Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;413652Yeah. I already kinda miss the crazy f*cker - but you can't say he wasn't warned.

Don't worry - i'm sure a sock is imminent. Someone who has the stamina to pursue Ed over several boards, imitate him on another and hold a grudge against Maclennan for 6 six years over calling him fat, is a tenacious so-and-so.

Quote from: Sigmund;413596That, however, doesn't fit the portrait you'd like to paint of him now, so of course you don't agree.

I don't have to paint a portrait. He's graced this very thread with his presence and commentary. Folks can see for themselves how well he reacts to certain stimuli - for example, being told that he didn't actually win his silly war.

Quote from: Sigmund;413596...so enjoy your semantic jerk-off, confident in the knowledge that you can do it here without getting the digital boot in the ass.

Except I've already been threatened on more than one occasion with the boot. Once for saying he was like the moderators at The Big Purple. What rule does that break again?

Moreover, someone was banned in this very thread.

And this thread isn't in his section.

And so on...

Seanchai

I'd never heard of swine, or the Forge for that matter, until I came to this site.

I have no idea who Ron Edwards is and I've never heard of Sorcerer, a game apparently.

I had no idea there was a war going on.

Is it ok if I'm not a hip gamer?  I only know D&D and other brand names, you know - games that actually got published?

Oh wait.

I wouldn't be hip playing those indy games, and my players would kindly tell me to fuck off and make with the Dark Heresy.

I'm not sure what the victory is about, or who exactly theRPGsite beat, or why Forge was at war with us.

Eh.  Probably doesn't matter, since I never heard of them anyways (beside you guys going on about them over here).  I never even checked out a link or followed up on a conversation where one of the Forge games was mentioned.

It should be noted that even if you have never heard of them or have no idea who they are, you can still use "Forge" as an insult here.  I like that.

Quote from: Seanchai;413650Having been threatened with banning for saying he was a bad moderator, I disagree. It's easy to think he's the bees' knees when you're kissing his ass, but when you actually say things he doesn't like, the mask starts to slip and you begin to understand what actually motivates him.

Seanchai

Don't see you building and maintaining a website/discussion forum. Don't see you writing games. Don't see you leaving since it sucks so much around here. Do you do anything other than whine, troll and badmouth most of the time (I include the qualifier because you very occasionally actually contribute positively, which is like a breath of fresh air)? I'm not seeing anything. What's motivating you? Are you some kind of crusader for truth and freedom, or just the contentious troll you appear to be? What makes you think you're qualified to throw stones?

Quote from: Sigmund;413655I agree with you kinda, but Cylon has harassed Ed remorselessly even when Ed wasn't even involved. Even when it didn't have anyting to do with RPGs. He was warned more than once. Criminy, get a clue Cylon.

It's not that you don't have a point; I just feel, as a poster, that it's not good for the site overall to be banning on those grounds. I think the ban warnings aren't really even a mitigating factor; a lot of ban warnings can be almost as bad as bans; it's hard not to ban someone after warning, and even in a more even-tempered poster than Cylon, a ban warning often seems in practice to act more as a challenge to continue the behavior than anything else. So "warning more than once" in some cases is just winding up publicly for the ban. That's what makes it feel like closer to an RPGnet style ban than other situations I've seen here.

Quote from: Settembrini;413587I also think, as Frank does, that 4th Edition is the biggest success for Ron, and that the influence that he had on D&D is the greatest threat D&D faced stemming from homegrown reasons.

EDIT: Thus, no congratulations for Pundit at this time. When Mike earls gets axed, and fifth edition is announced, the horror will be over with once and for all.

What would be hilarious is after Mearls gets fired, they hire somebody like James Maliszewski (the grognardia guy) to create 5E D&D.  :rotfl:

Quote from: Seanchai;413660I don't have to paint a portrait. He's graced this very thread with his presence and commentary. Folks can see for themselves how well he reacts to certain stimuli - for example, being told that he didn't actually win his silly war.

Yet you're still able to be here and badmouth him.

QuoteExcept I've already been threatened on more than one occasion with the boot. Once for saying he was like the moderators at The Big Purple. What rule does that break again?

Moreover, someone was banned in this very thread.

And this thread isn't in his section.

And so on...

Seanchai

Except, you're still here badmouthing him. His forum, his rules. He can put a thread anywhere he wants, just like when you go make your own forum, you can do what you want. Do I need to stop using the big words?

Kicking off with a classic rant from Pundit in his peak mirror-Ron glory, with an extra helping of delusional self-aggrandizing, quickly followed cross-forum drama, sycophancy from his sycophants, detraction from his detractors (with attendent bilious response), a random twit-banning, and side-serving of edition wars, is this the best RPGsite thread ever?

Quote from: Sigmund;413664Don't see you building and maintaining a website/discussion forum. Don't see you writing games. Don't see you leaving since it sucks so much around here. Do you do anything other than whine, troll and badmouth most of the time (I include the qualifier because you very occasionally actually contribute positively, which is like a breath of fresh air)? I'm not seeing anything. What's motivating you? Are you some kind of crusader for truth and freedom, or just the contentious troll you appear to be? What makes you think you're qualified to throw stones?

Are you always this foul-tempered when you lose? Here's the thing: You didn't stand a chance because I'm right about Pundit. I'm right about his moderation practices. I'm right about what motivates him. I know it. He knows it. And now you know it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;413660Except I've already been threatened on more than one occasion with the boot. Once for saying he was like the moderators at The Big Purple. What rule does that break again?

Pundit isn't anything like the Mods at rpgnet. Especially the heavy-handed one's over there. He rarely bans anyone that I've seen.

The fact taht you troll at every forum you belong to doesn't give you much in the way of credibility either.

So in the words of my people: Aren't you just precious?

Quote from: two_fishes;413670Kicking off with a classic rant from Pundit in his peak mirror-Ron glory, with an extra helping of delusional self-aggrandizing, quickly followed cross-forum drama, sycophancy from his sycophants, detraction from his detractors (with attendent bilious response), a random twit-banning, and side-serving of edition wars, is this the best RPGsite thread ever?

Quite possibly!

Quote from: Sigmund;413669Yet you're still able to be here and badmouth him.

Badmouth him? I'm doing nothing of the sort. His moderation practices came up again - and not because of my doing - and I responded with calm, accurate statements about his past attempts at moderation. That said attempts are negative are his doing, not mine.

Moreover, your dislike of me doesn't make it "badmouthing."

Finally, isn't it just a tad hypocritical of you to be flinging around that word?

Seanchai

Quote from: Cole;413666It's not that you don't have a point; I just feel, as a poster, that it's not good for the site overall to be banning on those grounds. I think the ban warnings aren't really even a mitigating factor; a lot of ban warnings can be almost as bad as bans; it's hard not to ban someone after warning, and even in a more even-tempered poster than Cylon, a ban warning often seems in practice to act more as a challenge to continue the behavior than anything else. So "warning more than once" in some cases is just winding up publicly for the ban. That's what makes it feel like closer to an RPGnet style ban than other situations I've seen here.

I think that's a problem with your perceptions then. Warning someone that they are engaging in an activity that might get them banned is providing them an opportunity to cease what they are doing to avoid the ban. the difference is in how it's delivered. RPG.net mods have no qualms about altering/removing people's posts with alarming frequency, and almost sem to relish banning folks... wielding power for what that's worth. Just looking at the nature and frequency of bans here reveals the difference immediately, despite what Seanchai is trolling about. We engage in personal attacks and foul language and thread hijacks and even trolling all the time without fear of being stifled or edited, with very few exceptions. I don't see Pundit or OHT or anyone else around here wielding the ban-hammer with near the relish or frequency that I've seen at RPG.net, and hell I've never even been a regular there. Still just what filters over here demonstrates what a shitty place for discussion that is. I would not personally have banned Cylon yet, but he has harassed Ed (who has actually taken it pretty well all things considered) pointlessly and needs to just get the fuck over it. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it Cylon being removed. Ed has been here longer and contributed more over the years and deserves to not have some idiot badmouthing him constantly.

Quote from: two_fishes;413670Kicking off with a classic rant from Pundit in his peak mirror-Ron glory, with an extra helping of delusional self-aggrandizing, quickly followed cross-forum drama, sycophancy from his sycophants, detraction from his detractors (with attendent bilious response), a random twit-banning, and side-serving of edition wars, is this the best RPGsite thread ever?

Again, this place is too much fun.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;413584That is an actual part of the theory, by the way, that's not just me making fun of them:

• An individual player is either Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, and not some mix of the three.
  
• A game should, and indeed needs to appeal to just one of those things at a time.
  
• A game attempting to appeal on multiple levels makes it worse at appealing to whatever level it is actually appealing on, making the game experience worse.
• Playing games is SERIOUS BUSINESS.
• Individual Players have specific questions they want answered by participating in the game.

And that's all fascinating. But why should you care?

You should care because Mike Mearls is one of the people who claims to subscribe to at least part of GNS theory. When they were trotting out 4th edition D&D, they really used Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism as real terms in their actual puff pieces without a trace of irony or derision. And while they did not use those terms in a manner consistent with having done more than the most cursory skimming of Ron Edwards' actual material, they did nonetheless use enough of the terminology that it seems likely that they were influenced in some way by Forge thought. And indeed, they really did make a game that went out of its way to not appeal on multiple levels, exactly as Forge theory would suggest.

VERY MUCH this. I don't think you're targeting the right person (Mike Mearls - I'd look more towards guys like Andy Collins personally), but Quoted for motherfucking truth nonetheless: the basic relationship between the tenets of GNS, particularly how a game should be G or N or S, not a combination of those things, and how it influenced the original 4e design.

It also ties in with my earlier comments about the new Swine worshipping at the altar of Fun™. It's not about Melan's Tyranny of Fun post so much as it is about this, the GNS model, in particular.