TheRPGSite

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 :D

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?!

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. :D

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?

Quote from: Kyle AaronHe won't even discuss his ideas with his supporters anymore, having closed his Theory subforum - why would he discuss his ideas with his detractors?

Kyle, discussion of the BM goes on in Actual Play all the time.

Quote from: droogKyle, discussion of the BM goes on in Actual Play all the time.

In Poison'd actual play it's usually BDSM though. Hurr, hurr.

Quote from: droogKyle, discussion of the BM goes on in Actual Play all the time.

"You had fun, therefore you are playing Narr," and "You didn't have fun, therefore you don't understand TBM" does not count as "discussion" in the sense that I meant it.

You will find me trying out Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, and at the same time, Forward! To Adventure. I have played Sorcerer and Dogs, and still have my copy of AD&D from my first year of gaming in 1983. So I think it's fair to say that I'm impartial and open-minded about things in terms of the Swine Wars (such as they are). I don't see a similar open-mindedness in either Ron, or Mirror Ron. Though Mirror Ron, to his credit, will leave alone discussions of things he thinks are crazy. That is, though he's crazy, he is at least willing to live and let live.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"You had fun, therefore you are playing Narr," and "You didn't have fun, therefore you don't understand TBM" does not count as "discussion" in the sense that I meant it.

That's simply not how it goes.

Kyle is a joke, who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.  He has no business criticizing anyone's debate skills, much less mine. Thus, the idea that he'd have any business actually moderating a debate is patently absurd.

Edwards is a coward and a control freak, who has set up his forum as his own little cultish-kingdom specifically so he never has to be in a situation where he isn't in absolute control of the conversation.
So the very idea he'd debate here is absurd.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditKyle is a joke, who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.  He has no business criticizing anyone's debate skills, much less mine.

Is that a challenge, Humperdinck?

Quote from: Kyle AaronIs that a challenge, Humperdinck?

A challenge for what? What the fuck would I have any interest in debating you about? Your cheetoh-centered game theory? Your d4-d4 system?

I mean come on, really...

RPGPundit

How about "Why my ideas about RPing are the best"?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn Poison'd actual play it's usually BDSM though. Hurr, hurr.

Now there's a slur against BDSM if there ever was one.

Quote from: jeff37923Now there's a slur against BDSM if there ever was one.

Seconded.

 Compared to Poison'd - BDSM is a wholesome and life-affirming activity .


- Ed C.

You're hanging with a pretty smart crowd here, Pierce.

So...wait...If I play up and inflate my disdain for a game, not that I can think of one I'd do that to or anything, because I think it's funny and don't really care too much if anyone else does, that makes me dishonest?

Or, if my web persona is...somewhat less devout than I actually am because it prevents the reoccurance of the massive flamewars of my youth...I'm dishonest?

Bloody hell!  I knew I was getting it right!  Hot Damn!

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

I agree, its a long shot about RE coming here. Theres no such thing as a neutral arbiter. I think Kyle is intelligent and free minded enough to be able to act as an arbiter though.
I could also suggest Erick Wujcik as a possible arbiter, as he has an essay over at the Forge (on diceless roleplaying) and is obviously welcome here. But it depends on wether he would wish to take that role.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhy 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?

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

There is a real person behind the Pundit mask. The arbiter would be the judge of wether a reply is a sufficiently good answer to a question.

Quote from: McrowWell, I think it would be fun to observe but I fail to see what it would accomplish.

For a start it would give us the other side of the argument. We get Pundit's rants but not RE's replies. It would also force both parties to prove certain allegations they have made.

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

How the fuck do you know that Pundit is a liar when it comes to who he says he is? Do you think he might be Ron Edwards himself doing some kind of weird PR stunt?:rolleyes:

Quote from: Alnagand 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...

Some of you seem to have rushed over my proposal. The arbiter referees the debate and enforces a respectful attitude. It would,hopefully, not be a bloodbath but something close to talking to each other. It would give some insight into the participants characters as well as clear up who is the K Fed and who is the Britney!:D

Quote from: James J SkachSecond: 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.

I agree on your opinion. It will at least show RE's personality a lot clearer, and the "train wreck" will be arbitrated to become a slow shunt.

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!

Go and take some SSRIs Ian, instead of being a troll. In this proposal I'm serious for once. I'm guilty of a lot of things, including necromancy. It still doesn't invalidate this proposal.

Quote from: J ArcaneI 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.

No I'm being serious. Why not have a moderated debate. If you are scared of what we might find out, then run off and hide from it.

See, the problem with a troll like this, is you actually have to have SOME credibility left with the audience.

Really, what the fuck is with people today?  The performances have been pathetic.  It's like no one's even trying on this board anymore.  Rambling irrelevancies, rehashed arguments from 30 years ago, and the world's most transparent troll.

This place has really jumped the shark ever since the goddamn Forge invasion, and the damn Poison'd nonsense.

Quote from: AnthrobotGo and take some SSRIs Ian, instead of being a troll. In this proposal I'm serious for once. I'm guilty of a lot of things, including necromancy. It still doesn't invalidate this proposal.

"Kettle?"   "Here, meet black"


- Ed C.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWell, 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!

So I peed in your wheatos! Big deal. You're perfect in your track record on this site I take it? If you had proposed this debate I'd be writing that it was a good thing and we might get something out of it.
At the least that RE is pretentious.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'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?

Finally some sanity. I aso agree that RE lacks the guts to actually have a proper debate about his "theories" with the Pundit.
Detractors please note that I'm being civil to Kyle. Theres jesting and then theres being serious.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"You had fun, therefore you are playing Narr," and "You didn't have fun, therefore you don't understand TBM" does not count as "discussion" in the sense that I meant it.

You will find me trying out Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, and at the same time, Forward! To Adventure. I have played Sorcerer and Dogs, and still have my copy of AD&D from my first year of gaming in 1983. So I think it's fair to say that I'm impartial and open-minded about things in terms of the Swine Wars (such as they are). I don't see a similar open-mindedness in either Ron, or Mirror Ron. Though Mirror Ron, to his credit, will leave alone discussions of things he thinks are crazy. That is, though he's crazy, he is at least willing to live and let live.

 Detractors please read Kyle's posts to gauge his fitness as arbiter. He calls some of Pundit's ranting "absurd" for heaven's sake!
Kyle is no lap dog or yes man for Pundit's view of things. Plus Kyle believes that RE should be able to come here and talk about his "crappy games".
The refereed limited thread of my proposal would bind the excessive influence of Ronist bullshit and tone down some of Pundy's hyperbolic ranting.

There's such a thing as overselling the con.  Especially when the game was up before it really began.  

I hate seeing idiots try to be clever.  It's just so pathetic.  Like watching the retarded kid try to respond to insults from his classmates.

Quote from: RPGPunditKyle is a joke, who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.  He has no business criticizing anyone's debate skills, much less mine. Thus, the idea that he'd have any business actually moderating a debate is patently absurd.

Edwards is a coward and a control freak, who has set up his forum as his own little cultish-kingdom specifically so he never has to be in a situation where he isn't in absolute control of the conversation.
So the very idea he'd debate here is absurd.

RPGPundit

You're a joke sometimes Pundit. At least Kyle has the cohones to have an opinion and not be afraid to debate that opinion.If he was the arbitrator in such a debate it would be to keep some of the more firey name calling in check.Ron Edwards could still be asked if he called D&D players brain damaged/ retarded/idiots or whatever.
 I agree that Ronny boy won't turn up. But there is a small chance that he just might.
And who is to say that he might be lurking, reading these posts at this present time?

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, the problem with a troll like this, is you actually have to have SOME credibility left with the audience.

Really, what the fuck is with people today?  The performances have been pathetic.  It's like no one's even trying on this board anymore.  Rambling irrelevancies, rehashed arguments from 30 years ago, and the world's most transparent troll.

This place has really jumped the shark ever since the goddamn Forge invasion, and the damn Poison'd nonsense.

Please calm down. This proposal isn't a Forge invasion. The thread would be a cordoned off zone where only Pundy and RE and the referee could post. If you don't like debate, then please go off and relax. Shoot up some scag, take some fluoxetine,take some E, smoke some dope, relax and come back to this proposal with a fresher mind.
If I'm guilty of trolling, in the past, it does not invalidate my proposal. I want you to take me seriously on this. I know that the debate is unlikely to occur. But stranger things have happened. All of us who read or participate in these forums deserve to get a decent reasonable debate on the RE/Pundit differences. It probably won't reconcile each of them to the others point of view. But it might give us some deeper insight into the protagonists and help us all to confirm or alter our ideas about the whole debacle.

Quote from: AnthrobotSo I peed in your wheatos! Big deal.

What are wheatos?

Quote from: jeff37923What are wheatos?

 Thats when a Cheeto and a wheatie get friendly in that very special way....
then a little while later you get a  "Wheato"



- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThats when a Cheeto and a wheatie get friendly in that very special way....
then a little while later you get a  "Wheato"



- Ed C.

Wow, sex between two different food groups, that's just kinky.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's such a thing as overselling the con.  Especially when the game was up before it really began.  

I hate seeing idiots try to be clever.  It's just so pathetic.  Like watching the retarded kid try to respond to insults from his classmates.

Wow! So you want to derail the whole proposal by trolling. You are as stupid as I am when I troll.
Stop being daft and take my proposal seriously. We don't have to be daft all the time do we?
Can we be reasonable or are you totally rabidly incapable of being so?

Kyle has his own obnoxious agenda.
It would turn into a three-way clusterfuck, as three people who have no respect for each other produce one.

Quote from: SettembriniKyle has his own obnoxious agenda.
It would turn into a three-way clusterfuck, as three people who have no respect for each other produce one.

Bollocks! I should have every reason to diss Kyle, and yet I think he would give it a really good go at being impartial. I think he'd be a fine arbiter. Now if only we could get Ron Edwards to agree to a moderated debate.

You know, Ron Edwards isn't a personal friend of mine. But I'm pretty sure I can see this from his point of view.

Here's a website practically dedicated to slamming him; where a vocal minority of posters refuse to even get the basic facts straight, and where those same posters distort everything he says. None of those posters have the balls to tackle him directly, whether by email or at some public venue. Why in the name of Orcus would he want to come over here and be interviewed/quizzed? Particularly since there seems to be no gain in doing so?

Quote from: droogYou know, Ron Edwards isn't a personal friend of mine. But I'm pretty sure I can see this from his point of view.

Here's a website practically dedicated to slamming him; where a vocal minority of posters refuse to even get the basic facts straight, and where those same posters distort everything he says. None of those posters have the balls to tackle him directly, whether by email or at some public venue. Why in the name of Orcus would he want to come over here and be interviewed/quizzed? Particularly since there seems to be no gain in doing so?

To set the record straight.To talk to people that don't see eye to eye with him and at least try to convince us otherwise.
If Pundit is talking shit about Ron Edwards then RE has a reply to that. The gain would be in perhaps altering the perceptions of him, in those people who aren't completely close minded.
If Ron Edwards is shown to be talking shit then we can all have a great big party. I'll buy ten copies of Forward To adventure and we'll all have a massive international dungeon bash to celebrate!

Quote from: AnthrobotTo set the record straight.To talk to people that don't see eye to eye with him and at least try to convince us otherwise.

Ron doesn't care, matey. He really doesn't.

Quote from: droogRon doesn't care, matey. He really doesn't.

If that is the case, then fuck the bastard. He's a cohoneless coward that isn't worth the time of day.
On the other hand if we ask him if he wants to defend his "theories" in a moderated debate between him and his major detractor, then he might say "Yes, its an ephemeral epiphenomenon blah boring blah de blah blah" (SHUT THE FUCK UP PROFESSOR BATCOCK!):D and we might get our moderated debate and learn something new about each protagonist.

Quote from: droogYou know, Ron Edwards isn't a personal friend of mine. But I'm pretty sure I can see this from his point of view.

If he isn't a personal friend of yours then you don't have any right to infer what his views of being asked to debate on this site will be.:p :D

Quote from: AnthrobotIf that is the case, then fuck the bastard. He's a cohoneless coward that isn't worth the time of day.

He doesn't even care about that. I think this is the thing you and others aren't realising.

I very much doubt that RE sees Pindot as a major anything.

Quote from: AnthrobotIf he isn't a personal friend of yours then you don't have any right to infer what his views of being asked to debate on this site will be.:p :D

Oh, I'm just guessing. But it is an informed guess.

Quote from: AnthrobotHow the fuck do you know that Pundit is a liar when it comes to who he says he is. Do you think he might be Ron Edwards himself doing some kind of weird PR stunt?:rolleyes:

You didn't read this thread did you. There are quotes, right here in this thread, from interviews with "Pundit" where he admits his "persona".

Simply put, there are people who find professional wrestling entertaining and those that find it repulsive. Guess which group I fall into.:rolleyes:

Bill

Quote from: AnthrobotSome of you seem to have rushed over my proposal. The arbiter referees the debate and enforces a respectful attitude. It would,hopefully, not be a bloodbath but something close to talking to each other. It would give some insight into the participants characters as well as clear up who is the K Fed and who is the Britney!:D

And the point you seem to be missing is that many of us just do not think it would be:
a. possible to maintain the "respectful" tone
b. possible to get Edwards here
c. given the above, easy (and thus boring) to predict how the debate would go.

In short, whoever you pick as arbiter, I am, at least, tired of the "war".

Bill

Bill, everybody else loves the war. It's the best thing about role playing ever- or a sham perpetuated to increase board terffic. Whatever- its awesome?

Quote from: AosBill, everybody else loves the war. It's the best thing about role playing ever- or a sham perpetuated to increase board terffic. Whatever- its awesome?

That was not my impression. ;) However, considering the other posts I have made in this thread, I find the use of the word "sham" somehow appropriate.

Bill

Quote from: droogYou know, Ron Edwards isn't a personal friend of mine. But I'm pretty sure I can see this from his point of view.

Here's a website practically dedicated to slamming him; where a vocal minority of posters refuse to even get the basic facts straight, and where those same posters distort everything he says. None of those posters have the balls to tackle him directly, whether by email or at some public venue. Why in the name of Orcus would he want to come over here and be interviewed/quizzed? Particularly since there seems to be no gain in doing so?

If I was invited to go debate him on the Forge, assuming that I was guaranteed it would not be moderated or censored or speech-controlled, I would go.

But you're right, he wouldn't come here under the same conditions.  That's the main difference between me and him.

RPGPundit

Another possibility is to make special boards for just this puprose. With Kyle or whoever as an administrator able to force the manners in necessary. Also I don't get these "RE would never do that" posts. Just let Anthrobot or whoever try and see...

Although I would rather see -E. or John Morrow against RE. But that is just me dreaming.

Anthrobot there is nothing to wait for. Ask RE if he is willing to do it and under what conditions. Else this discussion has no reason.

Quote from: AlnagAnother possibility is to make special boards for just this puprose. With Kyle or whoever as an administrator able to force the manners in necessary. Also I don't get these "RE would never do that" posts. Just let Anthrobot or whoever try and see...

Although I would rather see -E. or John Morrow against RE. But that is just me dreaming.

Anthrobot there is nothing to wait for. Ask RE if he is willing to do it and under what conditions. Else this discussion has no reason.

have it at Mcrow's place, a neutral venue?

good point, Alnag.  go for it, A'bot, ask RE; get the ball rolling!

I have to side with the "RE won't do it" crowd since he has no real motivation.  If Pundit won the "debate" then his position on all things Forge would be vindicated but even if RE won he would gain few, if any, converts here IMO.

I do have to say that I've enjoyed watching this thread move from the topic of a debate to personal attacks against various posters, then to discussions of topless amazon wars (okay, I'm assuming Dr. R meant "topless" amazons), kinky food sex, three way clusterfucks, and a spirited defense of BDSM.  Those digressions are probably worth more than the actual debate.

Quote from: beeberhave it at Mcrow's place, a neutral venue?

good point, Alnag.  go for it, A'bot, ask RE; get the ball rolling!

Hey, if they actually want to do this I'll give them their own forum. Like I said RPG Admix is going to be neutral (the admins anyway), so I think it would be a good meeting ground.

Quote from: GrimjackI do have to say that I've enjoyed watching this thread move from the topic of a debate to personal attacks against various posters, then to discussions of topless amazon wars (okay, I'm assuming Dr. R meant "topless" amazons), kinky food sex, three way clusterfucks, and a spirited defense of BDSM.  Those digressions are probably worth more than the actual debate.

Kinky food sex and a spirited defense of BDSM is always of worth to the public.

All I Know is that I keep wanting to read the title of this one

"A Modest Proposal"

Quote from: SpikeAll I Know is that I keep wanting to read the title of this one

"A Modest Proposal"

me too! :eek:

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I was invited to go debate him on the Forge, assuming that I was guaranteed it would not be moderated or censored or speech-controlled, I would go.

There is no debate forum on the Forge. If you really want to argue, I suggest writing an AP of one of your games that demonstrates how it doesn't fit the Big Model, and make a point of saying so. You could try looking at Settembrini's thread for an example.

You need to understand the actual purpose of the Forge's moderation. Threads get shut down at the Forge for going too far off topic or when there's nothing left to be wrung out of them. Even then, it's usually a question of taking things to a new thread with a new topic.

As I've mentioned before, I've seen contracycle and RE calling each other various nasty things without any moderation by Ron. Contra still posts there.

Quote from: droogYou know, Ron Edwards isn't a personal friend of mine. But I'm pretty sure I can see this from his point of view.

Here's a website practically dedicated to slamming him; where a vocal minority of posters refuse to even get the basic facts straight, and where those same posters distort everything he says. None of those posters have the balls to tackle him directly, whether by email or at some public venue. Why in the name of Orcus would he want to come over here and be interviewed/quizzed? Particularly since there seems to be no gain in doing so?

Apart from altering "none of the posters" to "most", I'd say that I agree with this.

Quote from: AnthrobotOn the other hand if we ask him if he wants to defend his "theories" in a moderated debate between him and his major detractor, then he might say "Yes, its an ephemeral epiphenomenon blah boring blah de blah blah" (SHUT THE FUCK UP PROFESSOR BATCOCK!) and we might get our moderated debate and learn something new about each protagonist.

Let's draw the important phrases out of this post.

"Yes, its an ephemeral epiphenomenon blah boring blah de blah blah"
(SHUT THE FUCK UP PROFESSOR BATCOCK!)

What makes you think the debate would go beyond that? This is not rpg.net, where people can be banned, and actually care if they're banned. Nor yet is it a school or university, where people are participating in a course and usually care if whoever's in charge gives them a bad grade for using "ephemeral" or "batcock" in a debate. So how would any referee, impartial or otherwise, be able to make them debate properly?

In the end, I don't see why Uncle Ronny would want to come here, and even if he did, how the debate or discussion could be productive.

I still defend the right of "Swine" to post here, and Uncle Ronny himself come here and talk about his games, and to get the same respect and calls of "bullshit" that any of us get. That is, "That's bullshit, because -" and then have a reasonable discussion.

I don't think any of the "Pistols at Dawn" threads have been very interesting or enlightening, mainly because they descend to name-calling and pedantic point-avoiding. I think an RPGPundit-Edwards one would be the worst ever.

As droog says, if you're really keen to debate things with Edwards and learn about him and his ideas, go talk to him at the Forge. A man's nowhere more himself than at home.

0/10.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron. So how would any referee, impartial or otherwise, be able to make them debate properly?

In the end, I don't see why Uncle Ronny would want to come here, and even if he did, how the debate or discussion could be productive.

I don't think any of the "Pistols at Dawn" threads have been very interesting or enlightening, mainly because they descend to name-calling and pedantic point-avoiding. I think an RPGPundit-Edwards one would be the worst ever.
As droog says, if you're really keen to debate things with Edwards and learn about him and his ideas, go talk to him at the Forge. A man's nowhere more himself than at home.

I think that if a referee or arbiter can't keep two warring factions from some temporary politeness then thats very telling of the personalities involved.

My proposal(thats all it was) was a way of trying to get beyond a "Pistols at Dawn" mentality.That it has a slim chance of actually working doesn't stop the idea being ,at least, considered.
I might already be talking to RE in private. My point in proposing the debate was as much to see how open minded folk are at therpgsite,as trying to convince the "Swinelord" to come here and defend his dubious assertions.
Lets see how the vote goes.......

Quote from: AlnagAnthrobot there is nothing to wait for. Ask RE if he is willing to do it and under what conditions. Else this discussion has no reason.

Good point, though as I pointed out to Kyle. This thread says boatloads about the open mindedness of members of therpgsite, which is never a bad thing.
Remember I put this idea to a vote. Which has yet to fully run its course.

Quote from: HinterWeltYou didn't read this thread did you. There are quotes, right here in this thread, from interviews with "Pundit" where he admits his "persona".

Simply put, there are people who find professional wrestling entertaining and those that find it repulsive. Guess which group I fall into.:rolleyes:

Bill

I'm sure that Pundit has good  reasons of personal safety to hide behind his Pundit persona and some might level the charge that he's a coward to hide behind such a mask. But thats his affair. He is probably better at rhetorical duelling than martial artistry.
Unfortunately a charge that he's a disgruntled employee of RE or the Borg(strom)'s ex lover, or even Rein 'dot' Hagen's jilted bumboy could invalidate some of his (funny and entertaining)rants against these people. Until he finally comes out and admits that he's "Joe Bloggs of Canuckiasville"  there will always be some possible doubt as to why he is against these individuals!

As to a debate being a wrestling match. I would like to think that it could be moderated to force the debators to stick to some rationality.

Quote from: AnthrobotRemember I put this idea to a vote. Which has yet to fully run its course.

when will that be?  when x votes in total have been cast?  if so, what would that number be?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I was invited to go debate him on the Forge, assuming that I was guaranteed it would not be moderated or censored or speech-controlled, I would go.

But you're right, he wouldn't come here under the same conditions.  That's the main difference between me and him.

As far as I've seen on the Forge, Ron has never edited or deleted anyone's posts that I know of.  I have been mocking and/or hostile to him without being censored.  

He has, however, often declared threads closed and/or off-topic.  So if you were to talk over there, the debate might end when he declares it to end.  Which is true anyway, really, except that here you might get to post more last words.

Since they both like Tunnels and Trolls, logically Ken St Andre should moderate.:D

The poll has achieved 50/50 parity . 17 votes to each side .

 Should there be a party??

 A Parity Party??

- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle AaronRon Edwards and RPGPundit are both crazy. I did call the latter "Mirror Ron", remember.

Given the Pundit's prediliction for the DC comics universe shouldn't we be calling him the AntiRonitor? (Gedddit?):D
Pundit ain't crazy. Believe me. His 'Pistols at Dawn' replies demonstrate an uncrazy sound mind ( and also are extremely interesting). I don't know if RE is crazy or not but I'm willing to bet that he probably isn't too.

Quote from: KoltarThe poll has achieved 50/50 parity . 17 votes to each side .

 Should there be a party??

 A Parity Party??

- Ed C.

I'm the kind o' guy that doesn't need much of an excuse to party:D . The only thing is that I'm finding your science fiction thread  in the games section distractingly addictive.:)

So, Anthrobot, emailed Ron yet?

I propose, we endeavour to keep the vote in a perpetual deadlock.  Any time one ekes out a vote over the other, whoever's got a free vote should vote the opposite, and we'll see how long it can go until there are no more votes.  ;)

Quote from: J ArcaneI propose, we endeavour to keep the vote in a perpetual deadlock.  Any time one ekes out a vote over the other, whoever's got a free vote should vote the opposite, and we'll see how long it can go until there are no more votes.  ;)

I second this motion. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7794)

Quote from: droogSo, Anthrobot, emailed Ron yet?

The votes are all not cast yet Droog.

Quote from: J ArcaneI propose, we endeavour to keep the vote in a perpetual deadlock.  Any time one ekes out a vote over the other, whoever's got a free vote should vote the opposite, and we'll see how long it can go until there are no more votes.  ;)

What are you afraid of ?
I think that some debate with the ideological enemies of this site wouldn't be as bad as you think.
We're adults and can weather this "storm in a tea cup" debate.

Quote from: AnthrobotWhat are you afraid of ?
I think that some debate with the ideological enemies of this site wouldn't be as bad as you think.
We're adults and can weather this "storm in a tea cup" debate.

I'm not sure what you've seen that would suggest it would even qualify as a debate. Nothing Pundit does with people he considers enemies even borders on coherent, let alone an actual useful debate.

I can get tickets to the zoo if I want to see shit thrown around accompanied by senseless screeching.

Nor does Uncle Ronny debate anyone, either.

RPGPundit avoids debate by personal abuse and point-avoiding, Edwards avoids debate by neologisms of shifting definition and closing threads.

That's just their schtick, and they've made their reputations on it, so won't be changing it now. As Ape-Boy said, it'd just be a poo-flinging exercise. And Edwards wouldn't come, and if he did come, would leave after a few posts of being abused by RPGPundit.

There. Just tipped the balance.  Let's hope someone comes along and restores it.  I would hate to be the one that decided the whole thing (then again, such a debate would at least be newsworthy in the gossipy sense).

done.

Quote from: Christmas ApeNothing Pundit does with people he considers enemies even borders on coherent, let alone an actual useful debate.

Dude, read the 'pistols At dawn' thread in the game theory section. Are you seriously proposing that Pundit's replies are not coherent useful replies in that debate?
Lack of coherency, being incoherent...Where have I read that kind of accusation before.....
From Forgeites!:eek:

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's just their schtick, and they've made their reputations on it, so won't be changing it now. As Ape-Boy said, it'd just be a poo-flinging exercise. And Edwards wouldn't come, and if he did come, would leave after a few posts of being abused by RPGPundit.

I hate to say it, but you are probably right about this.
But it wouldn't hurt to put your hypothesis to the test.

Quote from: AnthrobotDude, read the 'pistols At dawn' thread in the game theory section. Are you seriously proposing that Pundit's replies are not coherent useful replies in that debate?
Lack of coherency, being incoherent...Where have I read that kind of accusation before.....
From Forgeites!:eek:

I'm saying Levi wasn't an enemy. On the wrong side, but not an enemy.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm saying Levi wasn't an enemy. On the wrong side, but not an enemy.

So where does the lack of coherency come in?:confused:

Even when he is in full rant, Pundit retains more coherency per square inch than a gaggle of Forgeite fools.
Any debate would show Forge "theory" for the utter sham it is. It would also show that far too many folks have gullibly fallen for shit with fake gold wrapping.
Forge "theory" deserves to be publicly destroyed using terse rational argument. We might have to blindfold and tie up Pundit, to give Ron Edwards a fighting chance in the debate because RE is nothing but a "Glass Jawed Joe" masquerading as a heavyweight!

Quote from: Anthrobotbecause RE is nothing but a "Glass Jawed Joe" masquerading as a heavyweight!

(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9679/joemj7.gif)

"Watch the jaw!! Don't hit my jaw!"

(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/561/garbagecanjc8cx6.jpg)

(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/593/refereebc8.gif)

:haw:

(I couldn't allow to let this perfect assist for a geek reference pass away.)

Quote from: Skyrock(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9679/joemj7.gif)

"Watch the jaw!! Don't hit my jaw!"

(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/561/garbagecanjc8cx6.jpg)

(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/593/refereebc8.gif)

:haw:

(I couldn't allow to let this perfect assist for a geek reference pass away.)

Danke, I'm glad that someone caught my game geek reference.:cool:
If I'm not mistaken there is only one day left to vote for, or against the debate. If you haven't voted, then please consider doing so.

Quote from: AnthrobotSo where does the lack of coherency come in? :confused:

Go back and read the ostensibly similar thread with TonyLB. It's pretty much Pundit having a fit and declaring victory.

QuoteEven when he is in full rant, Pundit retains more coherency per square inch than a gaggle of Forgeite fools.
Any debate would show Forge "theory" for the utter sham it is. It would also show that far too many folks have gullibly fallen for shit with fake gold wrapping.
Forge "theory" deserves to be publicly destroyed using terse rational argument. We might have to blindfold and tie up Pundit, to give Ron Edwards a fighting chance in the debate because RE is nothing but a "Glass Jawed Joe" masquerading as a heavyweight!

You know, your pressing need to give him a big sloppy blowjob of praise aside, I think it's already been handily destroyed by its own jargon. The three CAs are the only parts of it people on the rest of the gaming internet ever talk about, barring a few die-hard advocates and apologists who'd tell you it was a good sound theory full of practical utility while Big Uncle Ronnie pounded their hams, and they're generally using the words in a way that makes GNS cops shit their pants in fury. NOBODY knows what it means, which is as good a way to defeat an idea as any. It's basically dead theory, but Pundit seems to want to keep fibrillating it so he can punch it in the face a few times on live TV (if you'll excuse a ham-handed metaphor). Even assuming it looked more like the cogent discussion with Levi, rather than the "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU SO I WIN THE THREAD" episode Tony got, it'd be redundant.

Quote from: Christmas ApeGo back and read the ostensibly similar thread with TonyLB. It's pretty much Pundit having a fit and declaring victory.

You know, your pressing need to give him a big sloppy blowjob of praise aside(Is that jealousy I detect?), I think it's already been handily destroyed by its own jargon. which is as good a way to defeat an idea as any. It's basically dead theory, but Pundit seems to want to keep fibrillating it so he can punch it in the face a few times on live TV (if you'll excuse a ham-handed metaphor). Even assuming it looked more like the cogent discussion with Levi, rather than the "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU SO I WIN THE THREAD" episode Tony got, it'd be redundant.

Can you please put a link to this Tony LB debacle so that I can see it for myself?
"A big sloppy blowjob of praise",hardly(you have to praise your whippet before the race, to encourage it  to run!). Pundit retains more coherence than most Forgeites I've read. And he can argue coherently when the mood takes him. Pundit's down side is a cringeworthy plagiarism of Monty Python that is totally unfunny and nerdworthy in the extreme. Also his liking for John Lennon and spanish poetry leaves me feeling queasy. Ron Edwards might be a total wanker but I bet his taste in music is a hell of a lot better(only joking)!
Is this the "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" quote from Pundit  to Tony LB:
"Because these assumptions are built into GNS theory, this mentality would end up being true of anyone who is basing their ideas about gaming on GNS/Big Model theories, yes.
There's no way you can use GNS/Big Model stuff WITHOUT these things, they are built into the fundamental assumptions of the theory."

Yep. Pundit certainly is incoherently ranting and evading the issue in this quote.NOT.

Looks like I'm a little late for the party, eh? ;)

Have the debate. It's a great idea. I wouldn't try to enforce politeness though. Let the discussion flow organically. Furthermore, I'd let other posters join the fun. A baseball game is not half as fun without the stadium full of people around it.

I'd have an interviewer post a few general questions though to get the ball rolling, and then Pundit, Ron, and the rest of the crowd can run with the ball from there.

Nice, wholesome entertainment! :haw:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambLooks like I'm a little late for the party, eh? ;)

Have the debate. It's a great idea. I wouldn't try to enforce politeness though. Let the discussion flow organically. Furthermore, I'd let other posters join the fun. A baseball game is not half as fun without the stadium full of people around it.

I'd have an interviewer post a few general questions though to get the ball rolling, and then Pundit, Ron, and the rest of the crowd can run with the ball from there.

Nice, wholesome entertainment! :haw:

As much as I'd fucking well love the totally entertaining flame war that would ensue in the free for all you propose:D , my idea was for something more considered.Only the two debators and moderator would be allowed to post (see the excellent 'Pistols at Dawn' in the theory section of this site).
I'd be inclined ( if you asked my opinion) to let Pundit have the first questions seeing as it is his site and his accusations against RE appear to carry much weight.
Since voting is over and those who want to see a debate have won....who do we have as moderator of this debate? Kyle Aaron or Thjafi? Or someone else? And who gets to ask RE if he is up to defending the steaming pile o' crap that is his "theory"? It will have to be someone who knows or respects RE and wants to see his pretentions actually tested in the light of day. Then the request just might entice RE to the arena ( I'm not holding my breath over this, though).