In the light of Kyle Aaron’s quote (see below) I seriously propose a debate between RPGPundit and Ron Edwards. We could get one of his adherents to invite Ron Edwards to come and debate with Pundit about his views on D&D players, and the relevancy of his GNS “theories” to roleplaying at large.
There would have to be some rules. Only Pundit and Ron Edwards would be allowed to post on the thread ( plus a referee to enforce the rules), to stop it disintegrating into a flame war, and both posters would have to be respectful to each other. Also any allegations  about certain roleplayers would have to be supported by researchable links, or by identifying where the quotation came from.
I’d also want there to be a fairly neutral referee in the debate to make sure that things stay civil. I’d vote for Kyle Aaron to be this ref.
I’d like to put this proposal to a vote. I’d also like to hear your views on wether my rules are areeable or not. This is a serious proposal, I’m not joking. I’d would seriously like to see a decent debate between Pundit and Ron Edwards to get both viewpoints.

“And sure as shit you don't want to ban "Swine". That just turns the place into another Forge, a circle jerk. Uncle Ronny himself should be able to come here and talk about his crappy games if he wants to. If we want to just talk to people we agree with all the time, why do we need discussion forums at all?”
Kyle Aaron

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

I don't think Ron Edwards would show up here, either.

As much as I'd love to read that, as much I also doubt that Ron what participate.

In regards of a neutral referee, I wouldn't know one here. The best one would be someone who doesn't at all care about the "war" thing, what would probably result in disinterest to put any effort into this debate.
Or you could pick up a radical Storytelling swine as a ref - as he despises Pundit _and_ The Forge, it would be a balanced hate to both sides

It might be entertaining in a trainwreck sort of way but I doubt that you'd get any real debate or answering of questions.

I don't know who Ron Edwards is, and unless this is a live televised event mark me down for "don't care."

I don't think it's a realistic idea.  What would they debate?  "Ron, I don't like your games and theories"?

Also:
Ron wouldn't register and post here.
Pundit wouldn't register and post on the Forge or Storygames.
Pundit isn't 100% real vs. Ron Edwards is.
Kyle is not neutral, nor are many (most?) of the posters here
Storygamers of any variety are not neutral either
Like Skyrock said -- other people would be disinterested.

Why the hell would Ron want to debate with an imaginary character? Isn't that what role-playing is for? I mean, seriously, why would anyone want to discuss anything with a caricature?

Top it off with the "I could care less" and this seems a pointless endeavor.

Besides, whatever the response Edwards made, he would be accused of being evasive if he did not agree with Pundit. It is his MO now.

Bill

Well, I think it would be fun to observe but I fail to see what it would accomplish.

Well "Michael Savage" is not the real name of that radio talk show host - but I wouldn't call him fictional. Same thing goes for Pundit, I know "RPGPundit" is his persona name....but I know there is a real person there somewhere.

 Also sort of like Joe Bob Briggs - the Drive In Movie critic that used to host late night movies on cable.  That wasn't his real name.

Joe Bob Briggs (John Bloom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bob_Briggs


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarWell "Michael Savage" is not the real name of that radio talk show host - but I wouldn't call him fictional. Same thing goes for Pundit, I know "RPGPundit" is his persona name....but I know there is a real person there somewhere.

 Also sort of like Joe Bob Briggs - the Drive In Movie critic that used to host late night movies on cable.  That wasn't his real name.

Joe Bob Briggs (John Bloom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bob_Briggs


- Ed C.

I am not talking about using a pseudonym, I am talking about lying about who you are. You may see it differently. I find it intellectually dishonest and cowardly. I would not debate with such a fabrication.

YMMV,
Bill

i think it would be an entertaining trainwreck

that said, i don't think it would actually ever come about.

how about doc R as debate mod?  he's probably the most neutral guy here.

It´s lame. Two years ago, that would have been useful. Now it´s just giving someone bandwidth that he doesn´t deserve or get for himself anymore.

The war is over, the Forgers are in complete disarry and morally corrupt. They are like furries. Nothing to discuss, nothing to see.

It would be like beating up a drooling perverted cripple, with the whole village applauding.
Like the threads with TonyLB in them.

In short:

I´d rather not.

I don't want to see that. What I would like to see is Ron Edwards in some sort of Q&A. But I guess I know the demeanour of both Ron and Pundit to anticipate the outcome... and honestly, I don't think that is necessary to spill that much blood and hate around here.

Although on the other hand... it is a bit tempting... a bit.

Ok. Have my vote than... I want to see if that "guy" is brave enought to come here...

Quote from: HinterWeltI am not talking about using a pseudonym, I am talking about lying about who you are. You may see it differently. I find it intellectually dishonest and cowardly. I would not debate with such a fabrication.

YMMV,
Bill

In what fucking way do you think I'm lying about who I am?!