Quote from: RPGPunditIs there anyone here that actually LIKES the guy (note: likes him, not "thinks its funny having him around" or "thinks he has a right to say what he says" or "thinks its educational having him there as a case study")?

Are we really going to start basing bans, even partially, on who likes who? I like the things Nox has to say about RPGs. I don't like the guy, but I have used some of his ideas.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat argument is just not true. Look at ENWorld, CotI, even the Forge--any major RPG message board without an off-topic forum or with a heavily truncated one: politics don't spill over into RPG debates, they're simply discussed somewhere else entirely. As well they should.

I have no idea what CotI are, and don't read the Forge, but ENWorld is most definitely a case where heavy moderation is necessary to prevent political talk. They've just been doing it for so long and jump on it so fast that you don't see it very often. In other words, they've moderated it to death.

Dumpshock (mentioned by another poster) is the same way. Dumpshock is a closer mirror to this site as well, because it up until recently had a very free for all attitude. They started quite a while back by trying to make people play nicer with an OT forum removal. Now recently it's migrated to a more stringent concern over personal attacks, moderation of any topic that doesn't tie close enough to games for the admins' liking, and locking threads if the mods don't like the direction they're taking.

Also, I'm not privy to RPG.net's moderation policy history, but Cessna certainly raises my worry level over it with his dates and rates comparison.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianThis does not, to me at least, rise to JimBob's claim of legally "inciting genocide".  It is one guy being an ignorant prick.  The "G" word is a powerful word.  Like "Evil" it should be reserved for the real thing lest we cheapen it.

I agree words like "genocide" and "evil" should not be used lightly. Here's the thing. There are many here who support the war in the middle east and are extremely worried about the appeal of the darker roads (to use a Le Carre phrase) of Islam. But Nox is not one of them. As you can see from the quotes I posted upthread, he hates Islam and all those who practise it.

He does not and has never bothered to make a distinction between those who practise the religion peacefully and those who use it to spread chaos and destruction. The latter are vile, and it's always been my contention that they should be dealt with.

But this distinction does not really matter to Nox. In fact he has openly said that the ones who can't do anything to stop their radical "brothers" are unimportant and therefore should suffer the same fate as their more violent bretheren. He has a history of posting such repulsive shit. This is why I used the term genocide. In his case it's appropriate. Going to war or supporting one, is one thing. Stating your preference that large groups of people should be killed -innocent or guilty -is another. The latter is what Nox has always advocated. Genocide is the right term.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: James McMurrayAlso, I'm not privy to RPG.net's moderation policy history,

Poke around the old forums.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rpg.net

None of this stuff is hidden despite the conspiracy theories.

Quote from: hgjsIt's ironic that for all rpg.net gets bashed for having moderation policies driven by Tangency, the same thing is happening here with Off Topic.

I don't think this is the case.  Nox can and does bring his views up in RPG threads.

Quote from: CessnaPoke around the old forums.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rpg.net

None of this stuff is hidden despite the conspiracy theories.

That's a nifty resource I hadn't thought of using with RPG.net.  It's amazing to see how the site has grown.  Something like 10x the number of prime time users from 4 or 5 years ago?  That's nuts.

I knew you had been volunteer for a long time, but I didn't realize it had been *that* long.

Quote from: CessnaThis all sounds familiar.

In fact, this is EXACTLY how rpg.net moderation started in 2001/2002.  EXACTLY.  I can dig up the threads and link to them if you like.

Be careful here.  If you aren't, six years from now you'll find yourself being called "fascist" by a  group of disaffected users for trying to keep a message board from being turned into a craphole, so that other people have a nice place to talk about games - only to end up with a place so bland and inane you yourself hate it.

Mate, if you're burned out as an rpg.net admin, just fucking quit. Seriously.

Quote from: CessnaThis all sounds familiar.

In fact, this is EXACTLY how rpg.net moderation started in 2001/2002.  EXACTLY.  I can dig up the threads and link to them if you like.

Be careful here.  If you aren't, six years from now you'll find yourself being called "fascist" by a  group of disaffected users for trying to keep a message board from being turned into a craphole, so that other people have a nice place to talk about games - only to end up with a place so bland and inane you yourself hate it.

But that would never happen here, right?

I think this is a good warning. Just because it happened there doesn't mean it'll happen here. One of the differences is that here you have a guy at the top who is deeply and intensely commited to defending the right to speak, in particular regarding RPGs but also in general.
But that doesn't mean the warning isn't good, I'm painfully aware of the slope that this represents, and the danger of what it could lead to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: hgjsLet me understand what you are saying.  Would the topic ban be against him saying things like "I admire the KKK" (which he has said)?  If so, then great.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

QuoteBut if you're including things like his statements in the What will england do? thread, which seems to have set off this discussion... well, I think that would be a terrible idea.  The views he expresses:

How many people supported the idea of Britain using military action during the hostage crisis?  A fuckload.  Maybe you don't think they're the most enlightened guys in the shed, but this isn't a fringe position.  He expressed this view in a thread dedicated to the incident, and didn't drag it into unrelated threads.  (And, by the way, he wasn't the only poster expressing those views.)

If someone gets topic-banned for being "disruptive to the site" whenever a bunch of people get their panties in a knot over a view they disagree with, guess what?  Now you have your own forum orthodoxy.  RPG.net is a place where half of fucking America's political views are verboten to express.  That's diseased.  Don't make this place like that.

I wouldn't, and no, I don't think that advocating military action against another country would be cause for censorship/banning action.

Mind you, a protracted and constant inability to stop talking about how much you hate a major world religion might be.
Not like, J. Randomdude Bumquist saying "you know? I really hate those fucking zoroastrians" just offhand, but more like if he started DOZENS of threads dedicated to his hatred of zoroastrians.  Not because of the opinions themselves, and my agreeing or disagreeing with them, but because of the way they end up essentially threacrapping an entire forum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CessnaI was, and still am here to talk games - and I'd prefer to.  But when I read this thread, I realized that I was seeing  same exact process being repeated - and far faster this time.  Rpg.net started in 1996, the "threaded" forum started in December 1997; it didn't have a "moderator" until mid-2002.  At first they started off just deleting spam, then their role - well, "expanded," starting with the same exact public questions as have been asked here, along with assurances that the moderators won't take too active of a role.  It took rpg.net well over five years to do what this forum has already done in a few months.

The internet is faster these days, and more full of retards.

RPGPundit

Quote from: hgjsI'm starting to think that maybe Brett (pigames.net) and Bradford C. Walker are right.  Maybe instead of being a storm drain, Off Topic is an open sewer spreading disease.

It's ironic that for all rpg.net gets bashed for having moderation policies driven by Tangency, the same thing is happening here with Off Topic.

One of the things I'd be very careful of would be not spilling those moderator policies (should any mod policies be created in response to problems in OT, which they haven't yet) onto other fora (that, I think, was one of RPG.net's key mistakes).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think this is a good warning. Just because it happened there doesn't mean it'll happen here. One of the differences is that here you have a guy at the top who is deeply and intensely commited to defending the right to speak, in particular regarding RPGs but also in general.
But that doesn't mean the warning isn't good, I'm painfully aware of the slope that this represents, and the danger of what it could lead to.

RPGPundit

In the end we all post at the pleasure of the site's owner and I will respect the decision that you finally make.  

My concern has always been a practical one.  Once anyone is banned for having a deeply unpopular opinion that does not clearly represent legal jeopardy for the site's owners then the Internet lawyers amongst us *will* try to use this as a precedent to ban someone else that they don't like.  Now you may say that they will not be successful because of your moral compass, but these debates *will* take energy away from gaming discussion, they *will* cause hard feelings, and they *will* continue to happen.  In the end, if this gets out of control people will want more moderation just to make it all stop so we can go back to talking about games, but it will have fundamentally changed the character of the site in the process.  It is human nature.  It is what I suspect happened at RPG.net.

Listen, I think you'd face less heartache in the long run if you just told people who looked at OT to "wear a cup" and concern yourself only in censoring behavior that disrupted the gaming forums or was blatantly illegal.  And I don't think that making OT visible to members only isn't "hiding it because we are ashamed of it", it is hiding it because it is not a part of the site's core mission of talking about RPGs.  I don't particularly want to encourage people to come here if they are doing so for OT.  I don't want people who are looking at us for gaming talk to be put off by OT.  If it's function is to serve as an internal safety value and not a recruiting tool, then why should it be viewable to non-members?

For that matter, if your goal is to prevent disruption of the site's mission I think a much stronger argument can be made for heavier moderation of the gaming forums rather than OT.  By spending so much energy on managing OT it defeats the whole purpose of it being a safety valve.

Quote from: RPGPunditOne of the things I'd be very careful of would be not spilling those moderator policies (should any mod policies be created in response to problems in OT, which they haven't yet) onto other fora (that, I think, was one of RPG.net's key mistakes).

Yeah, but then you'll hear the howls of the Internet lawyers that the moderation policy isn't "consistent" or "fair"...

I sincerely hope that you could maintain this vision, but it complicates things (needlessly in my opinion).  And what happens in the future if you are not as personally involved in the day-to-day operations of the site, perhaps because of changing life situation or you simply grow tired of it.  Who will make the calls then?  Will they be as true to your vision?

I think that I have said my peace on this topic, and I'd rather devote energy to conversations that are more productive for the gaming mission of this site.  But I think that Cessna may be the voice of Christmas Future, and the decisions made now will have a negative impact on the site long after we've forgotten the reasons that the process started in the first place.  Witness Tangency six years on.


TGA

Mock him, ignore him.

But do not ban.

I don't know what people's problems with Nox are...because knowing how he engages in debate and what he chooses to debate about I choose not to read his posts...

Seanchai

Some people have no self control.

Others think that having a raving lunatic that gets shouted down every time he expresses a nongaming opinion poisons the site.

I pity the first and disagree with the second.