Regarding AD&D 2nd: At least its detractors have the satisfaction of pointing-out that it was the only version of D&D to ever truly fail. It's estimated that fully HALF of all AD&Ders never made the jump from 1st to 2nd and the 1990s then saw TSR hemmorage cash like crazy.

History has definitely vindicated detractors of AD&D 2nd.

Quote from: GunhildaSo sorry, you lose.  You can not win an argument about how moderation is unneccesary by posting an example of good moderation in action.

It wasn't moderation in the sense that anyone could be suspended or banned nor could objectional messages be deleted.  Big difference.  It's like the difference between being shunned by your neighbors and having the police show up and forcibly run you out of town.  

The denizens of rec.games.frp.advocacy couldn't physically stop anyone from posting, couldn't disable accounts, and couldn't delete messages they didn't like.  If you don't see the difference, well, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: GunhildaI think I can safely speak for the Nutkinland staff when I say I don't give a shit about "parents researching roleplaying games for their children".  What the fuck ever.  This site is moderated for the users, not for some fictional parents in la-la-land who actually check out what their kids are doing.

The way the message boards are moderated will select the users who use it.

Quote from: GunhildaNot to mention I'd rather have my fictional kids go to a place where people act like adults than a passive-aggressive whinefest like fucking ENWorld.

Exactly what do you think it mean to act like an adult?  

Quote from: GunhildaAsshole.

I love you, too.

Quote from: GunhildaIrrelevent and unimportant.  Re-read the line I highlighted.  The "core group" led the discussion and drove away trolls.  That is moderation, no matter how you dress it up.

Neither irrelevant nor unimportant.  The topic is free speech and limits on free speech.  The group rec.games.frp.advocacy had absolute free speech because no user had the authority or ability to stop anyone from saying anything they wanted to nor did they have any authority or ability (*) to delete messages they didn't like.  Yes, it's moderation but it is not moderation that had any power to restrict the free speech rights of the people on that message board.  And that it worked suggests that freedom to say whatever you want is not inherently bad (your claim), nor does it need to be policed by people with special powers beyond those of a normal user.

(*) Technically, anyone can cancel a Usenet message but that can cause the loss of one's Internet account if caught cancelling articles from someone else, and I see no evidence that this was ever done on rec.games.frp.advocacy.

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: GunhildaAsshole.

I love you, too.

Gee John, you make 4 posts and you already get this type of response.

I'm suppose to be walking evil on the Internet, not you. Keep this up and the whole balance of the universe will go to pot.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd that it worked suggests that freedom to say whatever you want is not inherently bad (your claim), nor does it need to be policed by people with special powers beyond those of a normal user.

With a small enough user base at least. That factor in the existence of r.f.g.a can't be overlooked.

Quote from: PookaMost anything I would say in response was said by Gunhilda already, but an addendum. If you try to make a site that appeals to all demographics you'll come up with something that's mostly lifeless and bleh.  AD&D 2nd edition sans anything the Christian right could be offended by anyone?

I never said you had to appeal to all demographics.  That's not the same thing.  As for AD&D 2nd Edition, you'll notice that while 3rd Edition has demons and devils restored, it's not filled with colorful expletives, sexual content, or potty humor which suggests that there is a large range of possibilities between "nothing offensive" and "anything goes".

Quote from: PookaENWorld has it's niche. If that's the kinder gentler internet you seek then

:enw:

and leave us alone cause you don't belong here.  Does that bother me? Not in the slightest.

Did I suggest that these message boards adopt ENWorld's moderation approach?  In fact, my main point was that I've seen evidence that an absence of any moderation can work reasonably well.  

But I would suggest that asking for broader civility and consideration addresses the problem of message board disruption by getting to the root of the problem instead of trying to decide how far the incivility can go before it gets out of hand.  I'd personally rather see a message board either enforce civility and consideration as a principle or not enforce any limitations and let the issues work themselves out.  But since I don't have any power to enforce my preferences here, I'm simply stating my preferences and opinions about moderation.  No need to take it personally or as an insult.

Quote from: gleichmanWith a small enough user base at least. That factor in the existence of r.f.g.a can't be overlooked.

The rec.games.frp.advocacy group managed to hum along after Eternal September and don't forget that there was a constant stream of detractors and even personal attacks.  They were there.  They just got bored and went away.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm suppose to be walking evil on the Internet, not you. Keep this up and the whole balance of the universe will go to pot.

You were never walking evil, just badly misunderstood.

Quote from: John MorrowThe rec.games.frp.advocacy group managed to hum along after Eternal September and don't forget that there was a constant stream of detractors and even personal attacks.  They were there.  They just got bored and went away.

True enough.

But even at its height, the number of people in r.f.g.a was never impressive in Usenet terms even for the r.f.g.* groups.

I think it's likely there's a break over point somewhere when those methods fail.

Quote from: shooting_diceI'm familiar with her. In fact, I've spoken to her a couple of times.

Whoop-de-fucking-do.  I've had extended conversations with Gary Gygax.  Your point?

Quote from: shooting_diceI haven't seen anyone cite an actual system or page reference that they found unclear yet.

The entire Fair Folk book, cover to cover.  That's a LOT MORE FUCKING IMPORTANT than an individual citation.

Quote from: shooting_diceInstead, I've seen people bleat in all caps and be pathetically broad, possibly because they are relectant to defend their opinions in the light of real evidence, and would rather harp about some webpage that doesn't have any roleplaying systems in it.

WELL, IT FUCKING SHOWS THAT SHE IS DANGEROUSLY INSANE, WHICH IS RELEVENT TO THE MAIN TOPIC THAT SHE IS BATSHIT INSANE.  Her roleplaying game design ability is secondary to this thread.  The fucking crazy part is the primary topic of this particular thread hijack.

Quote from: shooting_dicePersonally, I think in Exalted: The Sidereals, Sidereal Astrology is poorly organized, but I'm not sure whether or not its her work.

It isn't, AS I SAID.


Judging from the fact that you have been intelligent in your other posts, I'm going to have assume you're intentionally being an idiot on this topic.

Gunhilda gets touchy when ever comparisons are made with ENWorld, especially unfavorable ones.

Back on the subject at hand - USEnet (not just rec.games.frp.dnd or rec.games.frp.advocacy) became unusable due to the signal to noise ratio of some 1/1000. They may well have recovered somewhat since they've become largely abandoned.

I helped maintain the frp.dnd faq for a time - so I guess I could be called one of those "community leaders" which was as close as usenet could come to moderation. About halfway through I found myself tempted to switch from using a blacklist to a whitelist because the shit posts had just gotten insane.  Spammers took the usenet away pretty much.

Now as to the hot heads and flamewars, those never bothered me. That's why I've always liked Nutkinland as it was when Topher et al ran it, and that's why I intend to stay the same course of madcap craziness that it currently has. There is a place for it on the net, and if you agree with that John you're welcome to stay. If you want this place changed to be more like ENWorld though you're in for a disappointment.

Each board has something to add to the net as a whole. ENWorld has become a commercial debate forum with no purpose but to enrich Russell Morrissey and Chris Johannson. When fun was supplanted by profit I left. The extremely crass and pathetic tactic of putting a "products like this thread" bit on every damn page was what broke my patience with them, as well as the fact that in so doing that Chris broke a promise to me to leave the boards code of ENWorld alone. He was to run the store and nothing else.  He lied.

Now as to here John - this forum and site were conceived from their start to be laid back and very tolerant.  No real attempt has been made here to moderate users for any offense save one - not contributing. There are many ways to contribute - being funny, being serious, being insightful, and so on. These things make the forum fun and enjoyable for the Nutkins and I, and that is the only measuring stick we really want or need here. When a user behaves in a manner that isn't contributing then we become a little wary. A banning only occurs though when someone is being detrimental to the fun.

If you don't like that, as I said before :enw:

I don't expect to make a board that appeals to everyone on the web. Given the expense of running such a board, I don't want it either.

Quote from: PookaGunhilda gets touchy when ever comparisons are made with ENWorld, especially unfavorable ones.

You can't please all the people all the time, and all that.  I was stating my personal preferences of when I do like moderation.

Quote from: PookaBack on the subject at hand - USEnet (not just rec.games.frp.dnd or rec.games.frp.advocacy) became unusable due to the signal to noise ratio of some 1/1000. They may well have recovered somewhat since they've become largely abandoned.

While that's true of many Usenet groups, there were always groups that didn't get as out of hand.  Yes, rec.games.frp.misc and rec.games.frp.dnd did get out of hand but rec.games.frp.advocacy and rec.games.design didn't, nor did lot's of other Usenet groups.  Brian may be correct that there is a point past which this isn't workable because those other groups had a lot more posts, but it works up to a point.  And the real irony of it all is that rec.games.frp.advocacy was designed for "my games are better than your games" flame wars.  

Quote from: PookaI helped maintain the frp.dnd faq for a time - so I guess I could be called one of those "community leaders" which was as close as usenet could come to moderation. About halfway through I found myself tempted to switch from using a blacklist to a whitelist because the shit posts had just gotten insane.  Spammers took the usenet away pretty much.

OK.  I'll exclude spam from free speech.  Fair enough.  But I'm talking about censoring people simply for being rude, obnoxious, disruptive, or annoying.

Quote from: PookaNow as to the hot heads and flamewars, those never bothered me. That's why I've always liked Nutkinland as it was when Topher et al ran it, and that's why I intend to stay the same course of madcap craziness that it currently has. There is a place for it on the net, and if you agree with that John you're welcome to stay. If you want this place changed to be more like ENWorld though you're in for a disappointment.

If all you are really doing is stopping the spammers and the really horrible cases of abuse, that's fine.  Again, I'll point out that I have not argued that this message board must change.  I'm talking about my own preferences, not making demands.  There is plenty more that I don't like about RPGnet's moderation and other message boards I use but I continue to post there and don't beat a drum for reform.  Not my messge board.  Not my call.  And if I don't like it, I'm smart enough to leave.  I never thought otherwise.

Quote from: PookaEach board has something to add to the net as a whole. ENWorld has become a commercial debate forum with no purpose but to enrich Russell Morrissey and Chris Johannson. When fun was supplanted by profit I left. The extremely crass and pathetic tactic of putting a "products like this thread" bit on every damn page was what broke my patience with them, as well as the fact that in so doing that Chris broke a promise to me to leave the boards code of ENWorld alone. He was to run the store and nothing else.  He lied.

I use Lynx as my primary browser so I usually don't see ads, anyway.

Quote from: PookaNow as to here John - this forum and site were conceived from their start to be laid back and very tolerant.  No real attempt has been made here to moderate users for any offense save one - not contributing. There are many ways to contribute - being funny, being serious, being insightful, and so on. These things make the forum fun and enjoyable for the Nutkins and I, and that is the only measuring stick we really want or need here. When a user behaves in a manner that isn't contributing then we become a little wary. A banning only occurs though when someone is being detrimental to the fun.

And I'm fine with that and think it's better than most.  It's your message board, not mine.  

Quote from: PookaI don't expect to make a board that appeals to everyone on the web. Given the expense of running such a board, I don't want it either.

If you are paying, then you get to call the shots.

Quote from: CyberzombieWhoop-de-fucking-do.  I've had extended conversations with Gary Gygax.  Your point?

If I supposed that Gary Gygax was a schizoid freak you would be in a fine position to refute me, having talked to him. Rebecca's great crime seems to mainly be Not Taking Internet Coversations Very Seriously. I would also note that her PhD. from John Hopkins is in Computer Science with a concentration of Metacomputing, not Being Crazy.

QuoteThe entire Fair Folk book, cover to cover.  That's a LOT MORE FUCKING IMPORTANT than an individual citation.

Not especially so. You'd have a relevant critique if there was a functional problem with the text. Where page X says something and page Y contradicts it, for example, or where a term isn't properly defined for usage in the game. See, that's actually important stuff, since it's about the functional content of an RPG product.

QuoteWELL, IT FUCKING SHOWS THAT SHE IS DANGEROUSLY INSANE, WHICH IS RELEVENT TO THE MAIN TOPIC THAT SHE IS BATSHIT INSANE.  Her roleplaying game design ability is secondary to this thread.  The fucking crazy part is the primary topic of this particular thread hijack.

Why is her game design ability not an issue? It ought to be the main thing when you judge whether or not you like an RPG book, shouldn't it?

Other than that, the question is whether or not you like the style. You don't; that's no biggie. It just has fuck all to do with anything larger than your own opinion. It is not an attack on the validity of an actual system, design or anything like that, and it's not a critique of her personally, since all you know about her is that she posts some pun-filled, surreal fiction on the internet and likes to tell jokes.

You know, I took Cyberzombie comment as what it was. A statement of strong dislike for a specific public figure in the RPG world. Nothing more, nothing less.

In comparsion, shooting_dice is coming across as raging fanbay who has issues.

Just saying.

Quote from: gleichmanYou know, I took Cyberzombie comment as what it was. A statement of strong dislike for a specific public figure in the RPG world. Nothing more, nothing less.

Brian, many of us know that you're a shitheel with no redeeming qualities, who was so hated that you actually ran away from the internet after people challenged your ideas about how your government should torture more people and how women are inferior, but I do think you would rather people not take me at my word.

Mind you, that's unnecessary, because you'll reveal it to this lot in time anyway.

QuoteIn comparsion, shooting_dice is coming across as raging fanbay who has issues.

Yeah, generally I don't think you should say bad things about people unless they deserve it. For example, I don't think having differing artistic tastes is really a matter of character, but your reprehensible character is a pretty good reason to think you in particular are a bad person.

Hell, I feel sorry for Nisarg because you like him.