Quote from: RPGPunditYes, good point. And in your argument for making this place an "emotionally safe environment" or whatever, you are suggesting that we make this a place that would be MORE appealing to the sort of people who "prefer the company" of people on RPG.net, or Storygames, and therefore less appealing to those who are actually happy with theRPGsite as it currently is.

Hold'er newt.  Don't go tagging me with some crap about wanting an "emotionally safe environment," even if you append an "or whatever" to it.  I presume you're referring to  my post over in Off Topic  where I admitted that what I want here is theRPGsite minus the bits that irritate me -- namely the so-called "Swine" to-do.  I also acknowledged that the so-called "Swine" to-do is, and has been from the start, one of the predicates of your mission for conducting this site, and copped to the fact that if I have a problem with that, it's just that -- my problem.  I'm totally okay with taking responsibility for my own disappointment, and I'm not okay with enforcing a code of conduct that makes the site "emotionally safe".

The point that I was making isn't that I want this site to be more inviting to the RPG.net or Story-Games or Forge communities at all, but rather that these different communities have sprung up separate from one another precisely because people who all want to talk about very much the same things don't all want to rub shoulders with each other.  I come to this site specifically because I have more of an interest in "traditional" RPGs, and I don't like discussing them either under the heavy-handed rules of discourse that prevail at one site or using the needless vocabulary of jargon that prevails at another.  But at the same time, I don't like the preoccupation that I see at this site with what I consider to be a non-issue.  Again, my problem.

Anyway, my real point was that, in the absence of the whole war-for-the-hearts-and-minds-of-RPGers issue, this site could, and should, be a more attractive place for people to discuss traditional RPGs without the constraint of intrusive moderation or vocabulary-intensive jargon.  People who are comfortable with that sort of environment will discuss that sort of thing here instead of lurking elsewhere.

!i!

See that's what I don't buy. The people who won't come here because they hate me will NEVER come here, even if I suddenly become all fluffiness and light and start to shit bunnies out of my ass. They will always claim that I'm a Dictator, a Bigot, that I stole their rice pudding and killed Shirley Temple; just because they have an ideological motive for hating me and wanting to harm me and any project I undertake (not to mention that they probably ideologically disagree with the mission statement of this site).

So even if I wasn't posting anything at all, those people wouldn't settle for anything less than me leaving this site and it falling into the hands of a group of Theory hacks, radical feminists and fashionable nanny-staters ready to impose massive moderation to make this site "safe" for people to shit on D&D in. Just like what they did to RPG.net.

The thing that makes this place "unattractive" to some isn't so much my actions as it is THEIR LIES about the place's real nature.

The strategy here wouldn't be for this place to change, but for people like you who have, even without agreeing with much of what I say, realized the value of a place where you can freely speak about RPGs without having your side or the other being censored or threatened with banning letting others know (who have been convinced by those lifelong-haters of mine that this is a terrible nightmarish place, my own little Latveria that I rule over with an iron fist), that in reality this place is really awesome and not at all dominated by me the way they try to paint it as.

RPGPundit

PS: And yes, the "Swine to-do" as you call it has been part of the mission here from Day 1. But its not the whole of the mission. I want this place to be a place where people can do all the stuff they cannot do on those other sites; including to condemn the Swine and criticize the other sites; but I don't want this place to turn into a website where that's all that occurs.  That's why I agree with Kyle's approach here: the best solution here is to create more threads about Roleplaying to offset the threads about ideology. Its a simple as that.

It would not do any harm to keep the Swine War stuff in RPGPundit's Own Forum, or Game Design, as appropriate for each thread.

For example, this thread's topic having changed to "RPGPundit suxxorz!" or "moderation of therpgsite" (depending on how you look at it), it now belongs in Off Topic or Help.

Keeping threads in or moving them to the appropriate subforums will help therpgsite in many ways. Just as some people don't come to therpgsite to hear political rants, and so choose to avoid Off Topic, others don't come here to hear about the Swine Wars, and so should be able to choose to avoid that - if it's in the right subforum, they can do so.

And doing so will not in any way prevent people from discussing the Swine Wars if they want to.

Let's begin by moving this thread to the right place.

I do not condone the "topic reservation", if it´s uni-directional.
Swine-talk then must also be only be allowed in Pundit´s forum.

Quote from: RPGPunditSee that's what I don't buy. The people who won't come here because they hate me will NEVER come here...

I'll confess that I agree with you here.  Some people have made that very clear, and it's senseless trying to appease them.

QuoteThe strategy here wouldn't be for this place to change, but for people like you who have, even without agreeing with much of what I say, realized the value of a place where you can freely speak about RPGs without having your side or the other being censored or threatened with banning letting others know...

[...snip...]

And yes, the "Swine to-do" as you call it has been part of the mission here from Day 1.

I had this simple epiphany last night almost immediately after I turned my computer off.  The purpose of theRPGsite is to provide an open, non-moderated, non-ideologically-dominated forum for discussing RPGs, admittedly with a slant toward traditional RPGs.  The schtick is the "Swine War".  Making participation in the schtick optional by keeping it in appropriately peripheral forums seems like a positive move to me.

And yes, Kyle, this thread is a candidate for either Off Topic or Help at this point.

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniI do not condone the "topic reservation", if it´s uni-directional.
Swine-talk then must also be only be allowed in Pundit´s forum.

fucking brilliant!

Essentially, however, it means that any mention of "swine-talk" would have to be relegated to the theory forum, as that tends to be the genesis of that line of thought...

Quote from: James J Skachfucking brilliant!

Essentially, however, it means that any mention of "swine-talk" would have to be relegated to the theory forum, as that tends to be the genesis of that line of thought...

So instead of Pundit calling "Swine" and someone else shouting "Down with the dictatorship of the GM!", and them duking it out about the War, Pundit gets sent to his sub-forum, and the other guy gets sent to a different sub-forum?

I think that separation could have really interesting effects ... dunno whether they'd be good or bad, but they'd be interesting.

Quote from: TonyLBSo instead of Pundit calling "Swine" and someone else shouting "Down with the dictatorship of the GM!", and them duking it out about the War, Pundit gets sent to his sub-forum, and the other guy gets sent to a different sub-forum?

I think that separation could have really interesting effects ... dunno whether they'd be good or bad, but they'd be interesting.

Interesting, but that's not what I had in mind...

Only that people who want get into actual "swine-talk" (which is anything that uses "jargon"/concepts/etc from GNS or otherwise passes judgement on certain gaming styles) have to do so in Theory - including Pundit, Sett, or you.

And that people should recognize that Pundy's Playhouse is a bunch of old blog posts.  If you want to refute a "swine-war" blog post from 2006, feel free to do so in Pundy's Playhouse.

Because, to me, there's a difference in arguing about the specific theory issues - even GNS-based ones, and the "swine-wars."

And if Pundy comes into RPG Open and starts "swine-war," we should call him on it and request it be moved to his Playground. Might actually improve the sub-forum-where-pundits-old-blog-posts-go-to-die.

Eh.  I'd be perfectly happy to see both theory and paranoid swine rants dumped into a collective cesspool forum.

They're both equally useful and equally valid, which is to say, they're neither, and would really result in zero deleterious effect in being shunted off to somewhere else.

I also would like to support the suggestion that was made that the current Theory and Design forum should simply be renamed to Design.

I mean, it's not like we really get any but the most half-hearted attempts at theory discussion anyway, so Tony's 'concern' is largely fantasy, with no real connection to what actualyl happens here.

Heh ... it's sort of funny for me to be bringing up this point, but ...

I think part of the argument for the Swine label is that it is meant to combat what they imagine to be insidious, creeping evangelism that hides its dedication to theory by discarding the objectively recognizable jargon, but continuing to cling to the pretentiousness and superiority that theory engenders.  The idea is that by calling such people out into the open, and shining the light of a damning label on their (supposed) agenda, you make it obvious that what they're doing is not just innocent discussion but has a sinister motive.

Man, I can't believe I'm writing this :rolleyes:  This is what I get for working to understand other people's point of view.

Anyway, if you buy that notion (which I 110% do not) then wouldn't the proposed rules be a little lopsided?  They restrict open, explicit evangelism but not secretive, implicit evangelism.

Now if you want to say "But the whole idea that discussing non-trad games must be part of a proselytizing plot ... that idea is STUPID!" then, y'know, right on!  It IS STUPID.  I'm right with you there.  But I'm pretty sure that there's some disagreement on that point, and that it will make people who disagree see this proposal in a different light.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaMaking participation in the schtick optional by keeping it in appropriately peripheral forums seems like a positive move to me.

Ah, but then Settembrini's point comes into play. Should I not be allowed to contradict people who come onto other forums on the board and start promoting the Swine agenda?
I mean, the alternative would be extremely heavy-handed moderation (by the standards of this site) where any thread that brought up any position that I considered Swinish would immediately be moved over to the RPGPundit's Forum so I could rebuke it there.  But that seems pretty absurd, would no doubt hit most of the site's members the wrong way, and amounts to a lot of needless work just to appease a few people who are too lazy to ignore my rants when they disturb them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J Skachfucking brilliant!

Essentially, however, it means that any mention of "swine-talk" would have to be relegated to the theory forum, as that tends to be the genesis of that line of thought...

NO! Because the Theory Forum was specifically and explicitly created to be a forum where people could engage in Theory discussion FREE OF the typical Theory Swine nonsense.  To the point that when I first took over this site, I'd considered making it the one place with heavier moderation where discussing GNS/Forge-stuff/etc would have been strictly prohibited (eventually, I decided against that, but still made a very vocal statement to the effect that its a place to talk Theory-alternatives to the typical Forge tripe).

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachAnd that people should recognize that Pundy's Playhouse is a bunch of old blog posts.  If you want to refute a "swine-war" blog post from 2006, feel free to do so in Pundy's Playhouse.

An archive for my Blog posts is ONE of the major purposes of that forum, to be sure, but its not the ONLY one.

The RPGPundit's forum is for discussion of anything to do with me, my blog, and any pundit-related topics (pipesmoking, freemasonry, my campaigns, uruguay, etc etc etc, and yes, certainly you can talk about the Swine War there).

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBHeh ... it's sort of funny for me to be bringing up this point, but ...

I think part of the argument for the Swine label is that it is meant to combat what they imagine to be insidious, creeping evangelism that hides its dedication to theory by discarding the objectively recognizable jargon, but continuing to cling to the pretentiousness and superiority that theory engenders.  The idea is that by calling such people out into the open, and shining the light of a damning label on their (supposed) agenda, you make it obvious that what they're doing is not just innocent discussion but has a sinister motive.

Man, I can't believe I'm writing this :rolleyes:  This is what I get for working to understand other people's point of view.

Anyway, if you buy that notion (which I 110% do not) then wouldn't the proposed rules be a little lopsided?  They restrict open, explicit evangelism but not secretive, implicit evangelism.

Yes. For someone who obviously has reasons not to agree with it, you certainly understood my point perfectly this time, and my main objection to the idea that speaking up against the Swine be somehow restricted to specific forums (which is basically because of what I highlited from your quote above).

RPGPundit

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI think the big deal is that instead of drawing new posters the place ends up being the home for bitter, jaded folk who enjoy the hate circus of the big StoryGames and RPG.net threads more than the RPG threads.

And? I mean, this place is what it is.

Seanchai