Bullshit. The issue isn't with the fact that someone is insulting someone else. That's allowed here, especially if said "insults" are about gaming and not just general trolling.

The issue is when someone appears to be specifically and only participating in this site for the sake of hounding another person, and doing so to try to get some kind of approval from others.

Check out Jame's number of posts, and the percentage of which are direct or backhanded attacks on me. Its stunning. The guy is more obsessed, percentage wise, with attacking me than Dominus Nox is obsessed with SJG or Islam. That's pretty pathetic.

Out of seven hundred and eighty posts, he has only started seven threads.  Dominus, in comparison, only has 606 posts but has started a whopping 91 threads.  Granted, a lot of these are attack threads; but James has 2/7 technical threads (ie. question threads asking for technical help, one of which, ironically, is about how to use the ignore function), and 1 thread that is a direct attack thread, and second one that is a backhanded attack thread.  So only 3 threads that are actually about some topic other than himself or myself. The man is a waste of oxygen; a bigger waste of oxygen than Nox.

Really though, the guy is a one-issue wonder, and the issue isn't even RPG related. That's the nature of the problem.

Now, James has claimed that he only wants to make himself laugh by insulting me.  So that means he shouldn't have any problem with only sending the insults by email or PM or whatever, right? Unless, say, there's some other reason for posting it publically, like being a miserable squalid little attention-whore who wants to intentionally disrupt the smooth running of this website out of some kind of psychopathic impotent hatred toward my person.

But that couldn't possibly be true, right James-y?

RPGPundit

1) Please shows some numbers instead of just saying that my posts are mostly directed at you. Because you're full of shit.

2) I don't start a lot of threads, that's definitely true. But then again, you start hundreds of them and it hasn't seemed to make you a better person (or even a better poster).

Generally if I want someone's opinion on something I can read it in a thread that already happened months or days ago. If I have a new question, as in the Amber boards, I ask it. The fact that the answers eventually seem to come back as an RPGPundit self-centered rant only speaks to your own brand of obsession.

3) Smooth running? These boards? LOL! What, I'm the only person around here who says bad and/or off topic things? Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

4) I'd suggest you invest in a dictionary. I don't think "psychopathic impotent hatred" means what your persecution complex is telling you it does.

5)

Quotemiserable squalid little attention-whore

Somebody call a repairman, my ironimeter just blew up.

Quote from: RPGPunditBullshit. The issue isn't with the fact that someone is insulting someone else. That's allowed here, especially if said "insults" are about gaming and not just general trolling.

The issue is when someone appears to be specifically and only participating in this site for the sake of hounding another person, and doing so to try to get some kind of approval from others.

OK, so you're fine with people insulting you and others publically, but you want them to mix in more gaming-relevant discussion in between insults.  That makes sense to me.  You might want to note that as a policy statement.  

Or, excuse me.  You might want to note that as a policy statement, you moronic asshole.  

Quote from: WarthurIn fact, I get the impression that Ron passionately hates explaining things to people, especially when he's already explained an idea once. His tendency to respond to questions with links to old essays and Forge threads seems to be another manifestation of this.

Wait... This man, this Ron fellow.... He's a PROFESSOR right? I mean, he fucking teaches people for a living in his real job?

I weep for the youth.  When a teacher can passionately hate explaining things in a coherent manner and still be considered a 'teacher'... that scares me.

Depending on where he works his focus may be more on doing labwork to get his campus grants then teaching in the classroom.

Quote from: James McMurrayDepending on where he works his focus may be more on doing labwork to get his campus grants then teaching in the classroom.

Not the point, James.  The purpose of professors is, or should be, the disemmination of knowledge and, if you want to be ambitious, teaching people how to think.

Ron has made his gaming career out of being obtuse, obscure and even obstructionist in advancing gaming knowledge, and hates explaining things...passionately.

Not just to students, we can assume, but to peers.  So, lets say he learns some earthshaking fact about bat wangs. Not only can he not be counted on to teach this, or how to discover similar things, to his theoretical pupils, but he can't even be counted upon to convey this life saving knowledge to other biologists working in the same feild.  

Is he knowledgeable about Bat Peckers? Undubitably...

Is he knowledgable about gaming? That is highly debatable, given his communications techniques.  


So... professor?  

Again. I weep.

I wasn't trying to excuse him, just musing that it might not be as bad as it seems.

Also, I haven't read much of his stuff (too boring). How much of that "hates to explain" is rooted in rpgsite hatred of the man?

Quote from: SpikeNot only can he not be counted on to teach this, or how to discover similar things, to his theoretical pupils, but he can't even be counted upon to convey this life saving knowledge to other biologists working in the same feild.

Peer review of papers and journals is the accepted means for a professor to spread such information to other professors.  Not conversation or dialogue.  "Publish or perish" is alive and well.

The question, of course, is who the Prof considers to be his 'peers'.  I strongly suggest his consideration is catastophically narrow, since, in reality, your peers in gaming are "people that game".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPeer review of papers and journals is the accepted means for a professor to spread such information to other professors.  Not conversation or dialogue.  "Publish or perish" is alive and well.

The question, of course, is who the Prof considers to be his 'peers'.  I strongly suggest his consideration is catastophically narrow, since, in reality, your peers in gaming are "people that game".

I agree about the peer review, and the publish or perish is a well known, and proven facet of collegiate life, as pointless as it can be.

However, Ron has communicated his gaming ideas in essay format, just as he would presumably talk about the reproductive apparatus of the common fruit bat, a la his CV.  And it was atrocious, a case study in failing to communicate even basic principles.    Has the educational system gotten so inbred that this is what counts as 'peer review worthy' essaying? Is wordcount more important than content?  Does he respond to questions from his peers about his essays with arch looks and 'Its in the essay, motherfucker. Read it you brain damaged buffoon.'?  

I doubt it, yet this is demonstrably how he treats peer review of his Gaming stuff...  So, then, am I to assume the Forge, and all it's essays and models is nothing more than an elaborate prank, played out over half a decade?  Or is Ron really that bad an example of an academian?

Quote from: SpikeAnd it was atrocious, a case study in failing to communicate even basic principles.    Has the educational system gotten so inbred that this is what counts as 'peer review worthy' essaying? Is wordcount more important than content?

I've seen some pretty shitastic stuff from academics in my time.  But on the whole, it strikes me as the kind of writing that you see from academics that don't actually expect any real review by actual peers.

Quote from: SpikeDoes he respond to questions from his peers about his essays with arch looks and 'Its in the essay, motherfucker. Read it you brain damaged buffoon.'?

Most academic peers wouldn't ask questions about the content of an essay in public without having first read it, very carefully, for fear of being seen as stupid or unable to comprehend.

Academic politics are vicious that way.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI've seen some pretty shitastic stuff from academics in my time.  But on the whole, it strikes me as the kind of writing that you see from academics that don't actually expect any real review by actual peers.



Most academic peers wouldn't ask questions about the content of an essay in public without having first read it, very carefully, for fear of being seen as stupid or unable to comprehend.

Academic politics are vicious that way.

Levi, you are getting my vote for the scariest person out there, just as Demolition Man is the scariest horror movie ever made.  I am officially heading back to the woods before I am exposed to any more of this so called civilization and become irreprably brain damaged as a result.

Quote from: SpikeLevi, you are getting my vote for the scariest person out there, just as Demolition Man is the scariest horror movie ever made.  I am officially heading back to the woods before I am exposed to any more of this so called civilization and become irreprably brain damaged as a result.

Heh.

I dunno - to me, it speaks to how the Forge operates.  And it's not really uncommon, either.

Really, how many gamers draw lines in the sand to mark "my peers" and "not my peers"?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHeh.

I dunno - to me, it speaks to how the Forge operates.  And it's not really uncommon, either.

Really, how many gamers draw lines in the sand to mark "my peers" and "not my peers"?

Really? the only line I draw in the sand is 'human being type gamers' and 'those unwashed wastes of skin that keep trying to get into my game only to have an excuse to masturbate in public'.

Which is why I tend to get frustrated by games that seek to exclude certain types of players, because really no game can exclude the 'tuwostkttgimgothaetmip' players.... which is an unweildy acronym, but can provide some amusement if you start using the term gimgo thaetmip to describe them...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenReally, how many gamers draw lines in the sand to mark "my peers" and "not my peers"?

I'd say it was a fairly large number of them. Here for instance you have RPGsiters vs Forgies. Elsewhere it may be WoD vs. D&D, "roleplayers" vs. "munchkins", "bathed vs. stinky", or whatever. I think it's a rare gamer that looks out at the huge number of different types of gamers and says "I consider these all to be my peers and/or equals."

Quote from: SpikeReally? the only line I draw in the sand is 'human being type gamers' and 'those unwashed wastes of skin that keep trying to get into my game only to have an excuse to masturbate in public'.

There are lines in the sand, though, in many places:

"Gamers who hate gamers".  Pundit's Swine.  The geek fallacies.

JimBob's "bitter non-gamers" is a weird case, because he's talking about people that don't actually play.

My point is this, and I know I'm going to be misinterpreted, but it's about the ugliest insult I can level, so I'm not horribly worried.

The Forge acts like a peer review community where you aren't a peer until you agree with certain basic principles; in practical terms, those principles aren't up for questioning.

And if you don't think that's insulting to that community...   Uh, I got nothin'.