs" are not in the same league, and while there are certainly some lowlifes going by the label, it also looks to be a term as broad and useless as 'feminism'--I'll want statements on specific issues before I make any further judgments.

   The problem is that for fifty years, segments of the American Left have been throwing the label 'Nazi' at the entirety of the American Right. (Some on the Right have thrown the label 'Commie' at the Left, but that's not quite so common any more, and not nearly so shameful to them and the general public.) Thus, whenever the term gets used--especially after two paragraphs of intersectionalist pieties--it does raise, for some of us, the question "OK, when you say 'Nazi', do you mean 'people who believe in racial supremacy and racial conflict as the engine of history, national unity under a semi-divine leader, etc.', or 'anyone to the right of Trotsky'?"

To be the Devil's Advocate, I have to respect the Creator's action in light of Machiavelli. He wanted his KS to succeed, he targeted a frenzied audience with an emotional plea and got rewarded with their money.

Also, the SJWs did exactly what I advocate for everyone: Vote with your wallet. I can't fault them on that level because they put their money where their mouth is and financed a product which promotes their world view.

Of course...now the Creator has to deliver and there's quite a potential for LoLz there...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1056800Also, the SJWs did exactly what I advocate for everyone: Vote with your wallet. I can't fault them on that level because they put their money where their mouth is and financed a product which promotes their world view.

...and should the world by taken over by Nazi's anyway they can say "hey, don't blame us, we did our part - we backed that game."

Quote from: Spinachcat;1056800Also, the SJWs did exactly what I advocate for everyone: Vote with your wallet. I can't fault them on that level because they put their money where their mouth is and financed a product which promotes their world view.

Actually has anyone looked at the pre-release version? I thought about it and decided not to bother, but it struck me that the rpg's premise does not necessarily match what I understand to match the SJW's world view. The author would appear to, but I struggle to see how a free trader (possibly working for other interests/corporations) would not end up either working for unscrupulous entities at times or attempt to thwart said entities plans, thereby if successful end up being targeted by a much larger financially dangerous corporation.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1056800Of course...now the Creator has to deliver and there's quite a potential for LoLz there...

Enh, it's a small issue.  The Creator is just a lone person, fighting the good fight, trying to make the world a better place.  If he fails, well, he tried.  And isn't it more important to support a good guy trying to do good, than to treat KS as a pre-order system?  (the logic could be applied to -anyone- backing -any- highly political-screeching game.  Left or Right)

Now, expect the next three folks to try that same trick to quietly not get any support.  Because at the end of the day, KS -is- a freaking pre-order system where people expect to get the stuff they paid for (if you -don't- expect anything, that's what "No Reward" pledges are for) and when your "feels" consist of "I feel like I wasted my money and got ripped off" you aren't inclined to repeat your mistakes.  Meanwhile virtue signaling in an echo chamber forum is free, so you can show your support by "cheering on" the people you agree with... but not enough to risk your money on again.  

But hey, if it delivers it delivers.  And if it doesn't, maybe people will start to realize that (most) TTRPG KS projects are a bad thing to back.