Grim & Perilous now ... Cannon Otter Studio?

[Gringnr]

So what was he being contrite about then?

Divisive political statements, and statements about particular people, Grim Jim and the Nerdrotic crew, frex. It's in the video.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Surprisingly, the game promotion thing didn't come up (a mistake on the part of the interviewers IMO, and one of the reasons I say they should have been more aggressive). It's mostly focused on other things, though one of the hosts correctly noted that there are allegations aimed at Fox that lack receipts. That's why, in the spirit of mod direction I've received here at the Pub, I've adopted a "proof, not accusations" policy where Dan is concerned.

Agreed, although part of that is obviously weighing up the credibility of the people making accusations; you obviously consider Fox more credible than me on that.

Especially as one thing that I think isn't really arguable is that Fox has deleted stuff before (there are receipts on that one). That doesn't necessarily make accusations true in every case though, it's just a complicating factor.

 

[Dr Jack]

Zweihander actually has 3 resource pools (though Reputation is optional), and only one is called Fate Points. The other two are Fortune/Misfortune Points amd Reputation. At least in the OG and Revised versions. I'm admittedly less familiar with the Starter Set, though I do own it.

Ah, my bad. I've never actually played Zweihander, so I was going off memory. Which sucks. Apparently.

 

[Gringnr]

Agreed, although part of that is obviously weighing up the credibility of the people making accusations; you obviously consider Fox more credible than me on that.

Especially as one thing that I think isn't really arguable is that Fox has deleted stuff before (there are receipts on that one). That doesn't necessarily make accusations true in every case though, it's just a complicating factor.

I understand where you're coming from, but "credibility" isn't "proof," and even the smartest and most well-meaning people can fall victim to their own biases.

No offense, but being told to "weigh up credibility" by the first mod to remove one of my posts on the basis of "proof not accusations" feels a little bit like a moving of the goalposts.

By adhering to a strict policy of "proof not accusations," I am treating everyone equally. Whether you, Dan, or anyone else is "more credible" never enters into the equation.

Besides which, while you do seem to be a person of integrity, I don't actually know you. Daniel, I know, and also believe to be a man of integrity (inasmuch as a marketing guy can be, thank you, Bill Hicks). So, how am I to judge the credibility of anyone I don't actually know? Not being a contrarian here, it's a serious question.

Note: "integrity" doesn't mean "perfect." I'll take an admittedly flawed person over a sanctimonious, "perfect" one anyday (Note: this isn't in reference to anyone here). I have tried to avoid making this thread a referendum on Daniel, but here's my take on the guy. He's a passionate dude who gets out in front of his skis sometimes. He has admitted to some of his mistakes, which is more than I've seen most of his detractors do. I haven't responded to every jibe or criticism aimed at him here, nor do I intend to, but since questions have been directed at me by the mod team (though not in a "blue text" capacity), I felt it important to answer.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I understand where you're coming from, but "credibility" isn't "proof," and even the smartest and most well-meaning people can fall victim to their own biases.

No offense, but being told to "weigh up credibility" by the first mod to remove one of my posts on the basis of "proof not accusations" feels a little bit like a moving of the goalposts.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking specifically about eyewitness accusations, not hearsay. (I agree a fair bit about Fox is hearsay).

By adhering to a strict policy of "proof not accusations," I am treating everyone equally. Whether you, Dan, or anyone else is "more credible" never enters into the equation.

But by sticking to a "eyewitness reports are to be considered evidence" I'd argue that I'm sticking to a policy that meets the legal burden of proof. (While recognising that eyewitness reports aren't always correct). I think a standard of proof higher than 18 U.S. Code § 3502 is probably too high, in the way a "I heard this" isn't high enough.

To take a perhaps less contentious case, the accusations that Greg Gillespie makes his students buy his book and provide recipts have been posted on here. It's possible that's not true, but it's the fact it's direct eyewitness reports that lift it above the level of speculation.

Besides which, while you do seem to be a person of integrity, I don't actually know you. Daniel, I know, and also believe to be a man of integrity (inasmuch as a marketing guy can be, thank you, Bill Hicks). So, how am I to judge the credibility of anyone I don't actually know? Not being a contrarian here, it's a serious question.

Oh., sure. The stuff about me thinking he treats business relationships purely transactionally? Absolutely a statement of opinion and can be taken or dismissed on that basis. I'm not actually saying *I'm* credible in general here. I'm not directly involved in any of this. I perhaps have the credibility of anyone with a journalism degree on this kind of thing, but I could absolutely be lying on that so I don't expect it to matter if I don't provide evidence and I'm not going to. (Because posting my degree certificate on the forum would make me look like a cock).

The only stuff I actually think is credible from me is the stuff I've provided hard evidence for like him deleting posts he doesn't want out there. That one's pretty much proven in my view, but interpretation of motives can obviously widely differ.

Note: "integrity" doesn't mean "perfect." I'll take an admittedly flawed person over a sanctimonious, "perfect" one anyday. I have tried to avoid making this thread a referendum on Daniel, but here's my take on the guy. He's a passionate dude who gets out in front of his skis sometimes. He has admitted to some of his mistakes, which is more than I've seen most of his detractors do. I haven't responded to every jibe or criticism aimed at him here, nor do I intend to, but since questions have been directed at me by the mod team (though not in a "blue text" capacity), I felt it important to answer.

Just to clarify, if I don't say I'm acting as a mod I'm not. I'm just another poster in this context. Which means it's no more or less important to answer me than anyone else. People are free to ignore me entirely if they want. (In fact there's one ex poster who complained about not being able to put me on block so I stopped interacting with him as a poster).

Obviously, a lot of this is subjective judgement and we aren't going to agree. I would happily do a one on one interview with Fox if someone handled the technical streaming side for me. Can't see him going for that though.

 

[Gringnr]

He appeared on a show with one of Pundit's co-hosts, I doubt he'd turn down a serious offer from anyone.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

He appeared on a show with one of Pundit's co-hosts, I doubt he'd turn down a serious offer from anyone.

I actually think in sheer marketing, that was a clever idea. It's hard to get into Nerdcognito without hitting Rule 1 issues, but let's just say I think they are incredibly poorly set up to do hardhitting interviews because of how much its outside their normal approach.

 

[Gringnr]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking specifically about eyewitness accusations, not hearsay. (I agree a fair bit about Fox is hearsay).


But by sticking to a "eyewitness reports are to be considered evidence" I'd argue that I'm sticking to a policy that meets the legal burden of proof. (While recognising that eyewitness reports aren't always correct). I think a standard of proof higher than 18 U.S. Code § 3502 is probably too high, in the way a "I heard this" isn't high enough.

I've posted things that "meet the legal burden of proof," that have been deleted anyway - by you - so, while I've no desire to start drama with you (or any mod) or get a(nother) brouhaha going, this still feels like goalpost moving. Not trying to stir the pot, just sayin'. Youre asking me for something here that you haven't exactly been willing to give me. I'm not aggro or in my feels so please don't take this as an attack. It isn't.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I've posted things that "meet the legal burden of proof," that have been deleted anyway - by you - so, while I've no desire to start drama with you (or any mod) or get a(nother) brouhaha going, this still feels like goalpost moving. Not trying to stir the pot, just sayin'. Youre asking me for something here that you haven't exactly been willing to give me. I'm not aggro or in my feels so please don't take this as an attack. It isn't.

If it's ok I'll move this to the mod thread as it's no longer about Zweihander. (Can't be bothered shifting posts just going to carry on there). And don't worry, I'm not taking it as an attack, I just prefer to discuss this kind of thing honestly.

 

[Ladybird]

He appeared on a show with one of Pundit's co-hosts, I doubt he'd turn down a serious offer from anyone.

Daniel Fox has more morals than almost anybody in the industry.

He keeps them in a box under his bed, and pulls out the exact ones that people want to see from him at the time.

 

[CRKrueger]

Daniel Fox is a Marketing guy. His chosen path in life is to deceive people to get them to believe things that aren't true and purchase accordingly.

His aggressive, balls out strategy for Zweihander in the days before an official Warhammer worked.
His move towards Zak, and the immediate turnaround worked.
His resultant move to wokeness worked...until it didn't and the walls started tumbling down.

Now, he's simply attempting a Rebrand. His circumstances change and he adapts. Anyone who thinks he's sorry about anything hasn't been paying attention.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I believe he's sorry about telling people not to buy his game. Wanting people to give him money is one of his consistent and strongly held principles.

 

[CRKrueger]

Daniel Fox has more morals than almost anybody in the industry.

He keeps them in a box under his bed, and pulls out the exact ones that people want to see from him at the time.

Someone has been paying attention.

 

[Mosker]

Let's be realistic there, the only person in the RPG sphere actually capable of doing a journalistic hard interview is Codega and they're busy with Rascal.

(Insert 1000 words on reviews as well)

Cecilia D'Anastasio covers mostly electronic stuff, but I really appreciate what I've read of her work--starting with the profile of Gail Gygax, who I got to know a bit decades ago.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

All I remember Daniel Fox for is this obnoxious behavior:

What game would you use for this...
Zweihänder
Yes, but...
Zweihänder
I don't really think it fits....
Zweihänder

 

[Bourbonjack]

Daniel Fox has more morals than almost anybody in the industry.

He keeps them in a box under his bed, and pulls out the exact ones that people want to see from him at the time.

Very true. And then he takes out the box and puts on the morals he thinks will do the lost for him. Much like Buffalo Bill putting on a skin-suit.

 

[Endless Flight]

All I remember Daniel Fox for is this obnoxious behavior:

What game would you use for this...
Zweihänder
Yes, but...
Zweihänder
I don't really think it fits....
Zweihänder

He learned from the Exalted zealots at TPB back in the day.

“I want to run a modern day military spec forces game. What should I use?”

“Exalted!”

 

[The Mad Hatter]

He learned from the Exalted zealots at TPB back in the day.

“I want to run a modern day military spec forces game. What should I use?”

“Exalted!”

Yes I also remember them as equally obnoxious and funny.

At least the Mythras Cultists here on the Pub, have the decency to be only tongue in cheek about it.

 

[Jetstream]

Daniel Fox is a Marketing guy. His chosen path in life is to deceive people to get them to believe things that aren't true and purchase accordingly.

That seems like a reductive and unfair characterization of marketing as a whole, really.

 

[sureshot]

I can’t fault an rpg designer for wanting to promote their rpg. Except theirs promoting and then their promoting.

Hey how’s it going

Spam!

It’s cold today Spam!

And so on.

I still remember a mod here asking him to tone it down as he forgot he was not at his usual forums who put it with his behaviour. Only for him to try to get into it with the mod.

I was thinking at the time is he trying to get permabanned .

 

[Baulderstone]

I can’t fault an rpg designer for wanting to promote their rpg. Except theirs promoting and then their promoting.

Hey how’s it going

Spam!

It’s cold today Spam!

And so on.

I still remember a mod here asking him to tone it down as he forgot he was not at his usual forums who put it with his behaviour. Only for him to try to get into it with the mod.

I was thinking at the time is he trying to get permabanned .

And when Fox did get banned from the Pub, he made a tweet about how we banned him because he was promoting diversity here.

I'm still waiting for some contrition on that one. False accusations of racism can be life-ruining.

 

[Gringnr]

And when Fox did get banned from the Pub, he made a tweet about how we banned him because he was promoting diversity here.

I'm still waiting for some contrition on that one. False accusations of racism can be life-ruining.

I was always under the impression that the post that got him banned was about diversity. But that he was banned because the post violated the Pub's no politics rule. I've been told since, by mods here, that the post in question was a kind of straw that broke the camel's back as far as the Pub were concerned.

I never actually saw the OG post, or the banning, but the impression I got was that Fox was technically correct (the best kind of,correct, as Homer Simpson said) that the post about, was it Flames of Freedom's diversity consultants or what have you?

I legit want to understand the truth of the matter, not being contrarian or trying to stick up for Fox or pick fights here. But the impression that I got, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that Fox was ostensibly banned for that post, because it violated the no politics rule. He then took to Twitter to argue, as some do, that diversity isn't "political." I don't believe he ever called the Pub "racist," or used that word in regard to his banning. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, my questions are:
1. WAS Fox banned over the post about diversity?

2. Was it stated to him at that time that it wasn't THAT particular post?

3. Did Dan explicitly say, "the Pub are racists?" Or, "The Pub banned me.for.racist reasons?" Because I don't remember that. I remember him saying he got banned for posting about Diversity, and remember him specifically saying that he was told that this was a violation of the "no politics" rule.

Again, just trying to understand the truth of the matter. Thank you.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The tweet in question. He names the Pub in the comments but unfortunately those have been deleted. (The entire Daniel D Fox account has been memory holed)

 

[Gringnr]

The tweet in question. He names the Pub in the comments but unfortunately those have been deleted. (The entire Daniel D Fox account has been memory holed)

View attachment 80435

Yeah, I remember seeing that. But... and my question is...wasn't that the post that actually got him banned for a rule 1 violation? I can understand feeling like this is disingenuous worded, but is it materially false?

 

[Baulderstone]

I was always under the impression that the post that got him banned was about diversity. But that he was banned because the post violated the Pub's no politics rule. I've been told since, by mods here, that the post in question was a kind of straw that broke the camel's back as far as the Pub were concerned.

I never actually saw the OG post, or the banning, but the impression I got was that Fox was technically correct (the best kind of,correct, as Homer Simpson said) that the post about, was it Flames of Freedom's diversity consultants or what have you?

I legit want to understand the truth of the matter, not being contrarian or trying to stick up for Fox or pick fights here. But the impression that I got, and correct me if I'm wrong, was that Fox was ostensibly banned for that post, because it violated the no politics rule. He then took to Twitter to argue, as some do, that diversity isn't "political." I don't believe he ever called the Pub "racist," or used that word in regard to his banning. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, my questions are:
1. WAS Fox banned over the post about diversity?

No. Not at all.

We have no problem with diversity. I'd say we are one of the more internationally diverse RPG forums.

2. Was it stated to him at that time that it wasn't THAT particular post?

We don't make ban announcements.

3. Did Dan explicitly say, "the Pub are racists?" Or, "The Pub banned me.for.racist reasons?" Because I don't remember that. I remember him saying he got banned for posting about Diversity, and remember him specifically saying that he was told that this was a violation of the "no politics" rule.

What's your interpretation of him saying he was banned for supporting diverse voices that doesn't involve him implying we are racists?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Yeah, I remember seeing that. But... and my question is...wasn't that the post that actually got him banned for a rule 1 violation? I can understand feeling like this is disingenuous worded, but is it materially false?

I don't know the answers to all your questions but this was posted by Tristam on the day he was banned.

EDIT: Just to be clear, for the folks here, and because the author is trying to spin another narrative elsewhere online, Daniel was not banned for posting about minorities working on his game, or any post that he made to The Pub - it was because of online harassment of members of this forum that was brought to our attention and other abhorrent behaviour elsewhere online. We do not, as a policy, concern ourselves as moderators with stuff that happens off the Pub, except in the most egregious of cases, but we do care about the people who post here and when it came down to possibly losing valued members of our community who did not want to be on the same site as an abuser, we chose them over someone who only uses the forum to drop ads for their products.

I kinda have trouble believing he didn't see that.

 

[Baulderstone]

And just to clarify my earlier post, it's true that we don't generally make ban announcements, but I forgot that Tristram made a post in response to Fox's claim. This was a special case.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Also, Tristram replied to Fox's post on Twitter saying he wasn't banned for that Tweet and his response was to block Tristram.

 

[Malckuss]

I kinda have trouble believing he didn't see that.

He probably did see it, but from my interactions with him online, it didn't fit the narrative he was pushing so it was conveniently passed over.

 

[Gringnr]

Thank you for answering those questions. I appreciate your positions more now.

I'd still love to see all of those posts in context (to get a sense of the chronology of events... got a link?), but I think I have enough to go on here to accept that yeah, events are as they have been described by the staff. And that's pretty whack. Skeevy even.

Interestingly enough, in private convos we have had since, Dan has praised the Pub. And while that may not move anyone (nor do I expect it to), I think it signals a change in attitude, or at least how he views the situation. Could be room for, if not reconciliation, a sort of forgiveness there, but I can't say. I can say that if I were Dan, my motivation to seek forgiveness would be lessened by the attitudes in this thread (I get that true contrition comes without the expectation of reciprocity, but it's only human to want it).

I'll put it to you this way. I can't stand Pundit, but if he started talking about how he'd been wrong about things and had made mistakes, I wouldn't shit on him for it. And while, as a former junkie, petty criminal, and (some might say still-current) asshole, I'll be the first to say that no one is owed forgiveness. I get that. But it's like with my kid. If he's acting like a jerk (he's 6, they'll do that), I let him know. When he takes a step in the right direction, I let him know, too. Even if I'm still pissed about his acting like a jerk. Because once he starts doing the right thing, if I'm still bitching at him, that's just confusing. Now that might seem a tortured analogy, but let me tell you, I took parenting classes decades ago, and have primarily used what I learned there for dealing with other adults. Not because I think people are dumb, or I'm smarter, but because at a certain level.our drives don't change all that much.

Besides which, Dan nuked his Twitter, and the offending Tweet no longer exists except in the screenshots of people who are still salty about it. Doesn't mean it never happened, of course.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Thank you for answering those questions. I appreciate your positions more now.

I'd still love to see all of those posts in context (to get a sense of the chronology of events... got a link?), but I think I have enough to go on here to accept that yeah, events are as they have been described by the staff. And that's pretty whack. Skeevy even.

Thread in question - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/kickstarters-thread.5549/page-68

Interestingly enough, in private convos we have had since, Dan has praised the Pub. And while that may not move anyone (nor do I expect it to), I think it signals a change in attitude, or at least how he views the situation. Could be room for, if not reconciliation, a sort of forgiveness there, but I can't say. I can say that if I were Dan, my motivation to seek forgiveness would be lessened by the attitudes in this thread (I get that true contrition comes without the expectation of reciprocity, but it's only human to want it).

Thing is, I watched at least some of the Nerdcognito video and so far at least he's not actually showed contrition for anything I care about.

The Pub stuff is one of them but even that's a minor issue for me. If he apologised to the pub member I believe he's wronged, made recompense that reflects the damage done and that pub member chose to accept the apology (because that isn't my call) then fine. I still wouldn't really trust or like him, but that's not big deal. Plenty of people in the RPG industry that rub me up the wrong way.

Without that it's not actually a matter of forgiveness or otherwise, because he doesn't seem to agree with me that his behaviour was out of line in the first place. He's said he's misjudged Grim Jim? I mean fine, but spats with Grim (a man who never saw a controversy he didn't try to fuck) weren't really my concern in the first place.

 

[Baulderstone]

Thank you for answering those questions. I appreciate your positions more now.

I'd still love to see all of those posts in context (to get a sense of the chronology of events... got a link?), but I think I have enough to go on here to accept that yeah, events are as they have been described by the staff. And that's pretty whack. Skeevy even.

Interestingly enough, in private convos we have had since, Dan has praised the Pub. And while that may not move anyone (nor do I expect it to), I think it signals a change in attitude, or at least how he views the situation. Could be room for, if not reconciliation, a sort of forgiveness there, but I can't say. I can say that if I were Dan, my motivation to seek forgiveness would be lessened by the attitudes in this thread (I get that true contrition comes without the expectation of reciprocity, but it's only human to want it).

We've simply stated actions he took in attempt to harm the Pub and its members. Are you suggesting that we should pretend he didn't do these things in the hope he will grant us an apology?

 

[Gringnr]

We've simply stated actions he took in attempt to harm the Pub and its members. Are you suggesting that we should pretend he didn't do these things in the hope he will grant us an apology?

I don't "suggest" or "interpret," I state plainly, and observe. There's no reading between the lines that you need to do with me. If I intended to say what you're trying to make it sound like I said here (and you're probably the second worst person here, behind CRKrueger , for twisting peoples' words around and/or putting words in peoples' mouth), I'd have come right out and said it. I'm not exactly famous for mincing words. What I'm saying is that Dan might offer an apology now, expecting nothing in return. He might not. Not that anyone cares, or would care if he did. I am genuinely curious about how that would be received.

I'm not trying to fight with you, Baulderstone , but in the future, if you have to ask me, "Did you mean X," "Are you trying to say X," or "Are you suggesting that X," the answer is always no. I said what I said. There's no hidden meaning, no implication. That's just not what I do.

 

[Fenris-77]

So it sounds like you want to level serious insults at someone but then dodge any consequences by saying "I'm not trying to fight". That's not how this game works. I think its time for you to stop insulting other posters.

 

[Gringnr]

So it sounds like you want to level serious insults at someone but then dodge any consequences by saying "I'm not trying to fight". That's not how this game works. I think its time for you to stop insulting other posters.

It was not intended as an insult, but a statement of fact, which I stand by. I'm not trying to dodge anything. I didn’t say it because I was trying to be mean, or insulting, I said it because it's true. I can barely have a convo where Baulderstone is involved that doesn't see him doing that "Oh, so you're saying..." or "Are you trying to say..." bit, and then misrepresenting what was said. It seems to me to be an intentional tactic (its possible Im.wrong, but it seems that way to me) and I'm calling it out. That's not an insult.

 

[Fenris-77]

It was not intended as an insult, but a statement of fact, which I stand by. I'm not trying to dodge anything. I didn’t say it because I was trying to be mean, or insulting, I said it because it's true. I cam barely have a convo where Baulderstone is involved that doesn't see him doing that "Oh, so you're saying..." or "Are you trying to say..." bit. I believe it's an intentional tactic, and I'm calling it out. That's not an insult.

Sure it is. You don't get to frame away your words by claiming it meant X or Y and not exactly what it says. This isn't complicated, just try to stop being a dick, its tiresome.

 

[Gringnr]

Sure it is. You don't get to frame away your words by claiming it meant X or Y and not exactly what it says. This isn't complicated, just try to stop being a dick, its tiresome.

Not framing away anything. I'll tell you the same thing I told Baulderstone . There's no "framing" going on. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. You're the one calling people "dicks." That's an insult. I'm calling people out out about behaviors. That's not. Sure, sometimes when you say "I'm not trying to be insulting," it's because you're about to say something insulting. And sometimes, when you say it, it's because you're actually not trying to be insulting, despite the fact that you have something unpleasant to say.

 

[Endless Flight]

I had people dig and try to scour my Facebook profile to see what my political affiliations were because of that Twitter post. I was pretty irritated with his behavior and that’s putting it mildly.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not framing away anything. I'll tell you the same thing I told Baulderstone . There's no "framing" going on. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. You're the one calling people "dicks." That's an insult. I'm calling people out out about behaviors. That's not. Sure, sometimes when you say "I'm not trying to be insulting," it's because you're about to say something insulting. And sometimes, when you say it, it's because you're actually not trying to be insulting, despite the fact that you have something unpleasant to say.

Yeah, and I'm calling you out about being a bit of a dick, but I'm levelling insults but you aren't? Nice double standard you have there. Dickish, even. You aren't levelling an uncomfortable truth here, your just calling people names and shouting at clouds.

 

[Gringnr]

Yeah, and I'm calling you out about being a bit of a dick, but I'm levelling insults but you aren't? Nice double standard you have there. Dickish, even. You aren't levelling an uncomfortable truth here, your just calling people names and shouting at clouds.

Theres no double standard at all.
Unless you can articulate the "dickish" behavior, as I did, then you're just lobbing insults. Edit: I haven't called anyone names, either.