Back on topic while yet another SJW continues to derail the thread...

Personally I think there are all manner of entryists into the hobby and not all are the loony fringe. Some may simply have had no frame of refference before and not known there were other styles of play, types of games, been lied to by storygamers or SJWs, etc. Give folk the benefit of a doubt until/unless they start acting badly.

Quote from: Omega;1081686Back on topic while yet another SJW continues to derail the thread...

Personally I think there are all manner of entryists into the hobby and not all are the loony fringe. Some may simply have had no frame of refference before and not known there were other styles of play, types of games, been lied to by storygamers or SJWs, etc. Give folk the benefit of a doubt until/unless they start acting badly.

Now that's a sensible way of going about it that doesn't involve suppression of speech.

So how did Snyder do up there in Michigan anyway? I remember when I helped get him elected. He won me over in the 2010 primary when Pete Hoekstra busted into Snyder's town hall to ask why Snyder didn't agree to a debate. (This was in Warren, up at the Sterling Inn on 15 Mile and Van Dyke. I was one of the GOP delegates for Shelby Township.) Snyder bested him by responding to his challenge with a let's-not-wait, let's do it now! And they debated right there, no prep. Hoekstra certainly didn't see that coming. Good memories.

Candice Miller still had the picture of my wife, the then-1-year old and myself with her at a Tea Party rally in her Sterling Heights HQ up on Hall Road.

Good memories. Had a lot of good gaming up in that area.

I'm still not clear on how this kicking SJWs out of the bar will work in practical terms. My prior discussion of this with S'mon got derailed a little, so I would return to this.

Quote from: S'mon;1081460I guess refusing to pander to them? Eg 'no politics' rules deter them from Internet forums. Not giving them the game content they want. Not engaging with their demands - not debating them. A major characteristic of SJWs is that they won't just sit down and play - "Everything is Political".

Quote from: S'mon;1081460I think it's hard to keep SJWs out of conventions. They love wrecking conventions. I guess one can ban individual SJWs for specific behaviour such as targeted harrassment of the convention organisers and other attendees, but either they attack conventions they're not attending (eg Chris Helton's attack on NTRPG Con last year) or they sneak in then cause trouble at the con itself.

Mm, perhaps some kind of behaviour code. Call it an "Anti-Harassment Code"....  

We can create "Safe Spaces" where SJW hate and violence is not tolerated. Where it happens, as with that comics guy (Hambly?) attacked by an SJW, the SJW should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and their victim supported.

Really, the more I think about it, the more I think an active policy of SJW-exclusion has great merit. It's the "Paradox of Tolerance" problem - tolerate the intolerant (SJWs) and your tolerant society will be destroyed.

So would you have a campaign calling on conventions to ban people for being SJWs? i.e. Call on GenCon to ban Jessica Price, Stacey D, and others. As I mentioned, the anti-harassment code and safe space seems very similar to what many conventions are already doing - so it seems like you'd just be cooperating in that process.

Within Internet discussion groups, calling for a "no politics" rule seems like a concrete step - but it's ironic since you're discussing politics here on this Internet discussion group (as people do very regularly). I dislike such a rule - I think there's a significant set of gamers - including many of theRPGsiters - who are into politics and its reflections in gaming.

Quote from: Kael;1081442Very true. But it wasn't just the fans. It was also the owners, teammates, corporate sponsors, right-wing media, and the POTUS. I believe "sonsabitches" is the term he used.

So basically:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3279[/ATTACH]

Personally, I always stand for the Anthem. But for those that choose not to, I'm glad they have the freedom to do so. Likewise, I'm happy that people can boycott anything they choose. It's the American Way and something to be proud of.

Again, I get that some people above apparently misled you but this subject is ABSOLUTELY off-topic. Don't post about it on the RPG forum again.

Second, no one has ever said "very fine people" about those assholes. No one. You are spreading a lie the mainstream media made up about Donald Trump. He explicitly stated in the speech where he talked about fine people that he did NOT mean the neo-nazis.

But you do not get to respond here to this (neither does anyone else). If you really want to, you can post about it on the RPGpundit's forum and see if I am interested enough to reply.

Quote from: SHARK;1081362Greetings!

Well, no, it isn't a bannable offense.

It is ABSOLUTELY off-topic. It is therefore a potentially 'bannable' offense. This forum is for talking about RPGs, not for talking about football.

Don't post off-topic in the main forum again. Don't mislead people by claiming that this is on-topic (saying it's a 'side comment' does not make it on topic; unless you're talking D&D players taking a knee during a national anthem at a gaming con it is NOT on topic). Consider this a warning. I trust you won't do it again.

Finally, a GENERAL WARNING TO EVERYONE POSTING: from this point on ANYONE who posts on this thread with a subject that I deem to be off-topic to the subject WILL BE PERMABANNED.

Do so at your own risk.

Quote from: jhkim;1081691So would you have a campaign calling on conventions to ban people for being SJWs? i.e. Call on GenCon to ban Jessica Price, Stacey D, and others. A

I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

I think beyond that it gets murkier. 'Being an asshole' should not in itself be grounds for banning I think; so eg when Price published Mentzer's PMs to her in order to wreck his Kickstarter, she was being an asshole, but I think the appropriate response is pointing that out & criticising the behaviour. A general rule against such behaviour could easily be used - abused - against legitimate whistleblowers.

I would rather err on the side of not banning in questionable cases. So eg Jessica Price is very unpleasant but I would need to see/recall actual harassment behaviour from her to justify a ban; likewise as Pundit here can be an asshole to people, but is not a harassser. But when behaviour is clear, and clearly amounts to harassment, then yes, they should be banned. That includes harassing of individuals when it includes defamatory lies, doxxing etc, like the Zweihander guy vs Pundit.

*Paizocon maybe, but I'm not sure her behaviour ever reached the necessary threshold beyond 'being a massive jerk'.

Quote from: jhkim;1081691Within Internet discussion groups, calling for a "no politics" rule seems like a concrete step - but it's ironic since you're discussing politics here on this Internet discussion group

I like having this place to vent! But I don't want politics in the vast majority of my RPG online 'communities' - Facebook groups, Meetups, bulletin boards etc. I very much value sites like Dragonsfoot that enforce even-handed 'no politics' rules. I don't allow political discussion in the groups I run. I don't particularly enjoy finding out that one of my players thinks Antifa is just swell, or that National Action had a good point (those are hypothetical examples only! IRL the worst I've seen is some anti-Trump & anti-conservative type stuff).

If an RPG site does allow political discussion, it needs to be even-handed. The worst sites are those which allow Progressive Left politics only.

Quote from: S'mon;1081720I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

I think beyond that it gets murkier. 'Being an asshole' should not in itself be grounds for banning I think; so eg when Price published Mentzer's PMs to her in order to wreck his Kickstarter, she was being an asshole, but I think the appropriate response is pointing that out & criticising the behaviour. A general rule against such behaviour could easily be used - abused - against legitimate whistleblowers.

I would rather err on the side of not banning in questionable cases. So eg Jessica Price is very unpleasant but I would need to see/recall actual harassment behaviour from her to justify a ban; likewise as Pundit here can be an asshole to people, but is not a harassser. But when behaviour is clear, and clearly amounts to harassment, then yes, they should be banned. That includes harassing of individuals when it includes defamatory lies, doxxing etc, like the Zweihander guy vs Pundit.

*Paizocon maybe, but I'm not sure her behaviour ever reached the necessary threshold beyond 'being a massive jerk'.

I agree with all of that.

Quote from: S'mon;1081720I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

I think beyond that it gets murkier. 'Being an asshole' should not in itself be grounds for banning I think; so eg when Price published Mentzer's PMs to her in order to wreck his Kickstarter, she was being an asshole, but I think the appropriate response is pointing that out & criticising the behaviour. A general rule against such behaviour could easily be used - abused - against legitimate whistleblowers.

I would rather err on the side of not banning in questionable cases. So eg Jessica Price is very unpleasant but I would need to see/recall actual harassment behaviour from her to justify a ban; likewise as Pundit here can be an asshole to people, but is not a harassser. But when behaviour is clear, and clearly amounts to harassment, then yes, they should be banned. That includes harassing of individuals when it includes defamatory lies, doxxing etc, like the Zweihander guy vs Pundit.

Depending on the details, I could totally get behind that. It could be a pretty elegant way of giving people a voice and a chance to prove themselves bad actors before removal. Preserving maximum practicable speech.

Quote from: S'mon;1081720I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

Yeah, well, the goal for them is to create a climate of fear and to exercise arbitrary power. That's what totalitarians do, and in that context I wouldn't blame cons at all for telling them to go fuck themselves.  As soon as any of them rediscover their testicles and realize what a gang of fucking Stalinists these people are, and that no amount of cowering to them will fix the problem.