Quote from: HinterWeltWhy the hell would Ron want to debate with an imaginary character?

We live in an age where presidential candidates answer questions from a snowman during a TV debate.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn what fucking way do you think I'm lying about who I am?!

Oh, come one Pundy. We know this whole thing you do is just your online avatar.

I don't think Pundit is "lying" about who he is... but based on his answers to these 2 interviews, Pundit is not the same as Pundit's author:

Quote from: Interview with Matt StaggsI'm essentially a parody of them, and that's something that people often forget. I argue very importantly in this persona about totally unimportant things, to make sure you remember that what those other guys are making a huge deal of is actually something very unimportant, just a game.

Quote from: Norwegian InterviewLook at Hunter S. Thompson, or Stephen Colbert. They captured their audience with a persona that caught their attention, and then later, that audience actually started listening to what they had to say.

JongWK, what's the snowman reference?

Quote from: StuartJongWK, what's the snowman reference?

During a debate between deomcrats (I think) they too questions from youtube users, one of them was an animated snowman.

Quote from: StuartI don't think Pundit is "lying" about who he is... but based on his answers to these 2 interviews, Pundit is not the same as Pundit's author:

Stuart,
To me, the quotes you made are all about dishonesty and lying. I admit, perhaps I am stretching the definition of lying but I believe it falls in the realm of falsehood. Essentially, it breaks down like this: At what point are you debating with a person's ideas and beliefs, and at what point is he pushing buttons and using cheap rhetoric? At some point you need to say, "Why the hell am I talking to this guy...whoever he is?" Yeah, we can say that about others on the internet but we are not talking about them. For all I know, Edwards is the same way. In the end though, I don't care. Don't read what I have wrote with the "I am outraged voice" but more the "I am disappointed in the mild" voice.

So, in the end, some will shrug and say "it's entertainment" while others will shrug and say "It is dishonest". I fall into the latter.

Again, YMMV,
Bill

OK...first...to Bill's issue:  Think Professional Wrestling (not to put words in Bill's mouth, but it seems an apt description).

Second: You'd have to ask yourself: What would Mr. Edwards get from it?  Let's face it; this entire debacle has always been about what Mr. Edwards could get from it.  How can Mr. Edwards market the kind of games Mr. Edwards likes?  How can Mr. Edwards build an exclusive club to further his marketing goals?  How can a pseudo-intellectual approach be used to further sales of Mr. Edwards' games and other games he likes in order to diminish the negative impact of network externalities?  If you can't provide Mr. Edwards with some significant compensation for his effort, he won't be here. And let's be clear, I don't think that's wrong.  Selfishness is a virtue.

Third - for the train wreck value alone it would be a hoot. I fear it would end up looking like one of that house of mirrors where the two reflective surfaces, when pointed at each other, seem to diminish infinitely.

Quote from: James J SkachThird - for the train wreck value alone it would be a hoot. I fear it would end up looking like one of that house of mirrors where the two reflective surfaces, when pointed at each other, seem to diminish infinitely.

no, no!  keep going with the wrestling motif.  it'll end up a cage match, with barbed wire-baseball bats, broken tables, and steel chairs :haw:

(since it'll never happen, one can dream. . . .)

Guys.  Coming from someone who lurks for months, and only resurfaces to resurrect dormant threads with two-month-late witty retorts, how can anyone take Anthrobot's proposal as "serious"?

!i!

i for one don't take anything in "off topic" seriously

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaGuys.  Coming from someone who lurks for months, and only resurfaces to resurrect dormant threads with two-month-late witty retorts, how can anyone take Anthrobot's proposal as "serious"?

!i!

I was wondering if someone was going to bring that up.

This is likely just a pathetic attempt at sabotage.  He's seen the deleterious effects the recent Forge invasions and press conferences have had on traffic here, and hopes to con us all into somehow submitting to the same thing again.

I'm frankly rather angry about the way things have been going lately, and don't see any reason to exacerbate the situation with more of the same shit.

Quote from: J ArcaneI was wondering if someone was going to bring that up.

Well, I had to.  He made fun of me in another thread that he dug up from months back, and Pundy closed the thread before I had a chance to post a scathing reply. :mad:

!i!

5/10.

Ouch.

!i!

I only encourage the fighting of imaginary wars when there's amazons involved.

Quote from: droogI doubt you'll get RE here, though I could be wrong. But Kyle is nowhere near a neutral arbiter.

I'm not neutral, no. But I am impartial. Ron Edwards and RPGPundit are both crazy. I did call the latter "Mirror Ron", remember. And I have mocked and scorned RPGPundit's lack of debating skills every time he's had a "Pistols at Dawn" thread.

However, none of the other threads had a "referee", why would this thread get one?

The difference between the two is not their level of madness, but that Edwards has an actual theory you can critique or praise as you see fit; RPGPundit offers abuse but not criticism of the theory, and offers none in its place. So RPGPundit gets less criticism himself, there's less actual substance to knock down. Ron Edwards may have built a house of cards, but RPGPundit is just hot air.

But the others are correct that Edwards would never come here. He never ventures out of his own little backyard Forge, except for brief visits to particularly supportive blogs. He won't even discuss his ideas with his supporters anymore, having closed his Theory subforum - why would he discuss his ideas with his detractors?