It Could Be Worse

[lumpley]

Cranky post by me:

I remember a time, maybe a year and a half ago, when new people would come to the Forge, post in Indie Game Design, and ... their games would fall off the front page uncommented upon.  The perception then was that the Forge wasn't helpful, that we here claimed to be about supporting game designers but we didn't follow through.  Mike Holmes is single-handedly following through.

I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but when someone posts a piece of total crap unchallenged-assumption conventional lame ass game idea, Mike will comment and he'll somehow be constructive.  I won't.  I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

So some historical context for those of you complaining about the Forge's (in)accessibility.  Maybe consider how much less civil the Forge would be if we left the meet-and-greeting up to me.  I'm the one you should have a problem with.

-Vincent

[Valamir]

Yup.  I completely abuse Mike.

When I'm stressed for time, I often won't even read the initial post on the game.  I'll just scroll down to Mike's comments.  If I see him giving the same advice I've seen a million times, I skip it entirely.  If I see him comment favorably on some aspect, I'll generally dig deeper.

Totally horrible behavior that really takes advantage of poor Mike's dedication.  'fraid so.  But I mention it to give credit where its due.  The indie game design forum would be a pretty sad place without him.

[Andrew Norris]

I have to agree (and I don't want to sound like a hypocrite). It's good that people are willing to wrestle with the issues presented here, and trying to impose some kind of tea-and-cake "niceness" wouldn't do any of us any good.

I think it's a good thing that Forge discussions are full of people who have strong opinions and are fired up about what they believe in. That makes for a healthy community. Everyone's "lines" for what they personally consider too intense a discussion are different. I trust Ron to handle that, and when I read something that I personally take issue with in tone, I would certainly rather have a place where people all feel free to speak their mind than one in which people are afraid to disagree or to heatedly engage in discussion.

[John Kim]

I think it's a good thing that Forge discussions are full of people who have strong opinions and are fired up about what they believe in. That makes for a healthy community. Everyone's "lines" for what they personally consider too intense a discussion are different. I trust Ron to handle that, and when I read something that I personally take issue with in tone, I would certainly rather have a place where people all feel free to speak their mind than one in which people are afraid to disagree or to heatedly engage in discussion.

OK, here's the problem.  You're speaking out in favor of heated discussion and speaking of one's mind.  I'm actually in complete agreement with you.  

But here's my beef -- if we're going to dole out sharp criticism, like Mike Holmes' reviews of dull fantasy RPGs, then we have to be open to sharp criticism ourselves.  This means, IMO, that folks like Chris Pramas and Gareth-Michael Skarka need to have their say without being threatened with moderator action for speaking their minds.  In other threads, we tolerate much sharper hostility than either of them showed -- the only difference was that theirs was directed at The Forge, instead of at some newcomers game or the industry.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

Speaking as the moderator, I disagree with you fully.

Neither Chris nor Gareth was moderated for "speaking their minds." They were moderated for bullying, vicious, and outright nasty behavior - the kind of thing that most people realize they cannot do without incurring major social and possibly physical backlash.

Disagree with me? That's possible. I stand by this judgment, and furthermore suggest that anyone who thinks I, myself, was threatened or insulted by either person should re-consider that perception seriously. Not that it matters, actually; this isn't about me.

The rules are clear. You cannot flip out at level 11 when someone disagrees with you, not here. You cannot play "post like a dick, then accuse whoever responds of being a dick." These games aren't tolerated. Neither Chris nor Gareth has any claim to have offered a legitimate point of debate or discussion - those were merely flip posts which then transmogrified to outrage/insult, 0 to 60.

So no, John, I don't buy it. When someone speaks his or her mind, I expect to see their minds, not their egos, their perceived self-images, their ability to win minor status-points, nor their skill at making others lose their cool.

And again, many people with extensive RPG publishing backgrounds have posted here, very positively, and will continue to do so. Many people without such backgrounds do so as well. I consider them the same basic people, with the same obligations and the same expectations.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

EDIT: cross-posted with Ron (seems to be happening alot lately...and what are YOU doing up this late? Heh.)

Which is exactly why there will be tea-and-cakes discussion. Lest this become the ass-end of the internet, like (godsforbid) Usenet.

I'm all for getting excited about the subject matter and letting that show in your posts, but there's reasons for setting standards of decency and treatment of fellow posters, in how one is to talk to others and discuss contentionous topics, and I wish they were damn well implemented in more places on-line and off.

So, I'm completely and utterly opposed to the idea of heated discussion combined with simply speaking one's mind (as though that is some sort of good thing). "Speaking one's mind" and "waving one's dick" are two nearly inseperable concepts, and it doesn't serve us at all as either community nor as thinkers and developers.

There's a reason nearly every culture has a saying like "Fools speak, wise men listen."

[Brad Renfro]

Sorry, Ron, but you're wrong here.  Your moderation of Pramas had much more to do with you than with anything he posted.  It was obvious that your ego was bruised - likely because you suspect him of looking down on you as a "publisher" - and you overreacted.

Brad

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

You can question my moderation, that's fine. I get a lot of that, once in a while. We're talking about words on a screen, and what they convey, or fail to convey.

You're also free to interpret them, in terms of my feelings and motives, as you see fit. That's what anyone does with what anyone else says.

There's really no point in arguing about it; your post simply indicates that you don't believe me. I think it would have been more civil and accurate to say "I do not believe you" rather than "you are wrong," as neither of us is telepathic. But if that's your impression, then there it is.

If anyone has any trouble seeing the exact place in the thread where Chris Pramas crossed the line, I will tell you: it is where he accused me of a deliberate falsehood (lying), as opposed to a mistake. Associated with that, he chose to combine that accusation with a complete condemnation of many things along with myself. Bluntly, he threw a tantrum. Such behavior is SOP in many internet interactions.

However, here, that's the line. It's not disagreeing with me about the role of distribution in publishing RPGs, and it's not his correction of my error. Nor is it about status, as I have never bothered myself about "real" or "legitimate" distinctions in publishing. It's seizing the opportunity to behave in an infantile way.

Such behavior toward anyone on the Forge isn't permitted. That it was directed toward me muddies the waters, and makes it hard to see the guy-who-posts vs. the-moderator, but it doesn't change the basic issue.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

There's really no point in arguing about it; your post simply indicates that you don't believe me. I think it would have been more civil and accurate to say "I do not believe you" rather than "you are wrong," as neither of us is telepathic. But if that's your impression, then there it is.  

Well, I agree with Brad, and I don't think telepathy is needed.  We all saw what Chris and Gareth wrote, and we saw the responses.  In my opinion, these were both bad calls -- and further I think you are deceiving yourself if you imagine that this is some sort of objective line.  People (including you and me) engage in this level of hostility regularly on The Forge -- whether against the industry, or railroading GMs, or immersive players, or sexist designers, or various other categories -- and generally those responsible get at most moderator comments to slow down in their posting, or a general chide at everyone on the thread.  

As moderator, it's your mistake to make, but as a Forge member I feel the need to speak up publically -- to counterbalance the impression that this is representative of the Forge in general.

[lumpley]

Hey guys.  Get a room!  Or your own thread!  I don't see how "did Ron do right by Chris Pramas?" has anything to do with acknowledging the valuable outreach Mike Holmes does here, or kicking shit out of me and Ralph (and anyone else who's willing to step forward) for not doing our civil share.

-Vincent

[ethan_greer]

Edit: Whoops, cross-posted with Vincent.

What does any of this have to do with Vincent's original post?

Vincent, I disagree.  I think the one people should have a problem with is really me, not you. You're all kid-friendly and cuddly.

It's time to confess. I'm the one Chris was talking about.  Any perception on the part of others that I think I'm better than them is 100% accurate.

[Andrew Morris]

As moderator, it's your mistake to make, but as a Forge member I feel the need to speak up publically -- to counterbalance the impression that this is representative of the Forge in general.

As a Forge newbie, I'd like to comment on this. I don't really know what the start of this whole Pramas/Ron issue is, but I'm already sick of hearing about it. The back and forth of who was in the wrong is the only thing that's negatively affected my image of the Forge so far.

There was an argument, both sides think their actions were justified. Great, move on, please. As far as I can tell, revisiting the issue does nothing to improve the site, and in fact harms the site's image. I've come across this in more than one post, so obviously it was a big deal, but it's done nothing other than make my Forge experience less enjoyable.

I don't know what happened, and to be bluntly honest, I don't really care. I signed up here to get ideas on game design, not watch a soap-opera argument unfold in cyberspace.

I don't mean this post to be an attack on anyone. Like I said, I'm just giving everyone my perception as a new member.

[Mike Holmes]

Like Andrew said.

Further, while I'm moved by the sentiments that you've posted, Vincent, Ralph, again, again, again, I'm just one part of The Forge. As such, let's keep any congratulatory posts to PMs, and leave this forum for discussion of things that affect everyone.

As Andrew points out, there's little use in dragging this all over and over again. If people have problems with Ron, mail him. I don't see that any of this is fit subject matter for this forum, and (ironically) I apologize if my apology in the other thread was in any way the cause of any of this.

Hear, hear, let's move on.

Mike

[lumpley]

Mike, you got it.  Ron, I'm set, care to close?

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Just to get back on the original topic...

I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but when someone posts a piece of total crap unchallenged-assumption conventional lame ass game idea, Mike will comment and he'll somehow be constructive.  I won't.  I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

Vincent, do me a favor. When I finish my first game and post it for review, don't just roll your eyes and move on if it's crap. Tell me it's crap, and tell me why it's crap. I can handle it, and I value criticism more than praise or overly-polite suggestions. Hell, to be honest, I'd rather hear that my basic fundamental ideas sucked and that I should start over than get some general advice or ways to make the game not suck as much.