Quote from: Arminius;772750I strongly urge people if you don't care for how someone posts, put them on ignore and think twice about posting in threads started by them.

This is a pretty open forum, which means that trolls, or people whom you perceive to be trolling, are going to swing by. The best way to get rid of them is to starve them of attention. If someone else is having a conversation with someone you don't like or if you don't care for the convo, then just move on. I know Gleichman has a strong personality (let's leave it at that) but you people weren't just attacking him, you were being extremely rude to me and the others who thought there was something worth discussing.

Ultimately if Gleichman or anyone else takes a crazy or dishonest stance in a discussion, even the people who engage that individual can just back off. When somebody seems crazy to you, they probably seem crazy to others as well. Your point is made, done.

Incidentally, this is why I would like the site to have a +1 feature (note, not a downvote or -1, just +1) because I think if you can see that folks are +ing your post in droves, and nobody is supporting the other poster, you might realize it's not really worth your time to engage in the "somebody is wrong on the internet" thing.

Quote from: Arminius;772776So move on or put him on ignore. Don't play the stupid hyenas and zebras game; this isn't RPGnet.

I find this comments most reasonable and correct, and I feel is someone we all could do.

I didn't even know that thread existed, and is very cringe-worthy. I do not understand why Gleichman keeps visiting a place he hates so much, and I don't care. I don't think is a good idea to engage him when he behaves in that manner.

Yeah, the guy ithinks that not playing by RAW is a dishonor and that if you do you are a terrible person. So fucking what? Are we seriously getting any concern about what a guy who lives God knows where and who is not part of our life in any significant manner has to say about how we play? He runs games his way, he's content with that, good for him.

Quote from: apparition13;772966He'd gotten pot shots about everything else, why not expect it from this angle?

Um, because by bringing up the possibility of his son's death in honorable military service and how his opponent's desired this, gleichman was trying to emotionally manipulate the reader?

Quote from: apparition13;772966Disappointing, but not surprising. I was hoping at least one of you would apologize, but given getting called out is going to result in righteous indignation I wasn't really expecting anything.

No, more like ambivalent what-the-fuck? than any kind of righteous indignation. I was honestly wondering what your own motivation was for doing this.

Quote from: apparition13;772966I think different. Getting caught up in mob behavior and going too far is both something to apologize for and something to learn from, so next time one can recognize the situation and respond better.

Sometimes the "mob" is right.

Quote from: Arminius;772750I strongly urge people if you don't care for how someone posts, put them on ignore and think twice about posting in threads started by them.

Quote from: JamesV;772760I agree. Gleichman can surely get on nerves, but when it comes to his point of view on games, it's very specific, but thoughtful. In my mind it's not too different from Pundit, you have to look past the bluster and read the point.

Ultimately, there was an actual discussion going on, and it derailed. The fact that the thread included posters who had no other interest than to wind things up is pretty shabby.

I agree too.

I mainly regret agreeing with Emperor Norton on it being disgusting, because I though he meant the personal attack was disgusting ... and I was sick of that thread and left it for a few days, and when I came back and found out that Norton thought the attack was good, I could not comment on it, because the thread had gotten locked.
Locking it was a good decision, though.

Sure, G seem to irritate people easily, but to me it has always seemed like he responds in kind.
His "problem" is more like that he seem to think of things in very distinct paths, and to others that cannot follow those, his reasoning seems off.

This is never going to be an emotionally safe environment as long as Pundit runs it, i expect.

However, as someone wiser than me says in their signature "Just because there is a lack of moderation, doesn't mean you should say every dickish thing in your head" or something similar.

Gleichman is an odd case, i'm perfectly capable of admitting. He does throw around absolutes, likes to question the morality of people who do or say certain things and generally gets under peoples' skin.

However, it seem to have become acceptable hereabouts to basically sling shit at him whenever he pops up, with very little regard to what he's actually saying in the thread at hand.

I expect Brian regrets bringing up his family at all - but that doesn't mean that we are absolved of responsibility in what followed.

Man up and admit that it went too far and that you're abdicating responsibility  for some pretty foul behavior.

Suggesting that a father is emotionally abusing his children is not right. He was harried and hassled until he said something he probably regrets and then got some pretty hateful stuff after that. This is bullying.

It's not the first time either is it? Koltar pretty much gets jumped on whenever he crops up and he's just a harmless old duffer.

This is not what i personally want from a low moderation board.

However, if that's what we get, then i expect the people involved to hold their hands up and admit "hey, it got out of hand. Sorry."

Barring that, do what Arminius suggests and use your ignore lists.

Quote from: Rincewind1;773069I'd rather ask a question if we should endeavour to make the forum emotionally safe, stop.

If so, I wonder how. Perhaps an open letter'd be a way to start.

No. This isn't that kind of forum. This is a forum that values free speech. And that is an important value for us to uphold. At the same time that doesn't mean all speech on the site is commendable or that folks should be jerks just because. That is the neccessary downside, not the upside, of our policies.

It became very clear to me some time ago Gleichman takes these exchanges more seriously than many think, and I agree with OHT that there seems to be an anything goes mentality when it comes to responding to Gleichman and guys like Koltar. Personally I find that sort of singling out for special treatment (even if folks feel justified by the poster's behavior) disheartening. Especially when, if you look past the insults and bluster, Gleichman is making actual arguments that a lot of folks failed to address.

I am not saying he is right, I even disagreed with him on the thread. But I gain a lot more as a poster hearing his points and weighing them, than by dismissing them because of how they are presented. I actually wish more folks took him seriously because at times we can become an echo-chamber around certain ideas and it is good have other perspectives like that (and I do realize he presents them in an absolutist way that can be infuriating----but then we do that with a lot of our ideas too, even if not to that degree).

FWIW, my view has it that he brought up the military angle as a dodge once he discovered he was in a painted corner.  For example, did we ever establish which son was the GM?  Of course not, because we simply didn't care - it doesn't change anything.  Gman added that slant.

Rewarding his discussion tactic via "shame on us" threads instead of calling him on his "you wish my son was dead" strawman would be the true bullshit.

I think it was the "Heisenburg" line that really sunk him.

I'll point out that we recently had a thread here which paralleled the RAW thread.

In it, several people (including myself) advocated for simple, concise descriptions of settings, and that being able to summarize a campaign into a single sheet was 'objectively better', generally, than... not.

People disagreed, there was some argument back and forth.

Despite people disagreeing on some very fundamental principles and claiming 'everyone should do X,' people managed not to call each other horrible plagues on gaming and nobody suggested other people were just itching to wish their family death and torture.

Quote from: mcbobbo;773127FWIW, my view has it that he brought up the military angle as a dodge once he discovered he was in a painted corner.  For example, did we ever establish which son was the GM?  Of course not, because we simply didn't care - it doesn't change anything.  Gman added that slant.

Rewarding his discussion tactic via "shame on us" threads instead of calling him on his "you wish my son was dead" strawman would be the true bullshit.

I think it was the "Heisenburg" line that really sunk him.

My view has it that he mentioned it because he's proud of his sons, and he mentioned it as a reply to the "you bred?" comment.
Of course I may remember it incorrectly.

So, the guy speaks in absolutes and some emotional exaggerations, and you mean that makes him a valid target?
Sure, it is obvious that he hadn't thought through the logical conclusions of his absolutes in combination that his example really was one of his sons.
It seems to me that he saw the "His son", "Son as GM", and "Criticizing GMs Harshly" lines of thoughts as three different lines of thoughts, so when his view of The usual Suspects went at him saying he really was criticizing his son .... he went on the "here it comes, they are attacking me through my son" instead of thinking through what he had said.
But then, "The usual suspects" did seem more interested in attacking him than trying to get him to understand what he had said.

On the other hand, if I give him what may seem as the benefit of doubt, then that courtesy should be extended to "The Usual Suspects" too.
But what remains then is simply what has been said at least 2 times before in this thread:
Use the ignore list, and think twice (or really, really hard) before posting in a thread made by someone you think are trolling or worse.

This site depends on collective non-forcible regulation of behaviours, rather than moderation of behaviors (outside of those behaviours that are egregiously disruptive to the site).

From what I've seen, the right response to the things that happened on that thread is this very thread.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;773103Suggesting that a father is emotionally abusing his children is not right.

Then would you consider publicly excoriating your offspring on an internet forum over a game ruling difference of opinion to be representative of what kind of behavior?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;773109......when it comes to responding to Gleichman and guys like Koltar. Personally I find that sort of singling out for special treatment......

Is there something specific you are referring to with that comment?

In the past 7 months I haven't posted as much as I used to because of two reasons:
1) Actual computer problems with my desktop PC...and internet connection issues

2) Jeff37923 being an ass in every thread that I either start or comment in. That knee-jerk posting of a video every damn time got old real fast.

 I go onto any forum to talk about role playing games  - not to get insulted.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Arminius;772776So move on or put him on ignore. Don't play the stupid hyenas and zebras game; this isn't RPGnet.

Bingo.  It seems like instead of enjoying the forum where you can be free of the "me too", dog piling, Zebrashow, we have way too many people lately deciding it's more fun to do it here.

The level of site-disrupting shitposting these days is orders of magnitude higher then what got, say, JDCorley banned, but since they're not trolling Pundit directly, it just keeps snowballing.

Quote from: apparition13;772966It's over the line, even for this hive of scum and villainy. And I usually like the Mos Eisleyesque nature of this forum.

It used to be a hive of scum and villiany, it's just working up to awfulpurple 2.0 now.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;773081I don't believe therpgsite has ever been what you would call an emotional safe zone, but I do commend a number of the people in this thread for their efforts.

We don't need an emotional safe zone, one where ideas could be expressed without every line of every post going through some Bizarro propaganda version of "Sophistry Telephone" would be nice.

Quote from: Koltar;773399Is there something specific you are referring to with that comment?

In the past 7 months I haven't posted as much as I used to because of two reasons:
1) Actual computer problems with my desktop PC...and internet connection issues

2) Jeff37923 being an ass in every thread that I either start or comment in. That knee-jerk posting of a video every damn time got old real fast.

 I go onto any forum to talk about role playing games  - not to get insulted.

- Ed C.

I was just referring to how I sometimes see posters attack you for no apparent reason.