RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Pat]

I had a good chuckle at this.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussing-osr-problems.897962/

Because Zeea is full of shit here. Not about some people being scum, but her insistence on how presentation matters. It doesn't, because no matter how 'clear' your post is, if someone misinterprets it (willfully or not), then the onus is still on the poster, not the reader.

Zeea is literally luring this poor fool into a trap. Classy.

Eh on that would I agree with them. It IS better to phrase things as not a hasty generalization. Even if the listener reads it as a generalization, putting in the effort to make it clear you don't mean everyone is helpful for some others I think. Just treating individuals as individuals and not as some monolithic group in the way you write helps you think about the world as not sub-human vs human based on what group you affiliated them with in your mind.

Oh hell no.

With sufficient malice and bad faith, you can misinterpret anything to meaning anything else. And 99.44% of posters have more than enough malice. And I'm talking about this board. It's disastrously worse over there.

Burn it to the ground, salt the earth, nuke it from orbit, and then induce a vacuum collapse. It's the only way to be sure.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

Burn it to the ground, salt the earth, nuke it from orbit, and then induce a vacuum collapse. It's the only way to be sure.

Or just fire all the mods, get sane ones, let Tangency go completely unmoderated, moderate all the rest of the forums with the same rule they've got here (i.e. shut down any thread that veers too far into non-gaming politics of any sort, and ban those repeat offenders who keep threadjacking this way), and fire any mod who goes off policy. The lack of safe spaces should drive out the rest of the most obstreperous.

[Mistwell]

I had a good chuckle at this.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussing-osr-problems.897962/

Because Zeea is full of shit here. Not about some people being scum, but her insistence on how presentation matters. It doesn't, because no matter how 'clear' your post is, if someone misinterprets it (willfully or not), then the onus is still on the poster, not the reader.

Zeea is literally luring this poor fool into a trap. Classy.

Eh on that would I agree with them. It IS better to phrase things as not a hasty generalization. Even if the listener reads it as a generalization, putting in the effort to make it clear you don't mean everyone is helpful for some others I think. Just treating individuals as individuals and not as some monolithic group in the way you write helps you think about the world as not sub-human vs human based on what group you affiliated them with in your mind.

Oh hell no.

With sufficient malice and bad faith, you can misinterpret anything to meaning anything else. And 99.44% of posters have more than enough malice. And I'm talking about this board. It's disastrously worse over there.

Burn it to the ground, salt the earth, nuke it from orbit, and then induce a vacuum collapse. It's the only way to be sure.

Why does that mean they shouldn't make an effort to not dehumanize people based on their fandom group?

[Pat]

I had a good chuckle at this.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussing-osr-problems.897962/

Because Zeea is full of shit here. Not about some people being scum, but her insistence on how presentation matters. It doesn't, because no matter how 'clear' your post is, if someone misinterprets it (willfully or not), then the onus is still on the poster, not the reader.

Zeea is literally luring this poor fool into a trap. Classy.

Eh on that would I agree with them. It IS better to phrase things as not a hasty generalization. Even if the listener reads it as a generalization, putting in the effort to make it clear you don't mean everyone is helpful for some others I think. Just treating individuals as individuals and not as some monolithic group in the way you write helps you think about the world as not sub-human vs human based on what group you affiliated them with in your mind.

Oh hell no.

With sufficient malice and bad faith, you can misinterpret anything to meaning anything else. And 99.44% of posters have more than enough malice. And I'm talking about this board. It's disastrously worse over there.

Burn it to the ground, salt the earth, nuke it from orbit, and then induce a vacuum collapse. It's the only way to be sure.

Why does that mean they shouldn't make an effort to not dehumanize people based on their fandom group?

Why would you assume I accept your conclusion? The discussion was about the onus of clarity being on the poster, and how people can willfully misinterpret anything. That does not imply the person willfully misinterpreting things is some champion fighting against the characterization of other people as subhuman. In fact, it's almost always the opposite.

[Ghostmaker]

Mistwell assumes the TBP mods would act in good faith.

(looks at thread)

Right.

Or just fire all the mods, get sane ones, let Tangency go completely unmoderated, moderate all the rest of the forums with the same rule they've got here (i.e. shut down any thread that veers too far into non-gaming politics of any sort, and ban those repeat offenders who keep threadjacking this way), and fire any mod who goes off policy. The lack of safe spaces should drive out the rest of the most obstreperous.

But, but, then they might be forced to look at wrong think! /sarc

[Stephen Tannhauser]

But, but, then they might be forced to look at wrong think! /sarc

Well, as my father always said to me whenever I complained about something on TV I didn't like, "You know, there's this thing called an 'off' switch, bub."

[Trond]

Are we really surprised that the massive circle Jerk that is the big purple is having a. Meltdown at Johnny Depo winning.


It's such a massive echo chamber that reality has no place. To be fair both people are terrible people. To imply that Heard is innocent is a huge exercise in mental gymnastics.

So let the mentally immature Wokescolds clutch their pearls over at the big purple it's a great start to the weekend.

He's a drug addict and has massive TDS, which often comes with the territory working in Hollywood. His joke about assassinating the president was surely in poor taste, as he admitted. Not sure if he qualifies as a terrible person but maybe others know more. She's a complete psycho as evidenced not only by others' experiences with her but from things she said herself.

[FelixGamingX1]

Oh my! Are they still around!?

[Mistwell]

Mistwell assumes the TBP mods would act in good faith.

(looks at thread)

Right.

Or just fire all the mods, get sane ones, let Tangency go completely unmoderated, moderate all the rest of the forums with the same rule they've got here (i.e. shut down any thread that veers too far into non-gaming politics of any sort, and ban those repeat offenders who keep threadjacking this way), and fire any mod who goes off policy. The lack of safe spaces should drive out the rest of the most obstreperous.

But, but, then they might be forced to look at wrong think! /sarc

I said no such thing.

The mods in this case are DEFENDING THE OSR. I know, weird right? They're saying don't bash the entire OSR based on the actions of some individuals within the OSR.

And you guys are bashing them for saying that. Which is FUCKING WEIRD.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

Mistwell assumes the TBP mods would act in good faith.

I said no such thing.

The mods in this case are DEFENDING THE OSR. ...They're saying don't bash the entire OSR based on the actions of some individuals within the OSR.

And you guys are bashing them for saying that.

Not quite. We're pointing out that to say "don't bash all of Group X for the actions of a few of its members" is a useless action when the definition of "bashing" is so deliberately vague ("the onus is on the poster to be clear") that anything posted can be unfalsifiably taken that way by someone else.

And note that the distinction between what the mod in question disqualifies in principle (an accusation that "The OSR tolerates abuse and bigotry") and what is suggested as licit in principle (an accusation that "A huge chunk of the OSR tolerates abuse and bigotry") is in practice pretty much completely meaningless. As defenses go, I've seen better.

[Pat]

The mods in this case are DEFENDING THE OSR. I know, weird right? They're saying don't bash the entire OSR based on the actions of some individuals within the OSR.

And you guys are bashing them for saying that. Which is FUCKING WEIRD.

I judge people based on whether they acted badly or well, not by whether they're supporting something I like. I don't give people a free pass for atrocious behavior, just because they're on "my side", and I don't relentlessly attack people just because they happen to disagree with me.

That you think that's so weird and off base that you need to use caps says lot.

[Trond]

Eh on that would I agree with them. It IS better to phrase things as not a hasty generalization. Even if the listener reads it as a generalization, putting in the effort to make it clear you don't mean everyone is helpful for some others I think. Just treating individuals as individuals and not as some monolithic group in the way you write helps you think about the world as not sub-human vs human based on what group you affiliated them with in your mind.

For the record, I think you're correct on this one, although TBP are being more than a bit hypocritical. But this one on its own is a big nothing burger.

[Ghostmaker]

#believeallwomen

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/ithaeur-receives-a-🚫-three-day-ban.898039/

Seiberwing couldn't be arsed to reprint the posts or his whine, so I'll toss them here:

Ithaeur said:
As far as I can tell, it's pretty much the right decision. Heard's version of what happened was full of holes and inconsistencies, and her side made some drastically bad decisions in the court that devasteted her credibility.

While this may have an unfortunate chilling effect on women coming forward with actual abuse they've suffered, I hope this will also mean that a) more men will be open about suffering abuse, especially from women, and b) any people who had hoped to weaponize #MeToo against former spouses and such will reconsider and not do so.
Ithaeur said:
In this case, not believing her is the right thing, though.

The online shit, however, slung at Heard and her team was totally unacceptable and egregiously nasty, you're definitely right about that.

Moderator Text:
Take three days off. Do not post in this thread again when you return.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

#believeallwomen

Seiberwing couldn't be arsed to reprint the posts or his whine, so I'll toss them here....

Skepticism of abuse claims, even specific claims later legally deemed false, is considered by definition violation of a safe space, so it's unsurprising TBP would ban it.

Which suggests an interesting (in the Chinese curse sense) general question: Are we now moving towards a conception of social conscience where "guilty until proven innocent" is considered less damaging for society in general than "innocent until proven guilty"?

[Pat]

Which suggests an interesting (in the Chinese curse sense) general question: Are we now moving towards a conception of social conscience where "guilty until proven innocent" is considered less damaging for society in general than "innocent until proven guilty"?

Most people don't think at the abstract societal benefit level. They think they see an injustice, and they're trying to correct it. They're not considering all the implications or weighing the various alternatives. Which is basically the societal equivalent of the broken window fallacy in economics -- if you look at the short term effects to a single group, every positive action looks beneficial. But if you look at the consequences and costs across the whole population, there may be hidden or widely distributed costs or negative effects, which outweigh the benefit to the group who is immediately affected.

Which is a very pragmatic way to frame things, and that's also counter to the way they're thinking. This an emotional sense of moral outrage, not an attempt to objectively weigh the value of different systems.

Though to give a personal answer, I hope not. Letting 10 guilty people go free to ensure one innocent person won't be punished is a hill I'm willing to die on.