Moderation Discussion Thread of 2024

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
ffilz said:
Is there an easy way to limit new posters to certain sub-forums until they have introduced themselves at least? That might help reduce the spam, or at least contain it. And if someone never introduces themselves, maybe they just get deleted along with their spam.

I'm all for contributors self promoting so long as they engage the community. Ideally they engage over more than just their self promotion, but if they at least answer questions about their product, there's some engagement.
Click to expand...
I'm cool with advertisers having to build up some rep first, but for regular posters, having to introduce yourself before posting can be a bit intimidating versus just leaping in. I think the current optional, if you wanna then here's where to do it, system is fine.
 
Ladybird said:
I'm cool with advertisers having to build up some rep first, but for regular posters, having to introduce yourself before posting can be a bit intimidating versus just leaping in. I think the current optional, if you wanna then here's where to do it, system is fine.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm not here to open up to the world about who I am as a person and my life's history, unless it comes up naturally as part of a conversation, and I would be disinclined to join any forum that expected me to post an introduction first.
 
Is it just me or has the site layout changed? Didn't the 'play' forums used to be at the bottom of the main page? Now the this section, the 'Non-Gaming Discussion' is.

Or did I slip into a strange alternate reality without noticing it?
 
Q: Artistic nudity?

I'm considering making a thread where I post some of my art w/ comments, art tips etc.

Some of the pieces I've made/am making have either full artistic nudity or some kind of hr giger/berzerk-ish psychosexual symbolism. Small portion of what I'd like to post but some of my best monster designs.

Can I post that with NSFW in thread title + "problematic" ones behind spoiler?
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
Q: Artistic nudity?

I'm considering making a thread where I post some of my art w/ comments, art tips etc.

Some of the pieces I've made/am making have either full artistic nudity or some kind of hr giger/berzerk-ish psychosexual symbolism. Small portion of what I'd like to post but some of my best monster designs.

Can I post that with NSFW in thread title + "problematic" ones behind spoiler?
Click to expand...
I'm picturing pub members with various assorted plant life covering their D12s and I will be very disappointed if this isn't the case
 
Gringr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thing with the thread you're talking about from my perspective:

I logged on (and I think I was the only mod on at that time) to find you'd posted a full attack thread on another poster. One that you'd recently been fighting with on here. Because of that it felt like there was at least a good chance it was a feud carried on by other means and probably posted at least partly in anger.

You hadn't (at least as far as I know) checked with a mod before posting it. I know we don't have explict "this needs to be checked before posting" rules (and I think this predates the Beginner's Guide?) but attack threads strike me as an obvious case where that's needed. If I'm honest, the fact you didn't feels like a deliberate attempt to evade the possibility of refusal.

The thread itself was a mix of accusations and evidence which made it hard to sift. And the evidence was largely in the form of links. Lots and lots of links. Absolutely too much for me to sort through without actually putting in several days at the least. So I had to treat them in the abstract because the timescale gave me no choice.

At that point my paranoia about libel kicked in. Any of the mods can tell you from discussions backstage that it's something I'm very cautious about. (Have you ever been involved in a complicated libel case? I wouldn't recommend it as a fun experience).

I don't want to get into quoting DMs but your response was largely an outraged "how dare you take my thread down" rather than "ok, can you explain the issue here and see if it's possible to solve it". Honestly, that made me instinctively unsympathetic as did your dismissal of potential legal issues for the board. I'm only human and I don't moderate as an emotionless robot.

And so far this would have been my reaction to any poster doing what I've just outlined.

What I'll admit may be a double standard is that I'm more cautious with you on this kind of thing because I know that you have a tendency to cross lines when in full attack mode. I don't want to reopen long resolved issues, but I'm talking about stuff like the time you decided to start making fun of LaNasa's physical appearance. So that is also the context I'm coming from. It's not to be clear something I "hold against you". Just something I'm aware of when directly relevant.

Another probably double standard is that I think it's reasonably well known I don't actually like the poster you were attacking to the point of open contempt at time. I may have overcompensated for that. But that's a no win situation because nobody wants me making mod decisions based on personal animosity either.

So yeah. Could I have possibly handled it better? I think so. But it was as much about how it was done as any kind of broad rule. And if any of the above things had been handled differently it's at least possible the outcome wouldn't have been the same.

I would observe that there was a similar situation with someone shady in the RPG world and that had a very different outcome. And the reason for that is that it was kicked backstage and then the moderators were given the space to do our job.
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
Thing with the thread you're talking about from my perspective:

I logged on (and I think I was the only mod on at that time) to find you'd posted a full attack thread on another poster. One that you'd recently been fighting with on here. Because of that it felt like there was at least a good chance it was a feud carried on by other means and probably posted at least partly in anger.

You hadn't (at least as far as I know) checked with a mod before posting it. I know we don't have explict "this needs to be checked before posting" rules (and I think this predates the Beginner's Guide?) but attack threads strike me as an obvious case where that's needed. If I'm honest, the fact you didn't feels like a deliberate attempt to evade the possibility of refusal.

The thread itself was a mix of accusations and evidence which made it hard to sift. And the evidence was largely in the form of links. Lots and lots of links. Absolutely too much for me to sort through without actually putting in several days at the least. So I had to treat them in the abstract because the timescale gave me no choice.

At that point my paranoia about libel kicked in. Any of the mods can tell you from discussions backstage that it's something I'm very cautious about. (Have you ever been involved in a complicated libel case? I wouldn't recommend it as a fun experience).

I don't want to get into quoting DMs but your response was largely an outraged "how dare you take my thread down" rather than "ok, can you explain the issue here and see if it's possible to solve it". Honestly, that made me instinctively unsympathetic as did your dismissal of potential legal issues for the board. I'm only human and I don't moderate as an emotionless robot.

And so far this would have been my reaction to any poster doing what I've just outlined.

What I'll admit may be a double standard is that I'm more cautious with you on this kind of thing because I know that you have a tendency to cross lines when in full attack mode. I don't want to reopen long resolved issues, but I'm talking about stuff like the time you decided to start making fun of LaNasa's physical appearance. So that is also the context I'm coming from. It's not to be clear something I "hold against you". Just something I'm aware of when directly relevant.

Another probably double standard is that I think it's reasonably well known I don't actually like the poster you were attacking to the point of open contempt at time. I may have overcompensated for that. But that's a no win situation because nobody wants me making mod decisions based on personal animosity either.

So yeah. Could I have possibly handled it better? I think so. But it was as much about how it was done as any kind of broad rule. And if any of the above things had been handled differently it's at least possible the outcome wouldn't have been the same.

I would observe that there was a similar situation with someone shady in the RPG world and that had a very different outcome. And the reason for that is that it was kicked backstage and then the moderators were given the space to do our job.
Click to expand...
I think that you might have overdone it. In my opinion Gringr is a good poster.
 
Moracai said:
I think that you might have overdone it. In my opinion Gringr is a good poster.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying he isn't? The vast majority of Gringr's posts are good. This is about a specific moderation decision he's brought up as something he disagrees with, not a general indictment.
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
Thing with the thread you're talking about from my perspective:

I logged on (and I think I was the only mod on at that time) to find you'd posted a full attack thread on another poster. One that you'd recently been fighting with on here. Because of that it felt like there was at least a good chance it was a feud carried on by other means and probably posted at least partly in anger.

You hadn't (at least as far as I know) checked with a mod before posting it. I know we don't have explict "this needs to be checked before posting" rules (and I think this predates the Beginner's Guide?) but attack threads strike me as an obvious case where that's needed. If I'm honest, the fact you didn't feels like a deliberate attempt to evade the possibility of refusal.

The thread itself was a mix of accusations and evidence which made it hard to sift. And the evidence was largely in the form of links. Lots and lots of links. Absolutely too much for me to sort through without actually putting in several days at the least. So I had to treat them in the abstract because the timescale gave me no choice.

At that point my paranoia about libel kicked in. Any of the mods can tell you from discussions backstage that it's something I'm very cautious about. (Have you ever been involved in a complicated libel case? I wouldn't recommend it as a fun experience).

I don't want to get into quoting DMs but your response was largely an outraged "how dare you take my thread down" rather than "ok, can you explain the issue here and see if it's possible to solve it". Honestly, that made me instinctively unsympathetic as did your dismissal of potential legal issues for the board. I'm only human and I don't moderate as an emotionless robot.

And so far this would have been my reaction to any poster doing what I've just outlined.

What I'll admit may be a double standard is that I'm more cautious with you on this kind of thing because I know that you have a tendency to cross lines when in full attack mode. I don't want to reopen long resolved issues, but I'm talking about stuff like the time you decided to start making fun of LaNasa's physical appearance. So that is also the context I'm coming from. It's not to be clear something I "hold against you". Just something I'm aware of when directly relevant.

Another probably double standard is that I think it's reasonably well known I don't actually like the poster you were attacking to the point of open contempt at time. I may have overcompensated for that. But that's a no win situation because nobody wants me making mod decisions based on personal animosity either.

So yeah. Could I have possibly handled it better? I think so. But it was as much about how it was done as any kind of broad rule. And if any of the above things had been handled differently it's at least possible the outcome wouldn't have been the same.

I would observe that there was a similar situation with someone shady in the RPG world and that had a very different outcome. And the reason for that is that it was kicked backstage and then the moderators were given the space to do our job.
Click to expand...
deep breath, counts to ten Okay here goes...

1. It wasn't an "attack thread" that I "posted." It was a response to another poster's thread, not mine. The purpose of my post, aggro though it was, wasn't primarily to attack, but to highlight the hypocrisy of a proven plagiarist hassling a Pubber who was not only acting in good faith with regard to IP, but who was also well within legal bounds. I stand by every accusation I made, and am prepared to repeat them and provide proof to anyone who asks (DM me).

2. I didn't check with any mods before posting, because it didn't violate the "one rule," or any other rule that existed at that time. I had no reason to run it by anyone, nor any reason to believe that it would cause any issue, especially since worse allegations, with less evidence, have been levied here... by mods. Your insinuation that I was attempting to evade scrutiny is both erroneous and offensive.

3. If you don't want to "get into quoting DMs," then kindly refrain from characterizing them. Proof not accusations, right?. I'd really like to see where I said anything approaching "how dare you," because if you keep making unflattering characterizations of our convos, I will gladly "get into quoting DMs." I won't have anyone put words in my mouth. Frankly, I'd rather "get into quoting DMs" than go down the path of "you said this, but I'm not gonna prove it." And I know your characterization wasn't meant to be a direct quote, but I still find it somewhat misleading.

4. "My paranoia about libel kicked in."

A paranoia that apparently doesn't extend to the extremely litigious Zak S., or to Dan Fox, the latter of whom has taken legal action against Pundit in the past.


5. "Would have been your response to any poster doing what you did."

Except, I assume, if the poster is a mod who labels someone an "abuser," while offering no proof of this very serious charge, when that poster is banned and can't defend themselves?

6. Making fun of LaNasa's appearance? Seriously? I pointed out that his jacket was way too big (an attempt to cover his tattoos most likely). He looked like a sex offender version of David Byrne, for cryin' out loud. I may have made some remarks along those same lines ("creep, sex offender," whatever) about his general skeeviness and used car salesman demeanor, but as I recall, I didn't poke fun at his weight, or any physical handicap, racial features (not that any of these about him or anyone else would even invite that, Im just using them as an example), or anything that could be considered offensive unless you're REALLY reaching. If I'm remembering that wrong, please show me the post, and I'll eat a big old helping of crow, plus apologize for being an asshole about something like that, even to LaNasa. But, as I recall, my "making fun of LaNasa's appearance" was very mild and more along the lines of his being a creepy looking dude (which, really, maybe its just based on what we now know about him, but is anyone REALLY gonna argue with that?). I'd also like to point out that the posts in question were obviously JOKES, rather than legit criticism of somebody's appearance. And holy hell, that would HARDLY be the worst thing said about LaNasa on this forum. Not even close. You make it sound as though I called him a one-legged lardass with a harelip or something.
 
Last edited:
Gringnr said:
Objectively untrue. I'm a terrible poster, probably because I spent years as the owner of a forum. Just like I'm a terrible employee, because I spent many years in management. Facts.
Click to expand...
I feel this. I think 90% of my problems with moderation is that I spent so long running some pretty large forums myself, which leads me to think my ways of doing things are best. (which of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't have done them).

Granted there is also the other side of it where people who've never been in the position don't understand what it is like to deal with it. Both kind of lead to bad attitudes if you go the wrong way with it.
 
Gringnr said:
Also since A Fiery Flying Roll A Fiery Flying Roll was kind enough to admit to occasional biases I too will own up to the same thing

As well as being a hot-headed lunatic
Click to expand...
One reason I stick close to real names and always bunny photos for avatars--any reminders to use indoor voices in forums (and my FB is super boring so I don't jeopardize the non-profits I help).

Avatars can matter: I was in a PBM game where the GM had an angry dwarf/barbarian picture and I always felt he was yelling at me (probably because I was so late to respond). I already knew Gringnr online from elsewhere or else I'd be thinking Widget and Gizmo's ears were in danger.
 
Gringnr said:
deep breath, counts to ten Okay here goes...

1. It wasn't an "attack thread" that I "posted." It was a response to another poster's thread, not mine. The purpose of my post, aggro though it was, wasn't primarily to attack, but to highlight the hypocrisy of a proven plagiarist hassling a Pubber who was not only acting in good faith with regard to IP, but who was also well within legal bounds. I stand by every accusation I made, and am prepared to repeat them and provide proof to anyone who asks (DM me).
Click to expand...
Ok, but can you understand that the aggro nature meant I had to take a snap judgement without having any knowledge of the large list of accusations you'd posted on the board.
Gringnr said:
2. I didn't check with any mods before posting, because it didn't violate the "one rule," or any other rule that existed at that time. I had no reason to run it by anyone, nor any reason to believe that it would cause any issue, especially since worse allegations, with less evidence, have been levied here... by mods. Your insinuation that I was attempting to evade scrutiny is both erroneous and offensive.
Click to expand...
Ok, I accept you weren't trying to evade scrutiny. For future reference for you and everyone else, if you're going to post a list of accusations please ask ahead of time.
Gringnr said:
3. If you don't want to "get into quoting DMs," then kindly refrain from characterizing them. Proof not accusations, right?. I'd really like to see where I said anything approaching "how dare you," because if you keep making unflattering characterizations of our convos, I will gladly "get into quoting DMs." I won't have anyone put words in my mouth. Frankly, I'd rather "get into quoting DMs" than go down the path of "you said this, but I'm not gonna prove it." And I know your characterization wasn't meant to be a direct quote, but I still find it somewhat misleading.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with you posting the full convo if you think that would be helpful? That is something I think I fucked up on. Because of the nature of the complaint I should have pointed you towards this thread in the first place. Trying to handle it privately lacked transparency so definite mea culpa on that one.
Gringnr said:
4. "My paranoia about libel kicked in."

A paranoia that apparently doesn't extend to the extremely litigious Zak S., or to Dan Fox, the latter of whom has taken legal action against Pundit in the past.
Click to expand...
Oh, it absolutely does with Zak, especiallly since he started suing people. You'll maybe notice we avoid the subject of Zak where possible and where not push people towards just posting stuff like links to court judgement without editorial. (And none of the stuff Zak has sued for has been posted on here. Believe it or not, I keep a close eye on that).

On Dan Fox:

As an aside, do you have a link to the legal action against Pundit? I'm not doubting you, that's just new information to me. I know the public statement, but I hadn't realised it had escalated to action.

Generally, the statements about him are of three kinds.

Honest opinion. You can call Dan (or Zak or GMS or me) a jerk. That's not actionable. I'd argue that the statements about him having transactional values etc. are also in this category; they're not actionable statements.

Stuff with reciepts. This would be stuff like "Dan Fox used to associate with Zak", "Fox was happy to promote his work on Pundit's forum", "Fox lied about why he was banned from the Pub", "Fox has deleted online content". All of that has been shown largely through links and screenshots. You can disagree with whether it's damning or not and the general interpretation.

The final thing (and I think this is what you're objecting to) is the claim of harassment and the tagline "banned abuser".

Thing is, that is why Fox was banned. You can disbelieve the claims he's actively harassed someone, but they're why the decision was made to ban him. (And this is less important but the tag was only added after he lied about why he was banned on Twitter. And laughed along with his followers advocating harrasing the board with sock puppets. Unfortunately I didn't screenshot so you're in your rights to disbelieve me here).

But the harassment claim is a specific claim from an alleged victim who went on the record in a thread. At that point, it does become a judgement call from a board perspective about whether that claim is credible and we believe it is. You don't have to obviously, but that's the situation.

This is where you can fairly claim bias, because yes, who the poster is does play a big role in that. But this is the difference between that and other situations. This one is *personal*.
Gringnr said:
5. "Would have been your response to any poster doing what you did."

Except, I assume, if the poster is a mod who labels someone an "abuser," while offering no proof of this very serious charge, when that poster is banned and can't defend themselves?
Click to expand...
I believe I've outlined what I believe is the proof. If you'd rather it says "harasser" I can look into that for you? Even "serious allegations of harrassment" although obviously none of this would be my decision alone. (I'm not keen on the idea of stickying the proof in a post, just because that's not really how things have been done here up to now).
Gringnr said:
6. Making fun of LaNasa's appearance? Seriously? I pointed out that his jacket was way too big (an attempt to cover his tattoos most likely). He looked like a sex offender version of David Byrne, for cryin' out loud. I may have made some remarks along those same lines ("creep, sex offender," whatever) about his general skeeviness and used car salesman demeanor, but as I recall, I didn't poke fun at his weight, or any physical handicap, racial features (not that any of these about him or anyone else would even invite that, Im just using them as an example), or anything that could be considered offensive unless you're REALLY reaching. If I'm remembering that wrong, please show me the post, and I'll eat a big old helping of crow, plus apologize for being an asshole about something like that, even to LaNasa. But, as I recall, my "making fun of LaNasa's appearance" was very mild and more along the lines of his being a creepy looking dude (which, really, maybe its just based on what we now know about him, but is anyone REALLY gonna argue with that?). I'd also like to point out that the posts in question were obviously JOKES, rather than legit criticism of somebody's appearance. And holy hell, that would HARDLY be the worst thing said about LaNasa on this forum. Not even close. You make it sound as though I called him a one-legged lardass with a harelip or something.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it was a big deal. Merely saying it's why (rightly or wrongly) I sometimes get the impression that when you dislike someone you post without really thinking it through. Which isn't an issue per se; we all have our hot button issues including myself. But I don't look at posts entirely free of context either.
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
Ok, but can you understand that the aggro nature meant I had to take a snap judgement without having any knowledge of the large list of accusations you'd posted on the board.

Ok, I accept you weren't trying to evade scrutiny. For future reference for you and everyone else, if you're going to post a list of accusations please ask ahead of time.

I'm fine with you posting the full convo if you think that would be helpful? That is something I think I fucked up on. Because of the nature of the complaint I should have pointed you towards this thread in the first place. Trying to handle it privately lacked transparency so definite mea culpa on that one.

Oh, it absolutely does with Zak, especiallly since he started suing people. You'll maybe notice we avoid the subject of Zak where possible and where not push people towards just posting stuff like links to court judgement without editorial. (And none of the stuff Zak has sued for has been posted on here. Believe it or not, I keep a close eye on that).

On Dan Fox:

As an aside, do you have a link to the legal action against Pundit? I'm not doubting you, that's just new information to me. I know the public statement, but I hadn't realised it had escalated to action.

Generally, the statements about him are of three kinds.

Honest opinion. You can call Dan (or Zak or GMS or me) a jerk. That's not actionable. I'd argue that the statements about him having transactional values etc. are also in this category; they're not actionable statements.

Stuff with reciepts. This would be stuff like "Dan Fox used to associate with Zak", "Fox was happy to promote his work on Pundit's forum", "Fox lied about why he was banned from the Pub", "Fox has deleted online content". All of that has been shown largely through links and screenshots. You can disagree with whether it's damning or not and the general interpretation.

The final thing (and I think this is what you're objecting to) is the claim of harassment and the tagline "banned abuser".

Thing is, that is why Fox was banned. You can disbelieve the claims he's actively harassed someone, but they're why the decision was made to ban him. (And this is less important but the tag was only added after he lied about why he was banned on Twitter. And laughed along with his followers advocating harrasing the board with sock puppets. Unfortunately I didn't screenshot so you're in your rights to disbelieve me here).

But the harassment claim is a specific claim from an alleged victim who went on the record in a thread. At that point, it does become a judgement call from a board perspective about whether that claim is credible and we believe it is. You don't have to obviously, but that's the situation.

This is where you can fairly claim bias, because yes, who the poster is does play a big role in that. But this is the difference between that and other situations. This one is *personal*.

I believe I've outlined what I believe is the proof. If you'd rather it says "harasser" I can look into that for you? Even "serious allegations of harrassment" although obviously none of this would be my decision alone. (I'm not keen on the idea of stickying the proof in a post, just because that's not really how things have been done here up to now).

I'm not saying it was a big deal. Merely saying it's why (rightly or wrongly) I sometimes get the impression that when you dislike someone you post without really thinking it through. Which isn't an issue per se; we all have our hot button issues including myself. But I don't look at posts entirely free of context either.
Click to expand...
1. Yes, I can see how my post required mod action.

2. No problem, but I rarely post "accusations." I can confidently say that every time a mod has demand3d "proof" from me, that I've delivered. I'm not into spreading baseless rumors.

3. Whether Fox is labeled "harasser" or "abuser" makes little difference to me. I'm just pointing out that complaining about Fox making misleading or unproven claims is hypocritical if you're doing it yourselves, even as "revenge" for his having done it in the first place.

Just my opinion.
 
Gringnr said:
3. Whether Fox is labeled "harasser" or "abuser" makes little difference to me. I'm just pointing out that complaining about Fox making misleading or unproven claims is hypocritical if you're doing it yourselves, even as "revenge" for his having done it in the first place.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I think that one probably comes down to what we vaguely discussed about what constitutes proof or not. As I said, I consider direct eyewitness reports to meet the standard whereas I think it's fair to say you don't? (Using the standard you're looking for would mean that people couldn't mention allegations if Beast the Primordial comes up which feels like a step too far for me).
 
As I touched on this isn't "never post accusations", it's "don't post call out threads without warning".

As I mentioned before there was at least one thread since then where you posted accusations, it was kicked backstage for a bit and then a statement was put out referencing the same accusations. So if you're going to claim inconsistency, it would seem you should take issue with the resolution there as well.
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
I think that one probably comes down to what we vaguely discussed about what constitutes proof or not. As I said, I consider direct eyewitness reports to meet the standard whereas I think it's fair to say you don't? (Using the standard you're looking for would mean that people couldn't mention allegations if Beast the Primordial comes up which feels like a step too far for me).
Click to expand...


A Fiery Flying Roll said:
As I touched on this isn't "never post accusations", it's "don't post call out threads without warning".

As I mentioned before there was at least one thread since then where you posted accusations, it was kicked backstage for a bit and then a statement was put out referencing the same accusations. So if you're going to claim inconsistency, it would seem you should take issue with the resolution there as well.
Click to expand...
The key difference here being that I have never posted any accusations without backing them up once the mods request it. Not in the case of Plagiar Sa'tanist, not in the case of Vox Day, not in the case of anyone. There is zero inconsistency here. To me, that is very different than posting an accusation, being asked for proof, and saying, "I'm not gonna get into specifics," (which a mod legit told me once) or weaseling out of it in some other way.

And while I get you about eyewitness reports, I'm internet enough to be like,. "Pics or it didn't happen."
 
Gringnr said:
The key difference here being that I have never posted any accusations without backing them up once the mods request it.
Click to expand...
Just to make things crystal clear, I'm not posting as a mod, just me. But maybe if you're going to post an accusation, post the proof as well. Don't wait to get asked.
 
Stumpydave said:
Just to make things crystal clear, I'm not posting as a mod, just me. But maybe if you're going to post an accusation, post the proof as well. Don't wait to get asked.
Click to expand...
I'm not a mod, but just me.

Maybe, if you are going to post an accusation, post it somewhere else. This is not a good or effective place for investigative journalism.
 
I don't think we want to get into "never post accusations" otherwise we end up having to discuss a new GMS Kickstarter without mentioning the old one.
Stumpydave said:
Just to make things crystal clear, I'm not posting as a mod, just me. But maybe if you're going to post an accusation, post the proof as well. Don't wait to get asked.
Click to expand...
Posting in a modish way (this isn't official board policy but involves modding) I'd still personally prefer people run anything like this past us ahead of time, especially if it's a new topic. Even with something like the GMS example where the response is likely to be "oh, yeah, go ahead" because I think anyone with an interest in GMS's work is aware of that by now.
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
I don't think we want to get into "never post accusations" otherwise we end up having to discuss a new GMS Kickstarter without mentioning the old one.

Posting in a modish way (this isn't official board policy but involves modding) I'd still personally prefer people run anything like this past us ahead of time, especially if it's a new topic. Even with something like the GMS example where the response is likely to be "oh, yeah, go ahead" because I think anyone with an interest in GMS's work is aware of that by now.
Click to expand...
Roger that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top