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

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.

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.

Andrew Norris wrote: 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.

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

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."

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

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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

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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

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

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

-Vincent

Just to get back on the original topic...

lumpley wrote: 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.

Hey,

I say keep it open, if anyone else wants to weigh in on the original topic. A number of people have objected to over-speedy thread closing. If no one else wants to add stuff, then it'll just close on its own.

Best,
Ron

Hmmm...I wanted to say something on the side issue, but let me address the original topic first.

I'll confess that I leave a lot of the new games discussions to people like Mike. I don't read most of them. Reading the outline of an entire game is more than I can do every evening, and there are just too many of them to keep straight. I will pop in on a thread if the subject line suggests that it is a very focused question that doesn't require me to have a thorough knowledge of someone's game design, and it's an area in which I think I can contribute; but most of the game design threads go past my eyes as a titles-only blur.

I deal mostly with RPG Theory and GNS Discussion, where I try to read every post on every thread (although lately I've skimmed a few there). I do put an effort into helping people get their theory straight, or at least letting them know when they're confusing the issue by trying to use terms that don't mean what they think. I will also often look at a game because someone specifically asked me to do so.

I'm here to help, certainly; I hope I do so in a manner which puts the Forge in a positive light. I can't help every game designer, because I have too much else on my plate. I think if I did try to help even so many as Mike does, I'd be short with many of them, too. There are a lot of people designing games, and that's very demanding on those who, like Mike, are willing to take the time to read them all. Maybe I'm just a slow reader; maybe it's because I don't do the Forge in my spare minutes at work, but in a focused push late at night before I can go to bed. I admire his efforts; I couldn't do it myself.

So thank God for Mike, and may he find patience in dealing with so many game designers.

As to the side issue, I don't know Chris Pramas at all, but I've often recognized in Gareth Michael Skarka what appears to me, at least, to be a sort of arrogance. His articles on Why Gamers Suck are certainly exemplery of that. It was nearing three years ago that he was invited to write a weekly column at Gaming Outpost, and to be paid for the effort, and he accepted. I and two others also wrote columns for pay there, so that with the site owner there were to be new columns every weekday. Skarka immediately took the attitude that GO had hired all the wrong people--that only he was worth the money they were paying, and only he should have been given the job; that they should have found people who were of the same stature in the gaming world as he was to write the columns on the other days.

His column was particularly sporadic. He sometimes skipped a couple of weeks here and there. When he did write, he often wrote very insulting pieces about what's wrong with the people who buy the games in this hobby and pay for the subscriptions that funded his writing. He seemed to be out to pick fights, always with a chip on his shoulder, always trying to stir up anger and ire on the forum in response to his work.

Then Gaming Outpost started to go under. Subscription money did not keep pace with expenses. They announced that they were going to have to exercise their option and end the contracts. We had the options of finishing out the month's notice or not, for which they promised to pay us when they could, and of continuing to publish our work on a profit sharing basis in the future.

Skarka immediately stopped writing. I recall he made several snide comments about how he had warned them about hiring second-rate writers like the rest of us. He also said that since he made his living writing, he was never going to write anything for free again.

He was certainly within his rights to decide not to write anymore, or to refuse to write for free anymore. However, he came across as extremely arrogant about the entire thing. He, in his mind, is one of the big names in this business, and that matters to him.

Now, maybe that makes me overly sensitive; maybe I expect him to troll and attempt to stir up reaction. So maybe when I see him making comments that could be interpreted badly, I'm more likely to interpret them badly. It might be that I should have and could have interpreted his comments more generously. However, I would wager that I am not the only person who sees this in Mr. Skarka; I would bet that a large number of Forge subscribers remember run-ins with him at GO and perhaps elsewhere in which his attitude of being one of the important people in the role playing game publishing world and being permitted to, as they say, pee on the peons, has been offensive and disruptive. Thus my reaction would be to shut it down when it shows its first signs of rearing its ugly antagonistic head, because I don't believe the man can engage in reasonable dialogue. I've never seen him do it, that I recall.

I think Ron exercised significant patience and restraint in that situation.

But as I say, having seen Mr. Skarka's venomous rhetoric elsewhere, I may be biased.

--M. J. Young

So, Ron---

Where's the moderation of MJ?

Oh-wait....that's right. You only moderate when you perceive a slight against either The Forge or yourself. Blatant character assassination and libel against someone in "the industry" is just fine.

A fair amount of moderation at this site happens behind the scenes, by private message. I apologize for the content of my post that was inappropriate to the mission of The Forge; it was unnecessary, and I have been told this privately.

I also apologize if anything I wrote about Mr. Skarka was false, or a mischaracterization of the truth, or if I have indeed (as I admitted was possible) put the worst construction on his comments instead of (as I try to do with most posters) the best.

--M. J. Young

Gareth, and anyone else to whom this might apply now or in the future,

Regardless of whether or not you were wronged, the above is not ever an appropriate way to interact here (or anywhere in the adult world). If you cannot imagine how else you could have or should have posted the above, then I suggest you private message myself or someone else here whom you feel you can trust, and ask for help with phrasing your criticisms.

Otherwise, it is simply the airing of personal grudges in public; a private soap opera of the ego that serves no one and detracts from everyone. Nurse your personal grudges in private, the same place you should deal with them.

So..."It could be worse."
Yes, it could. This, and similar recent instances by various parties, could be the standard fare on this site. That it isn't and hasn't been says a great deal about our community, its policies, and our moderators.

Yeah, greyorm, I felt pretty much the same way when I read that post. I didn't realize it was one of the people being discussed. Humorously, I was going to say that was a good example of "crossing the line" into area that might need moderation, but since MJ responded to it politely, I didn't feel it was necessary to say anything. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought it was childish and innapropriate, though.

Andrew Morris wrote: Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought it was childish and innapropriate, though.

Thread's closed.

Best,
Ron

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, didn't hit Refresh before I posted my reply. Post deleted. Thread closed.

Gahhhh! Thread's closed. If you guys really were cult members, I wouldn't have this problem ...

Best,
Ron