Quote from: Shasarak;1084975To me it is not if the people are different, its the fact that you are not immediately banned for concern trolling or whataboutism or Non-Right Thinkism.

Its just not that hard to understand the difference.

Agreed and seconded the only way to not see the difference is to be both stubborn and obtuse imo. Their is a crystal clear difference and one has to REALLY go out of their way not to see it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1084975To me it is not if the people are different, its the fact that you are not immediately banned for concern trolling or whataboutism or Non-Right Thinkism.

Its just not that hard to understand the difference.

Exactly.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.

You are including yourself in that denouncement of this forum, are you not?

Quote from: Larsdangly;1084909Correct. This is why I spend most of my game forum discussion time at rpgpub, sjgames. They remain entirely free of this bullshit.

Nice to know that you are too cool for school, but it does make one wonder why you keep posting here if it is so full of such "bullshit".

Assholes saying nasty things about you does not a case make, and it'd be a pretty shitty situation for everyone if it did.

• Vic Mignogna has a case because he lost acting gigs and convention appearances.
• Richard Meyer has a case because he lost a contract with a publisher.
• Zak Smith could make a case because he's been blackballed from the RPG industry.
  
• Larry Correia could make a case as he's been dropped as a guest.
  
• Jeremy Hambly could make a case that being banned from GenCon over being assaulted offsite affects his ability to conduct business, and does have a criminal case pending.
  

The key is the actions against them didn't just influence consumer behavior, but directly affected their ability to conduct business with the people who wanted to do so. SJG and FGG can make no such claim, and attempting to do so would be an abuse of the legal system.

Quote from: jhkim;1084554Nick Reiketa's video is here - with the segment about this topic about 57 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMThCmRezFw&feature=youtu.be&t=3440

Yeah, and I'm ticked he didn't include the first part about Bill putting his arm around her and calling her "sweetie".

I don't trust anyone in this mess anymore.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1084602I'm not sure who sent it! But it sure did arrive at the ideal time!

Someone has your address?!?

Quote from: Haffrung;1084634Deter people from damaging their business on the basis of lies. They don't need to get a penny from the defendants in order to make the lawsuit worthwhile.

First they're going to have to prove damages, and we can't even do that with Bill as he voluntarily stepped down as a guest.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1084674Bill Webb has come out with an official statement regarding the incidents in question. No mention of the suit itself.

https://froggodgames.com/frogs/statement-by-bill-webb/?fbclid=IwAR2SnzK2mmpX5HgZnm8r3vVik-Azjh47kw6NBE3BLOGTgrK9pk-3TO393X4

And for some reason FGG has disabled both caching and archiving. Not a good look.

Quote from: S'mon;1084769We now know that a female Paizo staffer grabbed Webb and injured herself trying to haul him around.

Do we?

Quote from: S'mon;1084769It sounds as if this woman may have criminally assaulted Webb.

If it actually occurred, then she absolutely did.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084794Crystal is the one that grabbed him, according to her tweet.

I must have missed that. Where exactly has she admitted this?

Quote from: jeff37923;1084866Judge to Court Clerk: How much XP will Attorney 2 get if he defeats the aboleth?

Gavel falls, everyone dies.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe.

And yet I can still speak critically here.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084813Whatever it's called I won't hire white women

Quote from: Lurtch;1084813white women are too stupid to do the work

Quote from: Lurtch;1084813There is nothing worded than a younger white chick.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084893It's not misogyny to say that I don't want to hire insufferable white chicks because they are all the worst.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084893You want to know why young white women are the worst? Because they are so extreme even the POC they say they are trying to help find them bat shit crazy.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084893It's about white women over the last 30 years never being disagreed with and having huge Chips on their shoulders.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084894You are conflating white women with women. See! Feminism is about white women.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084894Young white women are awful and I hate working with them. If I could trade every white woman I work with under 30 to a black woman, Mexican woman, Asian woman, Arabic woman, Persian woman, I would. It's young white people that are drama woke people.

Quote from: Lurtch;1084895I just am tired of young white women being so terrible and ruining everything.

#WhiteWomen

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1084925I'm Maya, Born, raised and Living in México City, I'm not a "Person of Color".

Of course not...

...because you're a "Non-Black Person of Color"

Quote from: myleftnut;1084930We've been reduced to "poc".

Now if only they'd stop there.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085028Do we?

Not sure how you could have missed it:

Quote from: S'mon;1085030Not sure how you could have missed it:

A third hand account from a questionable source, which is proof of her claims, but not of the incident in question.

More importantly, nowhere does she claim that she was the one who was injured, which is what @Myrdin Potter claimed.

It's really important to have all our ducks in a row and be as specific as possible in these matters AFAIC.

Technically you are correct, it might not have been them (crystal), but they did say I was not in shape.

So far there are zero reports of Webb physically injuring anyone and I read from the tweet that it was Crystal that tried to grab him.

Not that the claim that Webb was drunk is also unsubstantiated. The discussion on him not being able to drive home is moot as he had a room he could go to. The whole "could have called the cops" construction is also a red herring as you can call the cops for anything and not calling the cops for whatever reason was convenient at the time may easily be masking there actually was no good reason to do so as well.

I did a quick search of Washington State records for the last 10 years and found no DUI charges for Webb. My experience with people with real drinking issues is that they get tagged with one or more of that.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085036A third hand account from a questionable source

Frazier was a Paizo staffer, AFAIK s/he was at Paizocon 2017, s/he is hostile to Webb, so AFAICS it's neither third hand nor particularly questionable.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085036More importantly, nowhere does she claim that she was the one who was injured, which is what @Myrdin Potter claimed.

However that was not what I said.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085028The key is the actions against them didn't just influence consumer behavior, but directly affected their ability to conduct business with the people who wanted to do so. SJG and FGG can make no such claim, and attempting to do so would be an abuse of the legal system..

Your claim here is simply untrue. You should check the last few FGG Kickstarters amongst other things. The negative publicity around this has also affected the FGG/SJG games Fantasy Trip Kickstarter. What do you believe the odds are that the sjw losers have been using that original incident to stalk Bill at conventions?

This is the entire reason we have laws, attorneys, courts, police, and judges. So that if someone has an actual complaint, there is a process by which they can obtain justice.

It is my sincere wish that Ty Beard, Bill, FGG, and SJG sue, win and proceed to own these sjw misanthropes who have decided to take it upon themselves to ruin FGG's and SJG's business.

No one deserves any right to run any one else out of business, just because they feel for whatever imagined reason that they should be entitled to, without any due process of law, and without a review from a impartial judge and/or jury.

Let me put this another way, so maybe you understand. If someone can run anyone out of any business without a trial, are we still living in a free country, or are we living in a country where we are slaves at the mercy and whim of any whom would hold a grudge against us and/or our business?

What kind of country do you want to live in?

Would you be okay with having your livelihood reduced, or taken away entirely, based on the unsubstantiated claims of anyone else?

...choose carefully, ...choose wisely, becuase ultimately you will get back what you give to others.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085067If someone can run anyone out of any business without a trial, are we still living in a free country. . .

Yes. A price of freedom is the moral obligation to use it properly. If you cannot even attempt to run someone out of any business without a trial, then you are, by definition, not free.

The key is as you stated at the beginning: your actions, while you are free to do them, have a cost. You run the guy out of business improperly, you pay for the business.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085068Yes. A price of freedom is the moral obligation to use it properly. If you cannot even attempt to run someone out of any business without a trial, then you are, by definition, not free.

The key is as you stated at the beginning: your actions, while you are free to do them, have a cost. You run the guy out of business improperly, you pay for the business.

This is the kind of vague language used over on TBP I often took issue with. The big difference being, we are here now, and there is no one here who will censor or silence me just because they don't like what they read or hear.

This is not just about running a single guy out of business improperly. It's also about all of the other people that are affected, his business partners who share in his fate, yet have no say. It is about his artists, and suppliers who would lose orders were his business to close, It is also about the customers who would lose the games, games that have not even been designed yet.


I'm automatically leery whenever anyone brings up the price of freedom. Slavery in any form, ...is far more costly than ensuring freedom ever will be.

Also, I noticed you speak of the moral obligation to use freedom properly. Freedom isn't a tool, it is instead an inherent right that everyone possesses. Also, there are no obligations with freedom, no compulsions, no compelling, and no limits because if one is exercising their inherent right to freedom, it is automatically implied, or comes with the knowledge, that one cannot be free themselves, if they are in any way limiting or removing the freedoms of others.

Everyone who is truly free understands that.

FGG and Bill, as well as SJG are game designers. They make and sell games. if the sjw were really all about being successful in making games, they would be too busy making their own games and finding their loyal customers and audience who were willing to buy those games to be spending time with anything else. Instead they do nothing of the sort, contribute nothing to the gaming industry except for trying to drag other game designers down.

These sjw are like the outlaws of the old west, riding into town a whooping, and a hollering, threatening and shooting, they get their Lasso's out, and rope a citizen in town, then with their horses they drag the citizen around in the dirt, all in good sport they say, for show, to intimidate the other townspeople, and for a bit of fun! ...well, the sheriff and his deputies are coming to hold them outlaws accountable now.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085070This is the kind of vague language used over on TBP I often took issue with. The big difference being, we are here now, and there is no one here who will censor or silence me just because they don't like what they read or hear.

This is not just about running a single guy out of business improperly. It's also about all of the other people that are affected, his business partners who share in his fate, yet have no say. It is about his artists, and suppliers who would lose orders were his business to close, It is also about the customers who would lose the games, games that have not even been designed yet.

And? (This doesn't seem related to the single point of contention.)

QuoteI'm automatically leery whenever anyone brings up the price of freedom. Slavery in any form, ...is far more costly than ensuring freedom ever will be.

That does not change that freedom has a cost for the self. That the cost is lighter than the slavery does not change that it is there, and it is in the inherent nature of some forms of slavery to feel less costly than to actually have to take responsibility for your own actions.

QuoteAlso, I noticed you speak of the moral obligation to use freedom properly. Freedom isn't a tool, it is instead an inherent right that everyone possesses. Also, there are no obligations with freedom, no compulsions, no compelling, and no limits because if one is exercising their inherent right to freedom, it is automatically implied, or comes with the knowledge, that one cannot be free themselves, if they are in any way limiting or removing the freedoms of others.

So you are disagreeing that we have a responsibility to be free responsibly, yet you say we cannot be free if we are not using our freedom responsibly? Can you help me understand the disagreement here? Because as I read this statement, you say there's no obligation or compulsion for being free, yet you cannot be free if you are removing the freedoms of others... which would be an obligation or compulsion for being free, as if you do not follow it then you are, by your own definition, not free.

Which I think puts us in agreement?

When I say moral responsibility or moral obligation, I mean that in the sense our founding fathers used it when the talked about the rights, conditions, and obligations of being free. I mean it in the most Conservative and Libertarian senses possible, and how those natural rights are forever, intrinsically linked with certain morals, responsibilities, and virtues (both secular and religious), all of which are preconditions for freedom to exist in the minds of the framers of America's constitution.

QuoteFGG and Bill, as well as SJG are game designers. They make and sell games. if the sjw were really all about being successful in making games, they would be too busy making their own games and finding their loyal customers and audience who were willing to buy those games to be spending time with anything else. Instead they do nothing of the sort, contribute nothing to the gaming industry except for trying to drag other game designers down.

These sjw are like the outlaws of the old west, riding into town a whooping, and a hollering, threatening and shooting, they get their Lasso's out, and rope a citizen in town, then with their horses they drag the citizen around in the dirt, all in good sport they say, for show, to intimidate the other townspeople, and for a bit of fun! ...well, the sheriff and his deputies are coming to hold them outlaws accountable now.

Which would seem to, again, put us in agreement. My only contention was that yes, you are still living in a free country if someone can do this. You are not living in a free country if someone cannot do this thing (and then, presumably, face the consequences of their action).

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085070These sjw are like the outlaws of the old west, riding into town a whooping, and a hollering, threatening and shooting, they get their Lasso's out, and rope a citizen in town, then with their horses they drag the citizen around in the dirt, all in good sport they say, for show, to intimidate the other townspeople, and for a bit of fun! ...well, the sheriff and his deputies are coming to hold them outlaws accountable now.

I usually hate analogies, but I love this.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085076And?...

Which I think puts us in agreement?

Almost. Here is the notable difference in our approach to Freedom... When you speak of moral obligation or moral responsibility in upholding Freedom, both of those events require an audience or third party to witness, because the audience is making the judgement whether your definition of freedom is correct, or you are are fulfilling the goal of ensuring freedom for others.

If one is truly free, an individual would automatically do the right thing even if a witness were not present, and ensure the freedom of everyone else around them.

This is the difference between a leader and a follower. A leader does what is right, because it is the right thing to do. A follower does what is right, because someone else is watching, and judging them, and thus they have the obligation to behave correctly or right. Whether they really believe or not that what they are doing is ensuring freedom, or believe in the freedom or in doing the right thing, is still open for debate.