Rules Discussion

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
CRKrueger CRKrueger has a point — politics fundamentally changes a message board. RPGnet is a prime example of a board that's been completely transformed, and not always in a good way, by the political leanings of its staff. Conversely, theRPGsite's own transformation into a politically aligned board began the day the site owner decided to prop it up as the dissenting alternative to RPGnet and/or his private soapbox.

That being said, I am super iffy on suspending debate on (or at least, as TristramEvans TristramEvans suggests, acknowledgement of) the fact that some of the hobby's most beloved creators may have shown deplorable, Mad Men levels of misogynistic behavior. It is a "topic ban" of the sort that tends to work out disproportionately in favor of those who benefit from silence and from maintenance of the status quo.

My humble proposal us that posters may be allowed to allude to the incident, but that the community as a whole will commit to not passing judgement on either party, or making an extended debate on current gender issues out of it, except maybe over private messaging.

Just my .02.
 
Why don't you tell me why you think my posts were political, but keep in mind that apparently by your own definition, you'll be making political statements. :confused:
That's my entire point. That's what I wanted us to avoid doing in the first place. I had thought that anyone who saw the claims against Frank would think "oh, discussing this is clearly over the RPGPub boundaries. If I want to discuss it there are plenty of other places I can do so, and there is enough to discuss here regarding the kickstarter".

1. Jessica Price is well-known for bringing politics to gaming. It's really her schtick when you look at her social media footprint. Was saying that political?
From what I've seen of her (Which isn't much; I don't follow her as she doesn't produce anything I'm interested in), I don't feel she brings politics into gaming. I feel she is discussing politics that are already there.
If that's the spin you want to put on it, then yeah, you're making a political statement, as am I in this sentence.

2. I question the motive of Dalekdad in wanting to shine the light on RPG creator's "misdeeds", as I think he is politically motivated in doing so. Was saying that political?
Yes, questioning Dalekdad's motives is political ("Let's not change anything" is a political position).

"Why would you want to talk about various creators' misdeeds publicly unless your goal was to "woke" people with the goal of increasing awareness about them, and blackballing them out of the industry?" - This is me describing why I think Dalekdad's motive is political.
Personally, I'd rather people who are subject to these allegations think "I'm very sorry that what I did made people feel that way. I am grateful for the feedback and will not repeat such things in future"... and then actually change, and show it. If they have to suffer by not being invited to things in the mean time, so be it - consequences of their own actions, and all. If it takes discussing it in public to have that effect, great - there are plenty of people who are harassed and abused and don't discuss it, which lets the abusers just keep on doing it.
And I'll freely admit that I have a deeply selfish motivation for this - we keep on hearing stories like this, we keep on hearing from people, and it's generally women but not necessarily exclusively, who've left gaming or stopped going to conventions or whatever as a result of this sort of behaviour - and they are all people who I can no longer game with, who are no longer buying gaming products, who aren't helping introduce new gamers to the hobby, and that is bad for me because that means there are fewer people for me to play with and that less things I like will get created.

I'd think the same if the allegations had been made by Jim Price against Fiona Mentzer.

Was I less than cordial about it? Yes, and purposely so because I'm mighty sick of this shit on my elfgame sites. Being mean isn't political either.
Did I think you being overly aggressive, yeah, probably. But for what it's worth, I thought you were discussing in good faith, even if I disagreed with you.

But this...
Why not just preach to the pulpit about the horror of the industry at awfulpurple, you seem like mod material. Better yet, start your own youtube channel where you can do some in-depth investigative reporting into the lives of everyone who starts a Kickstarter. Make some money and serve the "public interest". :rolleyes:
...is just being a twat. You haven't added value to the conversation here.

Also, you still haven't answered the original question.
Honest question : do you consider your responses and comments on this topic to not be political?
 
CRKrueger CRKrueger has a point — politics fundamentally changes a message board. RPGnet is a prime example of a board that's been completely transformed, and not always in a good way, by the political leanings of its staff. Conversely, theRPGsite's own transformation into a politically aligned board began the day the site owner decided to prop it up as the dissenting alternative to RPGnet and/or his private soapbox.

That being said, I am super iffy on suspending debate on (or at least, as TristramEvans TristramEvans suggests, acknowledgement of) the fact that some of the hobby's most beloved creators may have shown deplorable, Mad Men levels of misogynistic behavior. It is a "topic ban" of the sort that tends to work out disproportionately in favor of those who benefit from silence and from maintenance of the status quo.

My humble proposal us that posters may be allowed to allude to the incident, but that the community as a whole will commit to not passing judgement on either party, or making an extended debate on current gender issues out of it, except maybe over private messaging.

Just my .02.
So you want a gaming site that basically tries, sentences and convicts industry people - without any defense or discussion? How...purple of you?

Seriously man, look at what you get when you put together Dalekdad's and Ladybird's opinions.

Don't mention it - oh no, that's political, therefore you must mention it.
Talk about it in anything other than complete and total acceptance of the allegation - oh no, you can't do that, it's political.

How's that going to be different from rpg.net again?
 
Incidentally, I still advocate a Crowdfunding sub-forum, with a stickied thread at the top that goes over the various recommendations and, more importantly, reasons to be wary of Kickstarter/Indigogo etc creators (for those who dont religiously read Tenkar's Tavern).

So Zak has himself another Kickstarter, someone posts "Watch out! He's transphobic." What do you do then? He obviously couldn't come here to defend himself as that would be "political", right?

Social media witchhunts (and if anyone thinks me using the term witchhunt is political, please go fuck yourself in advance) are not lists of easily confirmed failed or late Kickstarters.
 
So you want a gaming site that basically tries, sentences and convicts industry people - without any defense or discussion? How...purple of you?

Seriously man, look at what you get when you put together Dalekdad's and Ladybird's opinions.

Don't mention it - oh no, that's political, therefore you must mention it.
Talk about it in anything other than complete and total acceptance of the allegation - oh no, you can't do that, it's political.

How's that going to be different from rpg.net again?

Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m advocating. :rolleyes:

Please go back and read my post. All of it. The last paragraph in particular.
 
That's my entire point. That's what I wanted us to avoid doing in the first place. I had thought that anyone who saw the claims against Frank would think "oh, discussing this is clearly over the RPGPub boundaries. If I want to discuss it there are plenty of other places I can do so, and there is enough to discuss here regarding the kickstarter".
How interesting that you only decided to talk to me then instead of Dalekdad for being the one to bring it up in this thread to begin with. By your own definitions of political (which are complete and utter rubbish, btw) you're engaging in political discourse by questioning me and not him, right?

Yes, questioning Dalekdad's motives is political ("Let's not change anything" is a political position).
That's just idiocy, sorry.

I'd think the same if the allegations had been made by Jim Price against Fiona Mentzer.
I'm sure you would, but you'd be just as wrong.

But this...is just being a twat. You haven't added value to the conversation here.
and what did your bosom buddy Dalekdad add here except start this political horseshit all over again in his desire to brand a Scarlet Letter on Frank's career and livelihood?

You're worried about losing people from the hobby? Keep trying to blacklist game writers and enjoy the games you're going to get written by Tumblr bloggers and professional social media +1ers.

Frank made a dumbass old-guy flirty tweet to a person with a blog named nerdyandflirty...he's not Harvey Weinstein for fuck's sake.

Also, you still haven't answered the original question.
I thought I did when I said: Now there were a couple of things I said that by necessity had to involve edging to the line on politics:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m advocating. :rolleyes:

Please go back and read my post. All of it. The last paragraph in particular.

I did. So on a Zak Kickstarter, let's say...

It's perfectly fine to drop the bomb..."Zak has been accused of being a transphobe."
But not ok to actually discuss it and say "Actually Mike Mearls asked everyone with allegations to send the proof to WotC, and they decided there was no proof." because now you're talking about it, and it's political.

Let's face it. If it does not involve actual Kickstarter issues, or actual legal charges, there's a 99% chance that anything someone is going to post is going to be social media political bullshit. If you allow those bombs to be dropped but not discussed, THAT is political.

You're letting people make the allegation under some false claim of being in the Kickstarter interest, and then stifling all discussion about it, essentially letting people hide and abuse the "no-politics" stance of the site.

Or even worse, you're saying some political statements are so vital, that they are allowed to be made, but not then questioned or discussed.

Sorry, if you're going to try to get me to buy Ladybird's argument that somehow a political statement can be less political than not making one, you'll have to go find my alter self in the Bizarro Dimension.
 
Last edited:
Seriously man, look at what you get when you put together Dalekdad's and Ladybird's opinions.

Don't mention it - oh no, that's political, therefore you must mention it.
Talk about it in anything other than complete and total acceptance of the allegation - oh no, you can't do that, it's political.

How's that going to be different from rpg.net again?
That's a very interesting interpretation of my original comment on the matter.
There is also another matter, discussion of which I feel is out-of-scope for this board.
I didn't want us to be having this discussion here in the first place. I've got plenty of places to vent my political opinions - which you're familiar with, actually - and I was quite enjoying not doing so here because it invariably makes the forum shit.

I thought I did when I said: Now there were a couple of things I said that by necessity had to involve edging to the line on politics:
Great, fine. Now can we please get back to discussing what is and isn't a roleplaying game.
 
I did. So on a Zak Kickstarter, let's say...

It's perfectly fine to drop the bomb..."Zak has been accused of being a transphobe."
But not ok to actually discuss it and say "Actually Mike Mearls asked everyone with allegations to send the proof to WotC, and they decided there was no proof." because now you're talking about it, and it's political.

I do not think quoting easily verifiable facts is "debating." I understand debate as an exchange of opinions. Responding to either the abridged or full versions of your hypothetical quote with "bullshit! Storygamer liberals out to get Zak" or "serves him right for being a bully" would be the sort of thing I would consider off-limits.

I don't think there's a perfect approach to this, BTW. I just wanted to voice my reservations. If anyone wants to take me to task on it, or agree or expound further or whatever — please do so in private message, as I'm finding it increasingly unlikely anything good will come out of this particular debate.
 
We're back to calling something political is in itself political, eh? I'm going to make some statements, you tell me whether or not they are political. Just because you don't like them or they may concern someone you consider a political ally doesn't make them political. :p

1. Jessica Price is well-known for bringing politics to gaming. It's really her schtick when you look at her social media footprint. Was saying that political?
2. I question the motive of Dalekdad in wanting to shine the light on RPG creator's "misdeeds", as I think he is politically motivated in doing so. Was saying that political?

In both these cases, rather than dealing with the things people said directly, you are divining their political agendas and attacking them for those agendas rather than actually addressing anything they said. That is a classic political maneuver to turn something into a partisan conflict rather than an actual conversation.


Was I less than cordial about it? Yes, and purposely so because I'm mighty sick of this shit on my elfgame sites. Being mean isn't political either.
I can't speak for everyone, but the reason why I want a forum where people avoid politics is because politics on the Internet is mainly used as an excuse to be mean and less than cordial. Not talking about politics isn't the goal. It is a mean to an ends, which is to be able to talk about elfgames without someone ascribing dark motives to everyone like you have been in this thread.

Could we agree that acknowledging reports of shitty behaviour exist and having a discussion about that behaviour on the forum are two different things and that distinction isn't political in nature?

I think the tone of that discussion is also important. If we do need to step into treacherous waters at times, as seems somewhat unavoidable with talking about Mentzer, people should make a real effort not to act like dicks when talking about. If someone wants to personally mock me about my taste in RPGs, it isn't the biggest deal in the world. I don't want this to be a forum where people need to be scared of getting red texted for personal attacks when joshing around. At the same time, when we have already have a powderkeg of a topic, let's try and ease up on insulting people.

My humble proposal us that posters may be allowed to allude to the incident, but that the community as a whole will commit to not passing judgement on either party, or making an extended debate on current gender issues out of it, except maybe over private messaging.

Yeah. I can agree with that, with my above qualifying comment that we all need to be awfully careful to state our opinions politely and not assume people that disagree with us have a dark agenda.

So Zak has himself another Kickstarter, someone posts "Watch out! He's transphobic." What do you do then? He obviously couldn't come here to defend himself as that would be "political", right?
Just politely post, "I haven't heard of Zak being transphobic. What is the statement in question you are referring to."

I think that when we veer into the these kinds of topics, it is probably best not to see them as things to "win". They either can present evidence or they can't. You don't need to convince that poster that he isn't transphobic. You don't need to convince the rest of us on the forum that the person who believes is is a bad person. Just politely ask for evidence or present your own.

So you want a gaming site that basically tries, sentences and convicts industry people - without any defense or discussion? How...purple of you?
Are we going to use forum names (or nicknames in this case) as dog whistles for political insults. I can't call call you a liberal, commie pinko, social justice warrior, but I can call you "purple" and get my point across. Alternately, I can tell you to take your ideas to the RPGSite as shorthand for calling you an alt-right, nazi, Trumpster.

Is that the way it is going to work?

On top of that, you are really accusing The Butcher of being an RPG.net type? Really? Just take a step back and ask if maybe you are overreaching on your attacks here.
and what did your bosom buddy Dalekdad add here except start this political horseshit all over again in his desire to brand a Scarlet Letter on Frank's career and livelihood?
This here, tying one poster to another so you can hold one responsible for the others ideas. This sucks. I'd call it guilt by association, but I'm not seeing a lot of associating between the two of them.
 
I need RPGnet and RPGSite drama like I need a hole in my head.

I think everyone here knows what the rules are by now and knows how to post. If you are trying to do some stealth political commentary, cut the shit.

I will now go back to my normally nice tone.

:smile:
 
In both these cases, rather than dealing with the things people said directly, you are divining their political agendas and attacking them for those agendas rather than actually addressing anything they said.
So no one said saying nothing IS political, therefore it's perfectly alright to make an exception for Frank's type of sin, huh? Oh why bother, quoting them again won't change anything I guess.

It is a mean to an ends, which is to be able to talk about elfgames without someone ascribing dark motives to everyone like you have been in this thread.
As soon as Dalekdad starts talking about elfgames, I'll be right there with him.

If we do need to step into treacherous waters at times, as seems somewhat unavoidable with talking about Mentzer,
Ok, I wouldn't want to be accused of divining dark motive or anything, so...why are you declaring the Frank case unavoidable?

Just politely post, "I haven't heard of Zak being transphobic. What is the statement in question you are referring to."
Oh come on. You know the second I said that, you or Ladybird would be "no-politicking" my ass from here to Waterdeep, and you'd be right. That's the problem with letting it in to begin with. You let the allegation in, there's no way to deal with it other than this:
1. Not allow anything else, thus letting the original allegation stand.
2. Discuss it, and thus keep the digression going.

I think that when we veer into the these kinds of topics, it is probably best not to see them as things to "win". They either can present evidence or they can't. You don't need to convince that poster that he isn't transphobic. You don't need to convince the rest of us on the forum that the person who believes is is a bad person. Just politely ask for evidence or present your own.
So you would have had me say in this thread, "Sure Dalekdad, start talking about the Mentzer/Price issue." Then I would go and politely post my opinion on the matter, and others would politely post theirs and...So your definition of "no politics" is a polite political discussion as long as we all stay British. Ok, I guess we can ask Tristam and Endless if that's their definition, but I don't think it is, or at least I hope not.

Are we going to use forum names (or nicknames in this case) as dog whistles for political insults. I can't call call you a liberal, commie pinko, social justice warrior, but I can call you "purple" and get my point across. Alternately, I can tell you to take your ideas to the RPGSite as shorthand for calling you an alt-right, nazi, Trumpster.
Lord. Since we both are regulars on that site, so we both know that Brendan does a pretty good job actually of keeping politics out of the main forum, I would assume you were telling me to take it to Pungency. (BTW, notice I didn't take you to task for using the inherently political term "dog whistle", because it's not inherently political, and you weren't using it in the political manner it is sometimes used. ;))

Is that the way it is going to work?
I suppose I can go back to the whole "other site" bullshit with a wink like everyone else does, letting context tell you which site the person means.

On top of that, you are really accusing The Butcher of being an RPG.net type? Really? Just take a step back and ask if maybe you are overreaching on your attacks here.
Of course Butcher isn't an RPG.net type...but that one idea he and Ladybird seem to have, namely that misogyny gets a pass as far as "no politics" goes because to say nothing about it is in itself political is an idea I've seen expressed verbatim on that site many a time, and they don't even pretend to have no politics.

This here, tying one poster to another so you can hold one responsible for the others ideas. This sucks. I'd call it guilt by association, but I'm not seeing a lot of associating between the two of them.
Well, both you and Ladybird seem to be rather upset about my "political" speech, yet Ladybird or even you haven't mentioned anything about the person I was responding to who started this new merry-go-round, except in your case to declare the thing he wants to talk about "unavoidable" and Ladybird saying not talking about it is "no change" and therefore political anyway (echoing one of his own statements). Excuse me for thinking you might have similar views and having the uncivilized audacity to express it sarcastically. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If you are trying to do some stealth political commentary, cut the shit.
FOr the record, I'm not trying to stealth anything. I'm going out of my way to be as overt as possible showing you exactly what you're going to get when you violate your own no-politics policy.
 
Oh, and Baulderstone...
Apparently Tommy read my spoiler and took it in stride, but since you objected...
Define for me, if you would, exactly the political stance I was espousing in Tommy's Kickstarter thread? Please be specific.
 
Oh, and Baulderstone...
Apparently Tommy read my spoiler and took it in stride, but since you objected...
Define for me, if you would, exactly the political stance I was espousing in Tommy's Kickstarter thread? Please be specific.

I actually missed the spoiler when I first replied (saw it right after), but I'm fluent in subtext, and so I figured it out.
 
You know, Krugs, if you want to be hardcore about it, everything is political.

The problem with the Mentzer thing is that Price (a person whose existence before this episode I was only peripherally aware of) has provided what I consider to be sufficient evidence of Mentzer acting like a creep.

And being a creep is not a political stance.

I do not afford it the same respect I afford, e.g. my huge and irreconcilable political disagreements with smart, creative gamers like Trump cheerleader Benoist, or dyed-in-the-wool commie John Bell — two people with whom I still happily interact in social media, and with whom I'd gladly have a beer IRL any day of the week.

Shit, my favorite OSR RPG was written by a man who works for Milo Fucking Yannopoulos. And I'd still sit with him and talk gaming, and maybe even politics, over a few pints.

I would not extend Frank Mentzer the same courtesy.
 
FOr the record, I'm not trying to stealth anything. I'm going out of my way to be as overt as possible showing you exactly what you're going to get when you violate your own no-politics policy.

It was directed at everyone, not just you. The policy is the policy. We (the mods) aren't going to police the forum looking at every post for political bullshit. My suggestion for those who see political bullshit: Ignore it. Don't reply to it. Don't call out the person doing it. Don't rant about it in here.

The future policy will be the same as the current policy because frankly I don't want to waste the time writing up a bunch of rules.

Post about games and other shit.
 
Last edited:
If its not directly game related, let's ALL agree to take it to another forum (either Purple or Pungency, or both).

AKA, we can talk about Mentzer's Kickstarter here and Mentzer's behavior elsewhere.

There is no escapism and no joy in talking about anyone's bad behavior. That's just the fast train to faux outrage, sanctimonious bullshit, and dozens of pages of nastiness and snark. Let that dance belong to other forums.

We are here to drink your beer and talk about having tremendous fun with our favorite games.
 
And being a creep is not a political stance.

Unfortunately, how a creep is defined is, in 2017, a political controversy, especially in light of the battles over title IX and such. Perhaps it's clear cut in this instance, but I strongly suggest we avoid gender topics of any sort going forward. As Sammy pointed out in the chat, it's a very common back door to ideological discussion.
 
It seems to me that we need a sticky "yes, this person is an asshole" thread, where we can call out the behaviour of someone, maybe even put a link to the crime and then move on. Essentially ban further discussion of that person's behaviour. Label it and move on.

My grandfather was appallingly racist by today's standards. That it was normal in his day doesn't excuse it but it does explain it. I think in the case of Mentzer is basically the same thing. It's almost like being shocked that Hugh Heffner was a misogynist. Attitudes and behaviours common to a place and time aren't acceptable but they are understandable. I see no problem with recognizing it but I do see a problem with letting the discussion here get dragged down and dominated by it.
 
Oh ok, so we'll just sticky a "Mentzer the Misogynist" post and never talk about it again. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that phrase "no politics"...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Spinach, Sammy and Shipyard have the right of it. Talk about the game here, the other shit elsewhere, you know...

No Politics. :grin:
 
There's always edge cases and overlaps. How do you rule on people saying, "I won't play x game because of y designer," and then posting a link? Too much? Too little? Personally it crosses the line of discussing the designer not the game but I'm not sure that's politics unless the reason is specifically political. Is it okay to play a game by an axe murderer, a terrorist, a participant in an unpopular foreign war, what about a game about an unpopular foreign war, Recon? Year of the Phoenix? Price of Freedom? Every X-Men comic and game ever? Should there be a banned games list?
 
I think that may be overthinking it. We'll stop a conversation if it becomes a problem.

If we give people a specific line, all that means is people will dance on it.
 
True enough, we've seen enough of that. I think "no contention" is probably closer to the objective but also infinitely harder to achieve.
 
No Politics itself is a line, and people have wanted to dance on it twice now, and they will again.

The problem is, No Politics means that, not "It's ok when I agree with the sentiment."
 
I'm not up for that level of policework, thats for sure
 
Judge Dredd style moderation doesn't work either. That's really how rpgnet went so wrong. They gave a guy an badge and a gun and put him on the streets and while he was really funny at times it set the tone of the whole board and eventually led to the mod wars when things got really hostile and dominated by a cool kids club.
 
It seems to me that we need a sticky "yes, this person is an asshole" thread,

Isn't that theRPGsite member list? :p

But will we still be allowed to post here? :cool:

There's always edge cases and overlaps. How do you rule on people saying, "I won't play x game because of y designer," and then posting a link? Too much? Too little?

Is the reason because of the author's politics / behavior / penis / lack of penis?
If so, that's political talk and belongs elsewhere. AND WE ALL KNOW WHERE!!!
OR
Is the reason because the author botched a previous game (mechanics, setting, font, whatever)?
If so, that's fine for here.

AKA, "I won't play Dangerous Journeys because Gary Gygax...."

ACCEPTABLE = "...I feel OD&D was mostly Arneson's work and Gary wrote Cyborg Commando which left me sad and confused."

NOT ACCEPTABLE: "....I feel Gary hated gays, Jews, bald hobbits and non-cyborg members of the military."
 
Fair enough but divining the people's intent takes a lot of pig entrails.
 
you can divine people's intent with their entrails ;)
 
Could we agree that acknowledging reports of shitty behaviour exist and having a discussion about that behaviour on the forum are two different things and that distinction isn't political in nature?

Ok, thank you for clarifying your stance.

This whole inferno (complete with wild accusations painting me as some kind of Jacobin and/or 'nut job') started when I wondered if the allegations against Frank hurt his kickstarter. A question that I still feel is germane to discussing whether the kickstarter failed.
 
This whole inferno (complete with wild accusations painting me as some kind of Jacobin and/or 'nut job') started when I wondered if the allegations against Frank hurt his kickstarter. A question that I still feel is germane to discussing whether the kickstarter failed.

Mentzer's KS was destined to fail regardless if he was a saint or sinner. There are really excellent How-To-KS guides online, lots of articles by people who launched/relaunched and learned from mistakes, and blogs even specific to RPGing on KS. Instead, Mentzer's KS checks half the boxes on the How-Not-To list.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top