I'm starting to get fucking sick of this. Like sick in a deep, penetrating sense to my very bone-tiredness.

I've run this site for 9 months or so now, and in that time I HAVE BANNED NO ONE.
I've had to use sanctions against exactly 2 people.
I've had to warn a couple more.

And EVERY FUCKING DAY I put up with the usual suspects, attacking and insulting me at every turn on this forum. Whatever I post, the usual bunch are there, insulting and lying about me.
And every Admin decision I make, they call me a fascist, and claim that this board is headed toward tyranny.  WHEN IN FACT, ITS THE LEAST-MODERATED BOARD OF ITS SIZE IN THE ENTIRE HOBBY.

So here's my deal: are you happy with what I've been doing as Admin here? Do you think that those who are attacking me are the ones who really have theRPGsite's and free speech's best interests at heart? Or is it me who does?

Do any of you really believe that JArcane or James McMurray or Jimbob would be better admins who would value and defend free speech like I have, who would put up with the abuse I put up with every fucking day, and wouldn't just have gone on a fucking banning-spree by now?

Here's your chance to convince me that there are still people on this site who support what I'm fighting for. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point of me carrying on with it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHere's your chance to convince me that there are still people on this site who support what I'm fighting for. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point of me carrying on with it?

RPGPundit

I think that's the point. A lot of people don't want you running the site, due to your views, the perception of you on the net and to a degree, your blog. You've made enemies old chum and some of them hang out here. I would, however, hate to think that some people are only here to piss in your cornflakes, 'cos that says more about them than it does about you really.

That's free speech for you though. Some people aren't mature enough to handle it. To some, it's an excuse to slag everyone off and say naughty words. To others it means that you can express your thoughts without censure or fear. Some posters need to look at the first instance and i think that you need to look at the second instance.

To be honest, I don't even think of this site as "moderated" at all, so the personal turf-wars you folks have going on are kinda like some brushfire war in some other country. Sucks to be them, but meh. If they're getting under your skin, that's your business, but I fail to see how it would, could, or should affect the site. Go off and yell at each other all you like. Until they decide to infect the site with a worm or attack it with denial-of-service, I don't see what their opionion of you has shit to do with the site.

Taking metric tons of shit is part of the job, I suspect.  I have disagreed with some of your calls, the original Nox banning idea for example, but overall you and the other admins have done a good job in creating a vibrant site which I enjoy.  I, of course, reserve the right to loudly castigate you for any calls that I think are bullshit in the future, but the fact that I can confidently expect to be able to do so speaks well for you and this site.

In the end, you are going to take shit no matter what you do, Pundit.  My advice is to not worry about it.  My only real concern is that you tend to be big on your "authority", which is a conceit that makes you a huge fucking target and, in my opinion, leads you to make some bad decisions.  I suggest you turn down the dial a bit on that.

TGA

Pundit,

 At times I think you're a big stinking asshole.

 HOWEVER,

 As an Admin, I think you are one of the fairest ones around.
 You're doing just fine.

 Hey - at least with you , we know what your biases are up front ...and I've actually seen you backpedal on a few things when Jeff Rients or others called you on it.

 In general, Pundit,  you're fair about most stuff. You just cuss and swear a whole lot.

 Not a big fuckung deal tho.

- Ed C.

That the board is least moderated doesn't mean that things couldn't be improved.
Moreover, it's bad style in my eyes to evade responsibility by pointing out that critics would be worse sysops. I don't have to be a better game designer than Rein*Hagen to criticize VtM for its flaws, for instance.

Look, I appreciate the policy of this place a lot, and I think that you do a good job in general. That's what intrigued me - and I doubt that I count as part of the usual anti-Pundit crowd.
However, I think that the two sanctions still run counter to this policy. They're still way better than the stuff that happens elsewhere. However, to K.O. two men a year with your bare fists is also better than to shoot fourty men a year, so I wouldn't rest on those laurels and look for improvement.
Room for improvement doesn't mean that things are bad, either.

I would simply let social dynamics take care of that. That's at least what I've read in the constitution - tell me if I understood that wrong.

2 Cents from the peanut gallery:

1) Free Speech on a website is a non issue. It's your site; you control it's content. We can ask questions about fairness and decency in the way people are treated, but the notion of free speech implies a right that does not obtain for a private forum.

2) I think the issue here is at least partly one of rhetoric. Since you have made public statements to the effect that free speech is an absolute value here, any instance of banning, topic banning, or editing, etc. is inconsistent with that message. Whether or not this is the least moderated board in the hobby doesn't matter; if you've made categorical statements to the effect that free speech will not be interfered with, then even reasonable actions will fail to match that standard. There are of course at least 2 ways to resolve any inconsistency. One would be to allow any and all statements to go without interferenace. Another would be to  reconsider your statement on the subject. Perhaps a frank statement to the effect that certain kinds of speech will be moderated would be in order.

3) Most people are less concerned about a blank check on free speech than they are the perceived fairness of moderation. Some kinds of speech can be disruptive, and few object to the notion that you can or should correct such speech. There will always be questions about specific actions, even with the best moderation. And ironic criticisms are common. At a certain point you just have to accept that things will not appear to the membership quite as they are behind the scenes. You make the call as best you see it, and you let the chatter go. But I do think a more realistic statement on the nature of moderation at this board might help to shift the question from one of do you or don't you moderate to one of whether or not the specific actions have been fair.

A few things that I do think would help, albeit they would begin you on the slide towards a more rules based moderation philosophy.

Clarity: As I recall, you describe sanctions in the form of physical punishment. It's funny, but it doesn't answer the question of what sanctions will actually occur and how they can be squared with a doctrinaire stance that free speech will not be curtailed here under any circumstances.

Depersonalization: It's tough to square the notion of fair moderation with insults to the individual moderated or arguments against his last post. One of the hardest things to stomach is a moderator weighing in on an issue at the same time he is taking official action on the subject. This is why it's often good to make a rule of thumb that if you particupate in an argument, you get another moderator to handle any official problems that arise from it. By logical extension, it also helps to have at least one mod stay out of any discussion if you can. Either way judgements ought to be handed down with as little vituperation as possible. You have the gavel and your wielding it. That matters more than any extra commentary you can deliver. So, throwing on insults serves only to weaken the significance of your official action, even as it feeds the perception that you yourself are pursuing a personal dilemma.

I doubt you'll want to take either of these suggestions as they go quite against the tone of the forum. Fair enough, but I think that does make it harder to answer your critics. Your policies do not match your explicit statements on the nature of free speech, and it does not take a personal vendetta to see this. Combined with the VERY personal nature of your official moderation, this makes every official action taken on this board an immensely personal affair. Ultimately, who is and who isn't subject to sanction and who is or isn't criticizing you will remain largely a question of your personal relationships with the specific members in question. A cadre of personal critics bashing you in harsh personal terms seems like one of the likely consequences.

I agree with One Horse Town.

I like your tolerance of criticism and free speech, and I like the idea of the site continuing with peer-based moderation for now.  I don't think that will be viable as the site continues to grow, but we'll see.

I do dislike how hateful and adversarial your posts tend to be and believe they set the tone for the site.  If the site is to grow beyond being the bitter anti-RPG.net website it so often appears to be it's only going to happen if you choose to lead the site in that direction.

I think you're a fucking wanker and therpgsite is probably the one positive thing you have contributed to this hobby - online anyway. Besides a few missteps - the first James M consultation thread, and definitely the Lev thread -you are doing a good job. So far besides the incidents I've mentioned you (and the other mods) have done nothing to raise my "destroyer of free speech" alarm

I'm here to talk about games and not really to test the limits of free speech. I always thought that free speech in this (rpg forum) context was to make communication more honest without the passive/aggressive BS that plagues other boards.

*shrug* Nothing much to add...oh, except that d20 poll must hurt, right?

Regards,
David R

Pundy, you're doing just fine.

You'll have to deal with the fact that a nigh-unmoderated board will attract weirdos and free speech paladins, with the latter defending TO THE DEATH the former's right to being a pain. They're symbiots. Such is infraweb life, don't worry about it.

I like the atmosphere here; I like the people, I like most of the discourse.  Sometimes people get all snarled up in pro-huamnity blah blah blah and I just roll my shoulders and keep walkin'.

So if I toss aside your personality, Pundit (which isn't an issue here), I think that the laissez-faire approach to moderation, the lack of bannings, the warning etc., are OK.  In short, I don't worry about getting shit that I didn't ask for.

I'm not fighting any damned war with you, though.  You can, and good luck.  I'm not here as a political statement -- I'm here to talk games, goof off, swap ideas and advce, and generally chill with my homies.  You whole "War" and "Swine" stuff is...fuck a duck, I don't get it.  It's like you're playing The Fringe or somethin'.  No one's lost an eye yet so I say nothing, but I stay outta that side of the yard just in case.

I like the site.  Yes.  Good job not being a modhammer, Pundit.  Now chill.

I'm not a very prolific poster by any means. But I like the very light handed to not exsistant moderation. Other places I tread or have tread in the past. I felt like I had to watch my words. Lest I be struck down by the mods or regulars. I dont feel that way here. So I think this place is successful and a good place to discuss things. Or at least thats what my experience has been.
As for you and others clashing. Thats just what happens sometimes when strong personalities and egos meet. Dont let them bother you. And if its pundit that bothers you, dont let him. (I know easier said than done)

Taking a different view here than others.

Simply, Pundit's post seems more about "Wah! I can dish it out but I cannot take it" than "These subversives have threatened the freedom of the People's speech". Honestly, and quite simply, if you (Pundit) do not wish to be attacked at every turn, then moderate your posting style. This is not your blog. It is a forum. Obvious to some, not so much to others.

As to admin of the site, personally, I would much prefer Jeff. Banning is not the issue, locking threads is not the issue, we could have both and still have as much latitude to speak our mind. The issue is the method those bans (and even Pundit has admitted it will happen) are laid down. In this, we need to ask ourselves, will Pundit be rational, look at the facts and make an informed unbiased decision? I would bet on no. Some folks would say yes.

Now, another aspect of the admin/owner of the board role that other have brought up, the effect such a person has on the mood/reputation of the board. I have felt, and continue to believe, that Pundit's ownership is a negative. It paints the boards as a hate-mongering anti-RPG.net site. Now, it would be bad enough if Pundit was just a member, but that would carry a different stigma than that of being "his board".

Finally, as far "defending free speech" by the methods defined in this thread, all Pundit need do is nothing (in terms of moderation). Honestly, I always though of this board as "survival of the fittest". With that in mind, what is it we truly need to discuss? Do we need to comfort our poor, reasonable and beleaguered leader? Do we need to step up to defend poor Pundit who has never lied about what others have said or driven people off the site?

I believe, very strongly, you reap what you sow.

Bill

This is my go-to site. It has people I like and they talk about stuff I like with a minimum of admin/mod fuss. However it's hard to avoid the fact that your Pundit persona and his stances attracts heat, as a matter of fact, it may be the primary flamebait for the board. I think that if you wish to maintain the low level hand on this board you may have to reconcile your ego with the folks who make antagonizing you their online hobby.

Another vote for "no complaints, fine job".

I honestly don't pay enough attention to any feuds anyone might have with you, so I really don't know what the fuss is about, but on occasion the name-calling and cursing do make me chuckle.