TheRPGSite

I couldn't help but use that title....;)

Anyway, I was wondering about the general opinion of other people on this forum in both regards to rpg.net in terms of censorship and to the comment that RPGpundit made.

Now, I do understand that he does have a point in that censorship will occur by banning users from a given site but what I don't understand is how this is an inherently bad thing.  I mean, do you really want trolls?  No?  That's fine.  Do you want different opinions?  Sometimes, not always.  How do you, in gaming, censor your players or do you?

Note that I don't actually use rpg.net so I really don't pay attention to most things that go on over there.

Levi sums it up very well.  RPG.net, Nutkinland, or any other message board is not a 'free public forum'.  It's a place where people decided to host discussion.  They pay money to run these things.  They get to decide what kind of discussion is allowed on their board.  This has nothing to do with free speech.

It's a bit like if you go into a restraunt and started calling the owner an asshole in a loud tone of voice.  He'd tell you to stop, and if you persisted he'd throw you out.  If you came back and did it again, he might tell you to never come back again.  This does not interfere with your free speech - all he's doing is asserting his right to his property.  If you don't like it, open your own restraunt where you can call people assholes all you want.

And in fact, this is what RPGPundit has done with his blog.  He says whatever he wants and people want to hear it come and visit.  RPG.net is under no obligation to allow any kind of discussion that they don't like.  Nor is any other board.  There's no law that says all discussions must go on the same board.  If the management will let you talk about A and B but not C, go somewhere else to talk about C.

It really isn't all that complicated.

I have no doubt that the moderation at RPGNet is biased and heavy handed. I'm of the opinion that it was a much better site when it was unmoderated and wasn't owned by Skotos Tech Inc. The change of ownership brought money into the question, and with money everything changed.

However given the site's ownership, complaining about the resulting moderation is like complaining about the sky being blue. RPGNet is now what it is, and unless it was removed from corp ownership- the moderation won't change for the better. Indeed, IMO it will likely get even worse.

Another factor is the pure size of the population visiting the site. They often have more people *viewing* the Open forum than Nunkinland has total membership. Such traffic greatly increases any conflict turning what would be a couple of heated exchanges into raging flamewars.

And just to add this in, the lost of the Search feature in the fourms made their site rather worthless over the long term anyway.

If you aren't guilty of terrorism, why would you object to being searched, your messages opened, or your activities monitored? Do you have something to hide? Maybe we should pay more attention to you. This all sounds suspicious.

-mice

Quote from: gleichmanAnother factor is the pure size of the population visiting the site. They often have more people *viewing* the Open forum than Nunkinland has total membership. Such traffic greatly increases any conflict turning what would be a couple of heated exchanges into raging flamewars.

There's also the Internet Law Of Posting Quality, which states that the quality of discussion in a given message board is inversely proportional to the number of people posting to it.  Small boards don't move quickly but tend to generate interesting discussions, and there's less chance of idiots being members.  Now idiots normally don't realize they are idiots so they have a lot to say.  They'll quickly crap up every thread they come across, sending the whole board down a death spiral.

The only real way to keep it in check is with heavy moderation.  NKL has (and has always had in all its incarnations) a strong sense of self moderation, where disruptive users are mocked and ridiculed until they either stop being fucksticks or go away, leaving us to our superdimensional dork-fortress.  And when moderation comes it is usually capricious and lighthearted.  I was once tempbanned for a week from one of the forums because I used the word 'Dogpile' in an image macro when the mod was tired of it.  I think my favorite was Diaglo being banned from the games forum until he wrote a haiku.  Lasted for months.

The real extreme end of this is a board like Something Awful, which dwarfs most other internet communities.  SOmething like 70,000 members, 4,000 on at any given time.  They bad 6-10 users a day, usually.  And it pays off - SA produces some of the best comedy content out there and has some of the best forums.

Moderation is not evil, it's a good thing that keep boards from being overrun by idiots.

Quote from: MaddmanIt really isn't all that complicated.

No it's not.

It is however somewhat disappointing when there's no where else to go.

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you aren't guilty of terrorism, why would you object to being searched, your messages opened, or your activities monitored? Do you have something to hide? Maybe we should pay more attention to you. This all sounds suspicious.

-mice

Yes, because the government and people running a message board are exactly the same.  Hint: you don't have to visit a message board if you don't like their policies.

So is it more of a reflection of the issue of profit margins (and all that fun stuff associated with money) or a reflection of the sheer number of people that has required such a heavy-handed nature on rpg.net?  I can see both as a posibility but I'm not sure that they are necessarily related.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd just to add this in, the lost of the Search feature in the fourms made their site rather worthless over the long term anyway.

Considering how big that forums is, a search function would probably crash most computers anyway.

Quote from: FinairaConsidering how big that forums is, a search function would probably crash most computers anyway.

Hint: Go to google and do a search for your term plus "site:forums.rpg.net" and you can often find what you need.  Not as good as full searches, but it can usually get the job done.

Quote from: MaddmanThere's also the Internet Law Of Posting Quality.

Yes there is, which is what I was trying to say.

Quote from: MaddmanModeration is not evil, it's a good thing that keep boards from being overrun by idiots.

An evil neccessity is still an evil.

moderation - it's EVIL, eeeeee-villlll i tell you!  it's from the Devil Himself!

Quote from: MaddmanHint: Go to google and do a search for your term plus "site:forums.rpg.net" and you can often find what you need.  Not as good as full searches, but it can usually get the job done.

Sorry, doesn't work well enough to even attempt.

As for it crashing their servers, those things can be dealt with. If they don't want to spend the money to do so, that's fine. It just makes the site useless to me.

Quote from: BOZmoderation - it's EVIL, eeeeee-villlll i tell you!  it's from the Devil Himself!

So... Pooka and the Nutkins are like Satan and his demons? Cool!

Quote from: BOZmoderation - it's EVIL, eeeeee-villlll i tell you!  it's from the Devil Himself!

That explains a lot about Levi....now that you mention it....

Quote from: MaddmanLevi sums it up very well. RPG.net, Nutkinland, or any other message board is not a 'free public forum'. It's a place where people decided to host discussion. They pay money to run these things. They get to decide what kind of discussion is allowed on their board. This has nothing to do with free speech.

&

Quote from: MaddmanHint: Go to google and do a search for your term plus "site:forums.rpg.net" and you can often find what you need.  Not as good as full searches, but it can usually get the job done.

RPG.net belongs to a private company that asks its customers to donate money to keep going, even after they paid for a crippled service and have to bear with both banners and annoying intellitext ads. Something is definitely going wrong in there.

Quote from: Maddmansuperdimensional dork-fortress

Beautiful job slipping that into a rational explanation of things.  Well done.

Quote from: MaddmanYes, because the government and people running a message board are exactly the same.  Hint: you don't have to visit a message board if you don't like their policies.

Crud, it was just a joke - in the same spirit as "my bf is a facist!" I don't actually equate RPG forum censorship with totalitarian governments. I also doubt very much that finiera actually considers her bf a nazi. Lighten up, Gus! I'm usually only litteral if it makes a better funny.

Luckily, you can change your forums. It's a lot more difficult - and bloodier - to change governments. Let's put it this way: I post here far more often than at RPGnet nowadays. RPGnet is boring to me.  

As for governments, in my estimation if you dress the best government conceivable up real fine, in the best clothing you could imagine, it just might make a poor kind of bung hole for a dog.

Quote from: gleichmanI have no doubt that the moderation at RPGNet is biased and heavy handed. I'm of the opinion that it was a much better site when it was unmoderated and wasn't owned by Skotos Tech Inc. The change of ownership brought money into the question, and with money everything changed.

However given the site's ownership, complaining about the resulting moderation is like complaining about the sky being blue. RPGNet is now what it is, and unless it was removed from corp ownership- the moderation won't change for the better. Indeed, IMO it will likely get even worse.

Another factor is the pure size of the population visiting the site. They often have more people *viewing* the Open forum than Nunkinland has total membership. Such traffic greatly increases any conflict turning what would be a couple of heated exchanges into raging flamewars.

And just to add this in, the lost of the Search feature in the fourms made their site rather worthless over the long term anyway.

I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Gleichman in this matter.  Nowadays I get what I can from RPGnet and try not to sweat the rest.  Pundit may be correct in many of his complaints, but his invectives aren't changing things over there.

I personally prefer completely unrestricted free speech, but I know I'm only guaranteed it on the boards I myself run.

Quote from: YamoI personally prefer completely unrestricted free speech, but I know I'm only guaranteed it on the boards I myself run.

So you permit spam and massive posting of goatse pics?

Quote from: YamoI personally prefer completely unrestricted free speech, but I know I'm only guaranteed it on the boards I myself run.

Completely unrestricted free speech is not a good thing.

Nutkinland is one of the closer things you will get to unrestricted free speech on the net.  And, yet, Julius Sleazer lies in the corner with a bullet in the head, the first permaban.

We will tolerate a lot more motherfucking shit on this board than most places will.  But if you piss us off, I'll cut your fucking balls off without a second thought.  I'd rather have a fun and functional community than let every special and unique snowflake shit all over the place, like that yahoo was doing.

Quote from: Name LipsSo you permit spam and massive posting of goatse pics?

Point me to it and he might just get to experience the magic that is goatse.  :heh:

QuoteSo you permit spam and massive posting of goatse pics?

I'd tolerate occasional posting of Goatse, sure, but "massive spamming" would be less speech and more an attempt to make the site unusable or difficult to navigate, which crosses the line from speech to action.

Kind of the difference between yelling "fire" in a theater and actually setting the theater on fire. :)

QuoteCompletely unrestricted free speech is not a good thing.

Not if you don't want to deal with the annoyances it brings, true.

Quote from: FinairaThat explains a lot about Levi....now that you mention it....

well, you mix the letters in his name around and you get e-v-i-l

that should have been obvious.  :D

Quote from: BOZwell, you mix the letters in his name around and you get e-v-i-l

that should have been obvious.  :D

Or v-i-l-e, if you prefer.

So how does one actually decide what makes a good ban on free speech in terms of forums?  I understand that some people prefer forums that let them say what they want but where is that line?  Most forums that I've ever seen make it pretty damn explicit with what is acceptable and what is considered over the top.  So are the forums not just censoring things before they hit the page by explaining what is and what is not acceptable?


((Btw, Levi, I love you and everything....you're still crazy.))

I have lurked on RPGnet for a long time. I have all of one post to my name. So my opinion may not really count.

But here's the problem I have with the moderation/censorship, because I think one bleeds into the other. It's made the place boring. I mean yes the bloody footprints must have been a bitch to clean up, but on the whole there was a lot of passion in those flames. Passion which I think has been doused in trying to make the place more friendly(I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their motives for cleaning up the place as it were)

I despise censorship. I'll take the good and the bad which comes from making such statement. I have seen a lot of stupid comments being made but I feel it's up to fellow posters to deal with said stupidity. There is a problem (and no, I can't give specific examples - so I'm going to tread carefully) with the way how moderation is practised there. I do find it troubling. I sense a biasness esp against specific posters -not so much the views expressed but rather  against the poster making such comments- I have seen other posters making similar comments and getting away with a warning, if even that.

To be fair a lot of the flamewarriors of old have been banned. They come from both sides of whatever spectrum you care to name - but I think at this time I get a siege mentality vibe as to how moderation is carried out. I could be mistaken. I gather(and I maybe mistaken that there is a lot more people visiting the site - good for them) If their changes has resulted in more people contributing in the forums, then whatever they have done is working.

I have lurked around there for a long time, so this may just be the gripes of somebody looking too fondly at the past and making statments that does not contain any actual merit.

Regards,
David R

Meh. The main obligation of an online community is to *be* a functional community. There are a bunch of ways of doing it, but only two that work without constant adjustment. The first is to have very loose rules that allow people to settle their differences, and the second it to have strict rules that focus on a chosen set of topics.

RPGNet tries to occupy a middle ground and isn't very successful at it, though the site's getting much, much better. In truth, there were some problems so severe that the wole site should have followed ENWorld's SOP a few years ago. One example I can think of offhand was a mod's admission to me that he knew a group of posters used IM to manage political flamewars so that there would be at least a couple of their ilk posting issuing attacks on a thread 24 hours a day, and who organized mass reports of posts to abuse the moderation system itself.

Then there was the child sex offender who wasn't *banned*. Regular users had to ask him to go away. The less said about that, the better.

So RPG.net careened along for a while with the principle (this was explained to me by Kuma) that posters who were prone to attack should just defend themselves. Of course, if they did so effectively, they'd get the banstick. This was supported by a happy crew of moderators who were primarily chosen because of how they acted in the non-gaming part of the site, including people who would start arguments in a standard account and end them with a mod account sanction.

Things have progressed since then. Ironically, every single suggestion a group of us tabled a while back has been adopted. This was not because they were thinking of them. It was because it was as inevitable as the site's problems were systemic. No matter how good the people were, they were going to fuck up because they were operating on a broken premise: That establishing things in an ad hoc, case by case manner was going to control problems and open up interesting discussion.

Lax rules and tight rules have something in common, and that's a sense of consistency. It's not that every decision is perfect, but it is tolerable and mostly predictable. Rules are a user guide for members and tell them what to expect. They can empower users. But if they're vague, they're worse than blatantly unfair rules that are specific.

For example, I'm an on again, off again participant on bullshido.net. Bullshido is the kind of place where people who like full contact fighting call each other faggots and threaten to beat the crap out of each other, but y'know what? I find it a much more welcoming environment than RPG.net . There's no fronting and whining to administration. It's even blatantly unfair (basically, unless you practice Muay Thai or submision grappling somebody's going to take a big textual dump on you), but you *know where you stand.* There's none of this garbage where an "identifiable group" can mean any frickin' thing in the world. On Bullshido, you can say all the unkind things about homosexuals you like, and a homosexual who can beat the shit out of you will beg to differ.

On the other side of things, ENWorld has never been perfect but it's not bad. It has its flaws (there really needs to be an industry only "fishbowl" that people can read but not post to, because many of us are tired of posting the same thing over and over to people who say that same incorrect things over and over), but on the whole, it works.

I remember Usenet circa 1995. I remember it slowly being innundated by spam to, by the time I left in 96, 95% of the posts being spam.  The other 5% was primarily ongoing flamewars - some in their 3rd year.  Free speech requires a certain amount of civility, and unfortunately someone has to enforce it.

Ridicule is the primary means NKL has always dealt with problem posters, but occassionally things already have and will in the future rise to the occasion of banning.  What earns a banning here? We'll, that depends - I like to say there are several flavors of banned.

The classic ban, of which Justin Sleazer is our only member, requires Grade A asshat behavior. Someone with no redeeming qualities (at least within 4 posts).

Then there's the jack-ass ban.  Yamo can tell you about that one. It's not really a ban in the classic sense of the word since the jack-ass can still post - he just get's a new avatar (By the way, that one's been lifted).

There's the (EDIT: Why should I reveal what's up my sleave?)

Quote from: BOZwell, you mix the letters in his name around and you get e-v-i-l

that should have been obvious.  :D

What? You didn't know Levi's true identity?

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/rvilliers/Humor/DrEvilfingeronemilliondollars.jpg)


Don't let that turtle avatar fool you. ;)

Quote from: FinairaSo how does one actually decide what makes a good ban on free speech in terms of forums?

Number one, you're thinking about it in slightly the wrong way.  You have no guarantee of free speech on any message board.  You are there at the sufferance of the people who run the board -- at least if the people who run the board have any sense whatsoever.

If you talk about the net as a whole, THEN you have total and complete freedom of speech.  You can say anything you want *somewhere*.  You just have to find like-minded degenerates of whatever subgroup(s) you belong to.  :)

Quote from: FinairaI understand that some people prefer forums that let them say what they want but where is that line?  Most forums that I've ever seen make it pretty damn explicit with what is acceptable and what is considered over the top.  So are the forums not just censoring things before they hit the page by explaining what is and what is not acceptable?

Here, it's pretty easy.  If it's a brand-new account, like Julius Sleazer, we have no problem immediately pulling the trigger and destroying the account immediately.  We have a lot of jokesters who make alt accounts, so there's a good chance that an annoying account is one of the current member's fault, any way.  :)  (JS wasn't, apparently.  Apparently he's one of the mouth-breathers that infests RPGNet.)

If you're an actual existing poster, though, you'll get a warning.  Maybe even two or more warnings, depending on how much you annoy us.  What annoys us?  We'll tell you when it happens.  Long, bitter experience shows that if we spell out what is and isn't acceptable, rules lawyers will debate it and try to use our rules against us.  We are all gamers, after all; rules lawyering is second nature to a lot of us.

So we give rough guidelines -- cuss all you fucking want, bitches.  Fight, but don't go stalking people from thread to thread to attack them.  Have FUN.  If you're not having fun, what's the fucking point?

And if you persist in annoying us, don't be surprised if, when you log on, everything is suddenly in Babelfish-translated Japanese.  :deviousgrin:

Quote from: shooting_diceMeh. The main obligation of an online community is to *be* a functional community.

Amen and Hallelujah!!!!!

I want to be able to get together and talk with some cool people about gaming.  Sure, voices may be raised, punches may be exchanged, I may fuck your wife, but in the end, we're having fun with this.  :bow:

For the record, even though he was apparently posting obscenities directed at me, I had nothing to do with Sleazer being banned. The mods did that; i never complained about him nor asked them to intervene.

I do, fundamentally, agree with Shooting Dice that consistency is the most important aspect of moderation in a forum.  What the modclique at RPG.net isn't wrong because its "too strict", if you want to play it "too strict" that's fine, its not to my tastes but I can understand the motivations for going that way. Its the hypocrisy of the double-standard. That people can say things about a certain group, a certain game, or a certain person and get away with it, while people saying the same things about other groups, games or people will be taken out.  In some cases, even two people saying the same thing about the same object will be treated differently, because one is part of the "clique" and the other isn't.

The RPG.net crew aren't using moderation to try to insure a free and open forum for debate and conversation; they're using it to promote their particular world view, their particular "darling" games, their own little clique's delusions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat the modclique at RPG.net isn't wrong because its "too strict", if you want to play it "too strict" that's fine, its not to my tastes but I can understand the motivations for going that way. Its the hypocrisy of the double-standard. That people can say things about a certain group, a certain game, or a certain person and get away with it, while people saying the same things about other groups, games or people will be taken out.  In some cases, even two people saying the same thing about the same object will be treated differently, because one is part of the "clique" and the other isn't.

I agree with this.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe RPG.net crew aren't using moderation to try to insure a free and open forum for debate and conversation; they're using it to promote their particular world view, their particular "darling" games, their own little clique's delusions.

I think this misses an important point as to the nature of their "particular world view".

RPGNet is ran as a business interest. Part of the method they use to measure the success of interest is traffic.

"Names", such as GMS, John Wick, basic anyone considered to be a 'real' game designer or insider- attracts traffic. Anything that causes those names not to post there, be it moderation of those names or a lack of action against same is bad for traffic. Thus bad for business.

Any site operating under those conditions will (following good business sense) be hypocritical in their moderation. It is a given.

This is way pre-change in ownership RPGNet was such a open and even handed experience. It had nothing of its own on the line.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor the record, even though he was apparently posting obscenities directed at me, I had nothing to do with Sleazer being banned. The mods did that; i never complained about him nor asked them to intervene.

This much is true. For the record any n00b who comes on the board and uses his first posts to launch vitorolic unfunny attacks on other posters will be banned on site, especially when the only non-attack posts he makes are test posts.

No if the attack is funny to read he may get off with a warning and a jack ass avatar for a week.  We can always use teh funneh round here.  However, that said, it might be safer to say 'Hello. My name is Slim Shady' before doing a lame as impression of his insult skills.

Quote from: GunhildaAnd if you persist in annoying us, don't be surprised if, when you log on, everything is suddenly in Babelfish-translated Japanese.  :deviousgrin:

I am sitting here in awe of the wonders of punishments like this....:heh:  Amusing, effective, and quite magical seeming indeed.(what with my not understanding the advenced tech involved.)

Quote from: gleichmanAny site operating under those conditions will (following good business sense) be hypocritical in their moderation. It is a given.

This is way pre-change in ownership RPGNet was such a open and even handed experience. It had nothing of its own on the line.

Yes, you make a decent point, when it comes down to it, about money being part of the equation. Your examples are pretty dated, however. The darlings there these days are Rebecca Borgstrom and Bruce Baugh.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, you make a decent point, when it comes down to it, about money being part of the equation. Your examples are pretty dated, however. The darlings there these days are Rebecca Borgstrom and Bruce Baugh.

RPGPundit

I'm dated, being there at the start of the conversion but leaving shortly thereafter.

Borgstrom is unknown to me. Baugh however is an old 'friend' and was a pet even back in my day although not a very significant one.

Quote from: RPGPundit...Rebecca Borgstrom...

Isn't she the lunatic woman who works for White Wolf?  The one who's the bane of Exalted rules because she has no fucking grip on reality whatsoever?

Quote from: FinairaSo how does one actually decide what makes a good ban on free speech in terms of forums?  I understand that some people prefer forums that let them say what they want but where is that line?  Most forums that I've ever seen make it pretty damn explicit with what is acceptable and what is considered over the top.  So are the forums not just censoring things before they hit the page by explaining what is and what is not acceptable?


((Btw, Levi, I love you and everything....you're still crazy.))

I got a messageboard from proboards, the messageboard equivalent of hotmail.  My first action as chief mod was to throw out the entire built in censored words list.  So far (in about two years) nobody's done anything that crossed a serious line.  Of course, in that two years, we've only got about twenty members, and hardly an are still active.

Quote from: CyberzombieIsn't she the lunatic woman who works for White Wolf?  The one who's the bane of Exalted rules because she has no fucking grip on reality whatsoever?

You nailed it.

The aforementioned lack of a grip on reality also means that the most pretentious "artiste" faction of the hobby gloms onto her work like dog shit on new loafers.

Well, that and the fact that she's a girl. With a vagina and everything. Amazing!

This hobby is really wretched at times.

Quote from: YamoThe aforementioned lack of a grip on reality also means that the most pretentious "artiste" faction of the hobby gloms onto her work like dog shit on new loafers.

Generally anyone connected with WW is questionable in my eyes.

Anyone have a link to something that shows her in full lunatic mode? I'd like to see and confirm for myself.

Quote from: gleichmanGenerally anyone connected with WW is questionable in my eyes.

Anyone have a link to something that shows her in full lunatic mode? I'd like to see and confirm for myself.

For what it's worth, she's not *really* a lunatic, in the sense that she seems like an awful, crazy person when she posts.

It's more the tone of her work (it's fruitier than a Wiccan faerie vampyre sipping absinthe while browsing the discount cape rack at Hot Topic) combined with the horrid fawning from her creepy fans.

Nobilis, her Exalted stuff or even her fiction blog thingy are good places to sample her style.

I rather like Rebecca.  Sure Nobilis is pretentious as all fuck, but it's supposed to be.  She's one of the funniest people in gaming as well.  Here's a quote from an RPGnet thread about script immunity, with everyone debating if it made for a good game or not if the players knew their characters couldn't die.

Quote from: Rebecca BorgstromI've found that script immunity is a pretty conditional power--- it seems really good at the early levels when you're mostly fighting playwrights and directors, but at later levels when you're dealing with cinematographers and narrativists it's not as useful as immunity to fire.

That said, I think that it's perfectly reasonable to downgrade script immunity to just removing the first 10 points of damage from each dramatic moment. That way you don't have PCs farcically trotting around completely ignoring the scripts that are trying to kill them, while at the same time, in the hands of a really competent director or a mob of individually wimpy thespians, a script is still a lethal weapon.

And then there's this (http://www.imago.hitherby.com/?p=31)

Quote"Rubber ducky," says Morpheus, "you're the One."

Quote from: YamoIt's more the tone of her work (it's fruitier than a Wiccan faerie vampyre sipping absinthe while browsing the discount cape rack at Hot Topic) combined with the horrid fawning from her creepy fans.

I see what you mean about the horrid fawning from her creepy fans :)

QuoteI rather like Rebecca.

Yeah. Like I said, I honestly don't like her work or her hardcore fanboys, but she conducts herself fine online and I'm sure she's very nice in person.

Quote from: YamoFor what it's worth, she's not *really* a lunatic, in the sense that she seems like an awful, crazy person when she posts.

No, she's a lunatic because SHE IS COMPLETELY FUCKING BATSHIT CRAZY.  If you ever meet her IRL, shoot to kill.  Don't let her get a hold of you.

You think I am joking?

http://imago.hitherby.com/

Specifically:

http://imago.hitherby.com/archives/000062.php

I double dog dare you bitches to read that and remain sane yourselves...

Quote from: CyberzombieI double dog dare you bitches to read that and remain sane yourselves...

Ha!

At least the blog is free. That's nothing compared to buying one of her books and realizing that you just paid for that. :)

Quote from: YamoHa!

At least the blog is free. That's nothing compared to buying one of her books and realizing that you just paid for that. :)

My DM bought the Fair Folk book and refused to stop reading it until he made some sort of logical sense out of it.  After 4 readings, plus consultations on the WW message boards, he finally figured out what that lunatic bitch had *meant* to write...

I was wondering where gleichman went after the big Casanova thread way back in 2003.

Quote from: SpookI was wondering where gleichman went after the big Casanova thread way back in 2003.

Away. It was becoming very clear that RPGNet was not a place that I should be.

Quote from: GunhildaCompletely unrestricted free speech is not a good thing.

I don't know if that's entirely true.  The Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy managed to be very productive for several years, despite periodic hostile messages, without any moderation at all.  It was kept on track by a dedicated core of posters who would take everything anyone said seriously rather than feeding the flames, which would eventually encourage even the worst trolls to leave.  And I'm talking about the post-Eternal September Usenet, too.

If there is moderation, I would personally prefer it to be the sort that's on ENWorld, where the objective is to put a grandmother-friendly face on the hobby.  Basically, I think RPGpundit makes a good point about "lawn-crappers" in hobbies and let's just say that I'd rather a parent researching role-playing on the Internet because their child has expressed interest in it find ENWorld rather than RPGnet, this site, or even RPGpundit's blog.

Quote from: YamoHa!
 
At least the blog is free. That's nothing compared to buying one of her books and realizing that you just paid for that. :)

In that light, it's sort of a public service.
 
Yep. Of the 4 big "rpg.net darling" games of Wushu, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, and Exalted, she is responsible for 3 of them. Meaning roughly 75% of rpg.net's favorite games are pretty much written at least partially in Pure Fucking Gibberish, Batshit Dialect. That's pretty much proof enough that the place pretty much has little basis in reality in regards to this hobby anymore. There's still some good stuff on there, but the amount of shit one has to wade through to get to it continues to rise exponentially.

Quote from: CyberzombieMy DM bought the Fair Folk book and refused to stop reading it until he made some sort of logical sense out of it.  After 4 readings, plus consultations on the WW message boards, he finally figured out what that lunatic bitch had *meant* to write...

I haven't read the Fair Folk book, but you could make the case that being crazy would be an asset when it comes to writing about the personifications of chaos.

Quote from: MaddmanI rather like Rebecca.  Sure Nobilis is pretentious as all fuck, but it's supposed to be.  She's one of the funniest people in gaming as well.  Here's a quote from an RPGnet thread about script immunity, with everyone debating if it made for a good game or not if the players knew their characters couldn't die.

And then there's this (http://www.imago.hitherby.com/?p=31)

I think she mostly offends because she doesn't take this stuff too seriously. It's strange, really: She's villified by people who talk shit about how they just want to play and have fun and not have any artistic pretensions, but of course, a large part of her work is making fun of artistic pretensions by having fun and playing with them, making them work against their original intentions. Like the bit with the duck being a joke at the Matrix's expense.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstIn that light, it's sort of a public service.
 
Yep. Of the 4 big "rpg.net darling" games of Wushu, Nobilis, Weapons of the Gods, and Exalted, she is responsible for 3 of them. Meaning roughly 75% of rpg.net's favorite games are pretty much written at least partially in Pure Fucking Gibberish, Batshit Dialect. That's pretty much proof enough that the place pretty much has little basis in reality in regards to this hobby anymore. There's still some good stuff on there, but the amount of shit one has to wade through to get to it continues to rise exponentially.

Do you have any examples of where rules text she wrote was unclear, or is your particular boat piloted by pure invective and no substance?

Quote from: shooting_diceDo you have any examples of where rules text she wrote was unclear, or is your particular boat piloted by pure invective and no substance?

I'm doggy-paddling.

Off the top of my head, how about:

Weapons of The Gods, pp. 1-384, inclusive?

(And you forgot vitriol). :heh:

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI'm doggy-paddling.

Off the top of my head, how about:

Weapons of The Gods, pp. 1-384, inclusive?

(And you forgot vitriol). :heh:

Can you cite an actual rule or game system that is unclear?

THE ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING FAIR FOLK RULE BOOK, DUMBASS.

The *entire* thing was unclear.  No specific rule, no specific nothing: we're talking front to back, the rules are completely fucking obfuscated with her insanity.

Jesus Fucking Hallmark Christ.  Did you LOOK at the links I provided?  She writes that sort of shit in rule books, too.  I may love Exalted, but she is the fucking bane of the game.

Quote from: CyberzombieJesus Fucking Hallmark Christ.  Did you LOOK at the links I provided?  She writes that sort of shit in rule books, too.  I may love Exalted, but she is the fucking bane of the game.

Please tell me you're overstating that.

On second thought, nevermind. Isn't that sort of the reasonable given the general direction of WW? If one *starts* with Ann Rice, where else is there to go?

Quote from: John MorrowI don't know if that's entirely true.  The Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy managed to be very productive for several years, despite periodic hostile messages, without any moderation at all.  It was kept on track by a dedicated core of posters who would take everything anyone said seriously rather than feeding the flames, which would eventually encourage even the worst trolls to leave.  And I'm talking about the post-Eternal September Usenet, too.

:blahblah:

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

Quote from: John MorrowIf there is moderation, I would personally prefer it to be the sort that's on ENWorld, where the objective is to put a grandmother-friendly face on the hobby.  Basically, I think RPGpundit makes a good point about "lawn-crappers" in hobbies and let's just say that I'd rather a parent researching role-playing on the Internet because their child has expressed interest in it find ENWorld rather than RPGnet, this site, or even RPGpundit's blog.

Fuck the children.  

(Long time Nutkinlanders probably know who I am as soon as I say that.  Keep it under your hat, m'kay?  ;) )

I 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.

Not 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.

Asshole.

Quote from: gleichmanPlease tell me you're overstating that.

On second thought, nevermind. Isn't that sort of the reasonable given the general direction of WW? If one *starts* with Ann Rice, where else is there to go?

I've got to get my DM to actually register here and post in this thread!

Yes, I'm serious.  She's not the only incompetent rules writer there -- I had to re-write the astrology rules to make them even work vaguely like they are supposed to -- but she's the worst offender by far.

Anyone who says differently hasn't actually read what she's written.

Quote from: CyberzombieI've got to get my DM to actually register here and post in this thread!

Yes, I'm serious.  She's not the only incompetent rules writer there -- I had to re-write the astrology rules to make them even work vaguely like they are supposed to -- but she's the worst offender by far.

Anyone who says differently hasn't actually read what she's written.

I can appreciate (some of) her fiction. I don't understand how she got free reins on the rules as well. Craziness.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI can appreciate (some of) her fiction. I don't understand how she got free reins on the rules as well. Craziness.

Because story type 'designers' and fans don't know the difference.

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.

The core people from .advocacy had no moderator powers at all.  Just a consensus on the kinds of thing that were going to be talked about.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe core people from .advocacy had no moderator powers at all.  Just a consensus on the kinds of thing that were going to be talked about.

Irrelevent 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.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't know if that's entirely true.  The Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy managed to be very productive for several years, despite periodic hostile messages, without any moderation at all.  It was kept on track by a dedicated core of posters who would take everything anyone said seriously rather than feeding the flames, which would eventually encourage even the worst trolls to leave.  And I'm talking about the post-Eternal September Usenet, too.

If there is moderation, I would personally prefer it to be the sort that's on ENWorld, where the objective is to put a grandmother-friendly face on the hobby.  Basically, I think RPGpundit makes a good point about "lawn-crappers" in hobbies and let's just say that I'd rather a parent researching role-playing on the Internet because their child has expressed interest in it find ENWorld rather than RPGnet, this site, or even RPGpundit's blog.

Most 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?

ENWorld 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.

Quote from: PookaAD&D 2nd edition sans anything the Christian right could be offended by anyone?

Sigh.

Quote from: gleichmanOn second thought, nevermind. Isn't that sort of the reasonable given the general direction of WW? If one *starts* with Ann Rice, where else is there to go?

What does Exalted have to do with Anne Rice?  Did she write some manga I haven't heard about?

I'm starting to suspect you don't know what the fuck.

Quote from: MaddmanWhat does Exalted have to do with Anne Rice?  Did she write some manga I haven't heard about?

I'm starting to suspect you don't know what the fuck.

Exalted is a White Wolf product is it not? White Wolf published VtM which was influenced to a large extent by Anne Rice and in general built a market niche around the idea of being counter-cultural. Expanding that niche would on the face of it require...

Know what?

Nevermind. Forget I said anything.

Quote from: CyberzombieI double dog dare you bitches to read that and remain sane yourselves...

I think I'm still sane...  I'm questioning it so I think that's a good sign.  However that was very strange indeed...

Quote from: cnath.rmI think I'm still sane...  I'm questioning it so I think that's a good sign.  However that was very strange indeed...

Okay, so I hyperbolize.  I do that a lot.  :D

Still, it's the sort of thing I make other people read 'cause I want others to know and share in my pain.  :deviousgrin:

Quote from: CyberzombieSpecifically:

http://imago.hitherby.com/archives/000062.php

I double dog dare you bitches to read that and remain sane yourselves...

Quote from: BorgstromOne shouldn't encourage Sauron-Frodo slash. That's a growing problem for the Internet! So there's no sex here. Just a soft and tenderhearted story of love against all odds! As Frodo burns in those terrible flames of love, unconsumed and unconsummated, his eyes meet Sauron. They shiver with tenderness. He understands.

:win:

[EDIT as I've read more of the site] That stuff is funny is the I'm-bored-with-work-si-I'll-read-some-entertaining-nonsense-instead-way. Sort of like Algolei.

And you're a grumpy non-humorous bastard in the I'm-so-pissed-because-I-read-the-whole-damn-Sauron-and-Frodo-story-only-to-find-out-that-there-was-no-sex-way. Sort of like Gleichman.

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.

I think you're stretching the term.  But, still, I see your point, and it's true enough.

Quote from: PookaIf 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?

Gleichman, I have a question for you: don't you think that the stupidity in 2nd edition, where they re-named devils and demons into random assemblages of letters was a bad thing?  It was a sop to religious types who are going to oppose roleplaying no matter what is done, anyway.  I think such weasely behavir is awful, no matter what group you are trying to suck up to.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI think you're stretching the term.  But, still, I see your point, and it's true enough.

I don't think so at all.  The users of a place moderate discussion as much as the people in charge (assuming anyone is in charge at all), if not more.

Do you think I care about the theory discussions?  Most of the other Nutkins?  Nope.  Couldn't care less.  But that is where the discussion has gone and so we just go with it.  That's why Pooka put in the Fluff and Crunch forums -- to help you guys talk about what you want to talk about.

At the moment, you are as much a moderator as I am, because you choose to be.  You don't have any official power, but that doesn't matter.

Quote from: GunhildaGleichman, I have a question for you:

My sigh was in repect to the blanket painting of the "Christian Right", not the specifics of 2e.

Quote from: GunhildaDo you think I care about the theory discussions?  Most of the other Nutkins?  Nope.  Couldn't care less.  But that is where the discussion has gone and so we just go with it.  That's why Pooka put in the Fluff and Crunch forums -- to help you guys talk about what you want to talk about.

I do apologize for helping to inspire a binge of somewhat out-of-place theory - it tends to happen anywhere I go online, if it wasn't there already.  

Quote from: GunhildaAt the moment, you are as much a moderator as I am, because you choose to be.  You don't have any official power, but that doesn't matter.

The nutkin is scaring me.  Make it stop. Make the bad Nutkin go away.

Quote from: gleichmanMy sigh was in repect to the blanket painting of the "Christian Right", not the specifics of 2e.

I can't and won't speak for Pooka but, for me, it was the attempt at PC-ing the game to appeal to people who won't like it anyway that was the real problem, not the specific group.

I get just as pissed off when I read "Lizardfolk" in the current version instead of "Lizardmen".  Like we fucking care what genitalia they have!  Arrrgggghhhh!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI do apologize for helping to inspire a binge of somewhat out-of-place theory - it tends to happen anywhere I go online, if it wasn't there already.

You don't have to apologize, though.  If that's what the audience wants, we'll help facilitate it.  It's definitely not the sort of conversations we've had on Nutkinland before, so it makes for an interesting change.

Who knows -- you might even make me care eventually.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe nutkin is scaring me.  Make it stop. Make the bad Nutkin go away.

:bow:  I live but to serve.

Quote from: GunhildaI can't and won't speak for Pooka but, for me, it was the attempt at PC-ing the game to appeal to people who won't like it anyway that was the real problem, not the specific group.

I have no fondness at all for the PC crowd.

Neither does a lot of other right-wing Christians.

Quote from: GunhildaI get just as pissed off when I read "Lizardfolk" in the current version instead of "Lizardmen".  Like we fucking care what genitalia they have!  Arrrgggghhhh!

Agreed, no reason to care, they are to be destroyed....

On the PC front, I'm all for not ticking people off, but I'm not going to change a whole pile of things simply to go out of my way to avoid it.

Quote from: cnath.rmOn the PC front, I'm all for not ticking people off, but I'm not going to change a whole pile of things simply to go out of my way to avoid it.

Personally, I'm all *for* pissing off people who take offense easily.  :heh:

Quote from: CyberzombiePersonally, I'm all *for* pissing off people who take offense easily.  :heh:

I can understand that point as well, I've enjoyed doing that at times in the past, :heh: and I'm sure that I will again.

Quote from: gleichmanSigh.

Who else where they trying *not* to offend Gleich?  I was introduced to D&D at Oneida Baptist Institute. When the faculty found our books they burned them, beat all involved severely and made us work 12 hour days turning pig manure piles in 100 degree temperatures for a month (There's a reason why survivors call that school Hellneida). I was 10.

Given what happened at that god-forsaken place I wonder sometimes why I have any faith left at all - but that's another topic.

TSR made it PC precisely because that's what they perceived members of that demographic wanted.

Quote from: PookaWho else where they trying *not* to offend Gleich?

I already answered this.

Quote from: CyberzombieTHE ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING FAIR FOLK RULE BOOK, DUMBASS.

The *entire* thing was unclear.  No specific rule, no specific nothing: we're talking front to back, the rules are completely fucking obfuscated with her insanity.

Jesus Fucking Hallmark Christ.  Did you LOOK at the links I provided?  She writes that sort of shit in rule books, too.  I may love Exalted, but she is the fucking bane of the game.

I'm familiar with her. In fact, I've spoken to her a couple of times. I haven't seen anyone cite an actual system or page reference that they found unclear yet. Instead, 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.

Personally, I think in Exalted: The Sidereals, Sidereal Astrology is poorly organized, but I'm not sure whether or not its her work. By contrast, her Sidereal MA charms are nice and crunchy and are accompanied by the kind of stylistic game setting descriptions you're on about.

The fact is, bitching about someone's game design by referring to elements that are not rules design is a clear sign of bullshit argument. Piss or get off the pot.

Quote from: PookaI was introduced to D&D at Oneida Baptist Institute. When the faculty found our books they burned them, beat all involved severely and made us work 12 hour days turning pig manure piles in 100 degree temperatures for a month (There's a reason why survivors call that school Hellneida). I was 10.

wow, that's some serious bullshit.  really.  :(

Quote from: shooting_diceThe fact is, bitching about someone's game design by referring to elements that are not rules design is a clear sign of bullshit argument. Piss or get off the pot.

I personally don't recall claiming to hate anything about her work other than the loopy prose.

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.

Quote from: shooting_diceMind you, that's unnecessary, because you'll reveal it to this lot in time anyway..

You bore me child.

Quote from: shooting_diceHell, I feel sorry for Nisarg because you like him.

It should be clear from my posts here that I don't like RPGPundit. I do agree with his dislike of the Forge however. And I do agree with him that moderation at RPGNet is biased and heavy handed.

Other than that, we don't agree on anything that I know of.

Quote from: gleichmanYou bore me child.

If I keep at it, will you run away from the internet again?