Moderation Discussion Thread of 2024

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Gringnr Gringnr bro

What are you trying to achieve? No one is going to change their mind about Zweispammer because of your defense. First because some of your arguments stretch credulity and require to ignore pattern & context to exonerate him from what he says. Eg. I read some of his post here and weasely half-voiced racism accusations were definetly in his repertoir - saying it's racist to call him a shill and similar nonsense (check p. of the Demon city thread for evidence). Doesn't matter though.

If there's one thing I've learned about the online RPG community as a whole is that harassment is way too common. The other thing is that you have to really really try hard to get banned from the PUB. As far as I am concerned this is the closest equivalent to a jury of our peers on an internet forum, so if they tell us they don't want to plaster the victim's name & whatnot I believe them. Not wanting to risk the resuming and compounding of the harassment is a valid reason not to get into the detail. Not saying you should believe them too. But to convince me and I suspect most people here you'd have to reasonably demonstrate all the mods are biaised, not just Baulderstone (who I think is a pretty good faith debater in general btw).

Btw, no it's not symetrical, and I don't think it should be. Let's be real, the mods here are much less likely than random posters to make fake accusations, and it's also not just 1 person, but a group that we know disagree on lots of things, are generally fair & rarely take action to sanction anyone. They're also in charge of not letting this place turn into a shitshow, which necessitates some discretion. It just does.

Also while I appreciate that you apologize when pressed, you have a pattern of making screechy "call outs" (accusations) mid argument then having to backtrack. But last time I understood your point, and this time I don't see one besides apologetics. So it feels like it is parasocial/social clique bullshit and that I don't like. Didn't help that impression that you wrote a giant chunk of text of fanfiction about Spamhander apologizing- or that you admitted being friends and therefor biaised.

Anyway, general rethoric advice : if you mount a defense of someone don't stop midargument to adress immaterial things (like some people supposedly distorting what you say), unless that's the whole point of the defense - eg "all the mods are biaised against Spamhammer", since that's what would be required for such an attack to make sense.

And more personal advice/pure opinion, just let Grim and Perilous Spam (or any internet personality) mount their own apology/defense, unless you get paid for it. It doesn't even help them. But it does smear shit everywhere on forums and for no good reason. Very frankly last time I saw you in the moderation thread I felt you were attacked because you said something that caused fanboy butthurt despite having validity - even though you were also screechy. This time, it feels like you're just playing the flying monkey apologetic.

Speaking for myself, I'm not here to avoid "politics", I'm here to avoid being somewhere that's captured by fanboy cliques and other personality cults - which, granted, is most of what passes for politics in this scene. It still seeps in and I don't like it. So that's why I wrote you this text wall. Also because I think you're a good dude and you will listen at least a bit. And you know I didn't write it just because of biais against you or to stan for whomever.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
The other thing is that you have to really really try hard to get banned from the PUB.
Click to expand...
Genuinely, it's really difficult. I think this is one of two cases of people being banned for off site behaviour.

Generally the most common of the rare bannings comes down to "as mods we are telling you to stop doing this specific thing". "I shall not stop doing this specific thing". Which doesn't leave us with other options really.

But to convince me and I suspect most people here you'd have to reasonably demonstrate all the mods are biaised, not just Baulderstone (who I think is a pretty good faith debater in general btw).
Click to expand...

I'd also say that out of all of the mods Baulderstone is by far the one most likely to recuse himself from moderation action if he thinks there's any personal bias at all. Which makes the accusation of bias seem particularly unfair, when he's the mod who takes the most steps to stop it affecting moderation.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
Gringnr Gringnr bro

What are you trying to achieve? No one is going to change their mind about Zweispammer because of your defense. First because some of your arguments stretch credulity and require to ignore pattern & context to exonerate him from what he says. Eg. I read some of his post here half-voiced racism accusations were definetly in his repertoir - saying it's racist to call him a shill and similar nonsense (check p. of the Demon city thread for evidence). Doesn't matter though.

If there's one thing I've learned about the online RPG community as a whole is that harassment is way too common. The other thing is that you have to really really try hard to get banned from the PUB. As far as I am concerned this is the closest equivalent to a jury of our peers on an internet forum, so if they tell us they don't want to plaster the victim's name & whatnot I believe them. Not wanting to risk the resuming and compounding of the harassment is a valid reason not to get into the detail. Not saying you should believe them too. But to convince me and I suspect most people here you'd have to reasonably demonstrate all the mods are biaised, not just Baulderstone (who I think is a pretty good faith debater in general btw).

Btw, no it's not symetrical, and I don't think it should be. Let's be real, the mods here are much less likely than random posters to make fake accusations, and it's also not just 1 person, but a group that we know disagree on lots of things, are generally fair & rarely take action to sanction anyone. They're also in charge of not letting this place turn into a shitshow, which necessitates some discretion. It just does.

Also while I appreciate that you apologize when pressed, you have a pattern of making screechy "call outs" (accusations) mid argument then having to backtrack. But last time I understood your point, and this time I don't see one besides apologetics. So it feels like it is parasocial/social clique bullshit and that I don't like. Didn't help that impression that you wrote a giant chunk of text of fanfiction about Spamhander apologizing- or that you admitted being friends and therefor biaised.

Anyway, general rethoric advice : if you mount a defense of someone don't stop midargument to adress immaterial things (like some people supposedly distorting what you say), unless that's the whole point of the defense - eg "all the mods are biaised against Spamhammer", since that's what would be required for such an attack to make sense.

And more personal advice/pure opinion, just let Grim and Perilous Spam (or any internet personality) mount their own apology/defense, unless you get paid for it. It doesn't even help them. But it does smear shit everywhere on forums and for no good reason. Very frankly last time I saw you in the moderation thread I felt you were attacked because you said something that caused fanboy butthurt despite having validity - even though you were also screechy. This time, it feels like you're just playing the flying monkey apologetic.

Speaking for myself, I'm not here to avoid "politics", I'm here to avoid being somewhere that's captured by fanboy cliques and other personality cults - which, granted, is most of what passes for politics in this scene. It still seeps in and I don't like it. So that's why I wrote you this text wall. Also because I think you're a good dude and you will listen at least a bit. And you know I didn't write it just because of biais against you or to stan for whomever.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your taking the time to post. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

I'm not really trying to "achieve" anything, tbh. I don't really have an agenda.

When the whole Vox Day thing was boiling over, a poster stated - falsely - that they couldn't post about ACKS without it becoming a huge mess (there are multiple unsullied ACKS threads on thia forum). And while this was patently false, I think this is absolutely true of.Fox and Zweihander. If I have any point to make, it's that some here are guilty of the exact knee-jerk reactions, lack of nuance, and spreading of misinformation that they accuse me of. I also think that where Dan is concerned, he has been designated an "acceptable target," if unofficially.

Sure, I get that people may not wanna open old wounds where Fox and alleged or actual harassment by him/his sockpuppets is concerned. I don't blame them. But surely, I can't be blamed for looking sideways at unsupported allegations, especially when "proof not accusations" is a hill the mods have chosen to die on. There are things that I, too know and have seen (about Dan and others), that I cannot share for similar reasons. So I just don't mention them.

I also think that where Fox is concerned, the legend has outgrown the man. I disagree with your assertion, or anyone else's, that I blindly defend him. I've acknowledged his spammy marketing, divisive postings here and elsewhere, and even called his painting the Pub as racist "skeevy." I don't find him perfect. Nor do I think he is utterly evil or irredeemable. Few people are. I've also pushed back online against people who have called Pundit a "nazi". I mean, I can't stand the guy, but he's not that.

As far as mods here being less likely to spread false accusations, maybe, most of them. But I also think this could sometimes be a matter of someone stating something they believe to be true, when it isn't. As with Pundit, Fox's legend has grown, and along the way, and gathered into it things that just aren't true. Sure, a lot of things that are daid about him are true, but he's become a kind of Keyzer Sose figure. I've seen him accused of having the consultants removed from 5e, and you can hardly post about Zweihänder on reddit, or other platforms, without a wall of people accusing you of being Daniel. It's bizarre. Whether or not the guy has a reputation for using socks, you'd think people would check your ears-long post history before making such a ridiculous assertion. Now I realize this last part isn't about the Pub, but it's illustrative of the larger issue IMO. And it dies make me wonder exactly how much of what Dan is blamed for here is actually his doing. Aside from the stuff that we all know he's done, of course. Some things are absolutely not in dispute, I get that.

And sure, I have an admittedly bias, owing to a friendship with the guy, but I'm not the only one showing a bias on account of a friendship, IMO.

When it comes to backtracking, I feel that people should admit when they are wrong. It's the right thing to do. But I want to be clear: just because I've apologized or backtracked on certain things, doesn't mean I'm backtracking in everything. Frex, Endless Flight Endless Flight chided me yesterday for bringing up a poster who was unrelated to the ongoing issue. Fair enough. He was right, and I was in the wrong for bringing up that poster under the circumstances. However, what I said about that poster was correct, and I stand by that it 100%. I wasn't joking when I said I say what I mean. If I am gonna apologize for anything, I will be very specific about what I am apologizing/self-correcting for. If I don't mention it specifically, then either I'm not wrong, or I'm not sorry. Or both. I'm also not the only one to have apologized or bactracked after a dust-up.

With regard to not stopping during a discussion ordisagreement to address issues of people distorting what has been said, I'm afraid I just can't agree with you here. It is important to be clear in these situations, and ignoring intentional hyperbole or misrepresentation does nothing but muddy the waters. Upon further reflection, I'm less convinced that Baulderstone does this on purpose, but still convinced that he does it. In any event, no good can come of allowing others to misrepresent your words. How does this serve anyone? A untruth that is not challenged becomes a fact in the minds of many.


One final word about assuming "good faith" by the mods. Normally I do. But when a mod specifically calls you out, then says you're not allowed to respond, then blue texts it after the fact, it's a bit hard to assume good faith. Likewise with Fenris-77 Fenris-77 accusing me of being insulting while calling me a "dick" and "not very smart." You'll notice that once Endless actually articulated a problem with what I was doing, I did realize that yes, I was in the wrong for mentioning an uninvolved poster. Good faith can, and will, likely be restored. But it can take time.

Oh, and with regard to the "shill being racist" thing, I agree that my man was off base. I have seen the word "shill" used in an anti-semitic manner by alt-right/racist typees, but it is and was abundantly clear that this was not the intent of its use by... was it Justin Alexander... who is definitely not one of those. Yeah, not even close. So yeah, complete agreement there.

Thanks again for taking the time to post this.
 
I don't have anything personal against you either, I was just being honest about what I thought of your behavior. We can disagree about that, but I wasn't being critical just to be a jerk but because I thought you were being confrontational and unfriendly in a way that doesn't square with how I think the Pub should be.
 
Gringnr said:
When the whole Vox Day thing was boiling over, a poster stated - falsely - that they couldn't post about ACKS without it becoming a huge mess (there are multiple unsullied ACKS threads on thia forum). And while this was patently false, I think this is absolutely true of.Fox and Zweihander. If I have any point to make, it's that some here are guilty of the exact knee-jerk reactions, lack of nuance, and spreading of misinformation that they accuse me of. I also think that where Dan is concerned, he has been designated an "acceptable target," if unofficially.
Click to expand...
I mean this thread would seem to me to show that you're wrong on that - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/which-one-warhammer-4th-edition-vs-zweihander-revised.9524/

In that one there was a bit of snark about Fox then I told people to take it elsewhere and the posts were spun off into a new thread.

This thread has no snark at all - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/flames-of-freedom-powered-by-zweihaender.6807/

Your readthrough threads were left alone.

No snark here - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/zweihander-available-in-oh-so-decadent-dead-tree.3200/

In fact I accept I might have missed some, but those are the Zweihander threads I can find from a title search.

I think it's important to differentiate between threads about Zweihander and threads about Fox or his business practices here. It's the difference between a thread about Lion & Dragon and a thread about RPG pundit. The thread that kicked this all off was decidedly about the latter.

The Nerdcognito interview (which you were the first to post) wasn't really that much about Zweihander at all. It was specifically about Fox. So yeah, you probably can't post Fox doing promotional interviews without some pushback, but that doesn't mean the same is true of posting about the game Zweihander.
Gringnr said:
Sure, I get that people may not wanna open old wounds where Fox and alleged or actual harassment by him/his sockpuppets is concerned. I don't blame them. But surely, I can't be blamed for looking sideways at unsupported allegations, especially when "proof not accusations" is a hill the mods have chosen to die on. There are things that I, too know and have seen (about Dan and others), that I cannot share for similar reasons. So I just don't mention them.
Click to expand...
Serious question. Are you wanting me to post a full list of allegations I believe have hard proof or is that unhelpful at this time?

I will also say that one thing I'm finding frustrating with you is when you insist on evidence you've been previously shown. What Fox said about the Pub was not only posted in a thread you were in. Seems a bit of a cheek to talk about the need to earn good faith when you've done this to be frank.
Gringnr said:
As far as mods here being less likely to spread false accusations, maybe, most of them. But I also think this could sometimes be a matter of someone stating something they believe to be true, when it isn't. As with Pundit, Fox's legend has grown, and along the way, and gathered into it things that just aren't true. Sure, a lot of things that are daid about him are true, but he's become a kind of Keyzer Sose figure. I've seen him accused of having the consultants removed from 5e, and you can hardly post about Zweihänder on reddit, or other platforms, without a wall of people accusing you of being Daniel. It's bizarre. Whether or not the guy has a reputation for using socks, you'd think people would check your ears-long post history before making such a ridiculous assertion. Now I realize this last part isn't about the Pub, but it's illustrative of the larger issue IMO. And it dies make me wonder exactly how much of what Dan is blamed for here is actually his doing. Aside from the stuff that we all know he's done, of course. Some things are absolutely not in dispute, I get that.
Click to expand...
What unproven allegations do you think have been posted? I can think of three that would qualify.

Gaming Drivethru. Hasn't come up that much and I've previously said I think it's not true.

Took credit for getting Pundit removed after Consultantgate. I haven't really looked into this one tbh, because I don't really think it's an especially damning issue. I agree with you that he didn't for one simple reason. Consultantgate was 2014. This photo is from 2018:

Daniel Fox and Zak.JPG

Yeah, it seems unlikely Fox would have campaigned to have Zak removed and then gone drinking with him later.

So that's two of the possible accusations. One of which I've previously dismissed, the second of which I've said that while I have no idea what Fox has and hasn't claimed he did, but yeah, timeline is wrong.

So the one's that's left is the abuse allegation. And the details have been provided before in a thread you were in. (No, I'm not going to make the alleged victim repeat themselves whenever you ask for the same evidence that's already been posted). And that one pretty much comes back to my point that I don't think that "this would be admissable in court as a witness statement" is an overly high burden of proof. You seem to want a paper trail which isn't how this kind of thing works, especially with someone who is known to delete content from the Internet.
 
I'm going to be blunt and say that in terms of good faith I'm pretty sure I'm extending a lot more charity on the "asked for evidence and then later claimed no evidence had been provided" thing then you'd be if the situation was reversed.
 
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...
This for sure. Though I'd not disagree with you anyhow, I tend to be nervous around smiling hand grenades and want to keep them happy. Not too happy because then they might burst but definitely happy.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
Gringnr Gringnr bro

What are you trying to achieve? No one is going to change their mind about Zweispammer because of your defense. First because some of your arguments stretch credulity and require to ignore pattern & context to exonerate him from what he says. Eg. I read some of his post here and weasely half-voiced racism accusations were definetly in his repertoir - saying it's racist to call him a shill and similar nonsense (check p. of the Demon city thread for evidence). Doesn't matter though.

If there's one thing I've learned about the online RPG community as a whole is that harassment is way too common. The other thing is that you have to really really try hard to get banned from the PUB. As far as I am concerned this is the closest equivalent to a jury of our peers on an internet forum, so if they tell us they don't want to plaster the victim's name & whatnot I believe them. Not wanting to risk the resuming and compounding of the harassment is a valid reason not to get into the detail. Not saying you should believe them too. But to convince me and I suspect most people here you'd have to reasonably demonstrate all the mods are biaised, not just Baulderstone (who I think is a pretty good faith debater in general btw).

Btw, no it's not symetrical, and I don't think it should be. Let's be real, the mods here are much less likely than random posters to make fake accusations, and it's also not just 1 person, but a group that we know disagree on lots of things, are generally fair & rarely take action to sanction anyone. They're also in charge of not letting this place turn into a shitshow, which necessitates some discretion. It just does.

Also while I appreciate that you apologize when pressed, you have a pattern of making screechy "call outs" (accusations) mid argument then having to backtrack. But last time I understood your point, and this time I don't see one besides apologetics. So it feels like it is parasocial/social clique bullshit and that I don't like. Didn't help that impression that you wrote a giant chunk of text of fanfiction about Spamhander apologizing- or that you admitted being friends and therefor biaised.

Anyway, general rethoric advice : if you mount a defense of someone don't stop midargument to adress immaterial things (like some people supposedly distorting what you say), unless that's the whole point of the defense - eg "all the mods are biaised against Spamhammer", since that's what would be required for such an attack to make sense.

And more personal advice/pure opinion, just let Grim and Perilous Spam (or any internet personality) mount their own apology/defense, unless you get paid for it. It doesn't even help them. But it does smear shit everywhere on forums and for no good reason. Very frankly last time I saw you in the moderation thread I felt you were attacked because you said something that caused fanboy butthurt despite having validity - even though you were also screechy. This time, it feels like you're just playing the flying monkey apologetic.

Speaking for myself, I'm not here to avoid "politics", I'm here to avoid being somewhere that's captured by fanboy cliques and other personality cults - which, granted, is most of what passes for politics in this scene. It still seeps in and I don't like it. So that's why I wrote you this text wall. Also because I think you're a good dude and you will listen at least a bit. And you know I didn't write it just because of biais against you or to stan for whomever.
Click to expand...
Thank you for articulating sooo much better than I ever could, on how I've often about these particular threads and how they've went down. It's been very frustrating and having any sort of response has felt futile at best.
 
spittingimage said:
Kind of off-topic, but how is it that some posters have an encyclopaedic knowledge of threads where people have argued with them? Do you keep a list? Am I on the list?
Click to expand...

55d7844b3bb81.jpeg


9ec44ef9-9c93-411f-b95f-6eba5d7c5378_text.gif
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
I mean this thread would seem to me to show that you're wrong on that - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/which-one-warhammer-4th-edition-vs-zweihander-revised.9524/

In that one there was a bit of snark about Fox then I told people to take it elsewhere and the posts were spun off into a new thread.

This thread has no snark at all - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/flames-of-freedom-powered-by-zweihaender.6807/

Your readthrough threads were left alone.

No snark here - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/zweihander-available-in-oh-so-decadent-dead-tree.3200/

In fact I accept I might have missed some, but those are the Zweihander threads I can find from a title search.

I think it's important to differentiate between threads about Zweihander and threads about Fox or his business practices here. It's the difference between a thread about Lion & Dragon and a thread about RPG pundit. The thread that kicked this all off was decidedly about the latter.

The Nerdcognito interview (which you were the first to post) wasn't really that much about Zweihander at all. It was specifically about Fox. So yeah, you probably can't post Fox doing promotional interviews without some pushback, but that doesn't mean the same is true of posting about the game Zweihander.

Serious question. Are you wanting me to post a full list of allegations I believe have hard proof or is that unhelpful at this time?

I will also say that one thing I'm finding frustrating with you is when you insist on evidence you've been previously shown. What Fox said about the Pub was not only posted in a thread you were in. Seems a bit of a cheek to talk about the need to earn good faith when you've done this to be frank.

What unproven allegations do you think have been posted? I can think of three that would qualify.

Gaming Drivethru. Hasn't come up that much and I've previously said I think it's not true.

Took credit for getting Pundit removed after Consultantgate. I haven't really looked into this one tbh, because I don't really think it's an especially damning issue. I agree with you that he didn't for one simple reason. Consultantgate was 2014. This photo is from 2018:

View attachment 80479

Yeah, it seems unlikely Fox would have campaigned to have Zak removed and then gone drinking with him later.

So that's two of the possible accusations. One of which I've previously dismissed, the second of which I've said that while I have no idea what Fox has and hasn't claimed he did, but yeah, timeline is wrong.

So the one's that's left is the abuse allegation. And the details have been provided before in a thread you were in. (No, I'm not going to make the alleged victim repeat themselves whenever you ask for the same evidence that's already been posted). And that one pretty much comes back to my point that I don't think that "this would be admissable in court as a witness statement" is an overly high burden of proof. You seem to want a paper trail which isn't how this kind of thing works, especially with someone who is known to delete content from the Internet.
Click to expand...
Bears mentioning that more than half of the threads you're pointing out as being free of drama and snark are from before He was banned. But yes, you have posted a couple of (mostly) drama-free threads about Zweihander and related products. Even if one was only that way because, by your own admission, you had to shut the drama down. I'm not sure this is as persuasive as you think it is.

If I'm not remembering evidence of the man being an abuser, please point me to the thead it was in, I'll gladly eat crow if necessary. I legitimately don't remember it. No, I don't expect the alleged victim to get dragged into anything.

If you wish to post a list of allegations, with poof, feel free. I'll read them with an open mind.

I remember seeing the Dan Tweet before, I've never denied its existence, please don't insinuate that I'm being intentionally dishonest. That simply isn't true. What I hadn't seen, that I recall, is the discussion of Dan's ban here. Which is why I was asking questions about it. Those questions have been answered. I haven't seen the other, deleted Tweets, I don't think. But if I'm asking for something you think or know I've already seen, it's because I honestly don't remember. Not because I'm being "cheeky" or whatever.



A Fiery Flying Roll said:
I'm going to be blunt and say that in terms of good faith I'm pretty sure I'm extending a lot more charity on the "asked for evidence and then later claimed no evidence had been provided" thing then you'd be if the situation was reversed.
Click to expand...
This is entirely hypothetical, what exactly is it supposed to prove?
 
Gringnr said:
Bears mentioning that more than half of the threads you're pointing out as being free of drama and snark are from before He was banned. But yes, you have posted a couple of (mostly) drama-free threads about Zweihander and related products. Even if one was only that way because, by your own admission, you had to shut the drama down. I'm not sure this is as persuasive as you think it is.
Click to expand...
One of them is; the last one. He was banned in 2020. The others are way past that point. But those are the only Zweihander threads I can find from a title search. If you have one in mind, please link me to it because I'm genuinely on the blank.

On the latter point, it's not meant to be persuasive. It's meant to reassure you that you can in fact post a thread about Zweihander (as opposed to a thread about Daniel Fox) without it deteriorating into a mess and it's happened. I don't really see the fact the thread stayed on track because of my intervention as especially damning here. Stopping threads from turning into a mess so you or anyone else can discuss the game instead of the individual is part of the board's ethos and a major part of being a moderator here.
Gringnr said:
If I'm not remembering evidence of the man being an abuser, please point me to the thead it was in, I'll gladly eat crow if necessary. I legitimately don't remember it. No, I don't expect the alleged victim to get dragged into anything.
Click to expand...
Piracy and the Trove threads.
Gringnr said:
If you wish to post a list of allegations, with poof, feel free. I'll read them with an open mind.
Click to expand...

Daniel Fox did some spammy marketing promo. Don't think anyone including him questions that one.

Daniel Fox said he took down the trove. Think this is the same, although a lot of us don't actually care about that one.

After his ban, he liked a Tweet from one of his followers suggesting a harrassment campaign and deleted a tweet from Tristram correcting his lie on while he's been banned. I'll admit I can't prove that one because I saw the first myself but stupidly didn't screenshot and that entire account is gone.

Daniel Fox has told public lies. He lied about why he was banned from the Pub. The evidence has been posted and acknowledged.

Fox previously promoted his work on the RPGsite and got on with Pundit well enough that he publically talked about a Dark Albion supplement for Zweihander although Pundit denies that happened. The former is enough enough to see on The Site. My source for the latter is you.

That he uses sockpuppets. I mean, he's definitely used at least one (he got two accounts banned on Drivethru).

Those are the main ones I can think of. The others are either stuff that's personal opinion not an accusation ("Fox is a dick) or stuff I've said I'm pretty sure isn't true (gaming Drivethru).

Gringnr said:
I remember seeing the Dan Tweet before, I've never denied its existence, please don't insinuate that I'm being intentionally dishonest. That simply isn't true. What I hadn't seen, that I recall, is the discussion of Dan's ban here. Which is why I was asking questions about it. Those questions have been answered. I haven't seen the other, deleted Tweets, I don't think. But if I'm asking for something you think or know I've already seen, it's because I honestly don't remember. Not because I'm being "cheeky" or whatever.
Click to expand...
I haven't insinuated that you're intentionally being dishonest. I've said that I find it annoying when I'm expected to repost evidence, especially from threads you were active in and when it feels (and I apologise if this isn't the case) that I'm the only one of us actually doing forum search to find the stuff in question. I've also suggested that if you want good faith to be assumed that this is a mistake not intentional it seems a bit rich to talk about others earning good faith from you and I stand by that. We can both drop good faith assumptions entirely but I don't think that's actually the best thing for either of us or the forum.
 
spittingimage said:
Kind of off-topic, but how is it that some posters have an encyclopaedic knowledge of threads where people have argued with them? Do you keep a list? Am I on the list?
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one :grin: I just assumed this must be stuff that happened before I got here...

I got kinda excited when I got a warning from Fenris-77 Fenris-77 . No, not that kind of excited lol.
 
Holy nuts, I coulda sworn he was banned later. Wow. My bad. Point made, and accepted.

As for your list, it actually seems a lot milder than the man's rep would suggest. Thank you for posting it.

I would point out that Fox's former association with Pundit ended either when Pundit encouraged political violence while calling literal nazis "heroes" (his Battle of Berkely blog post), or when he mocked a woman who claimed to have been sexually harassed and assaulted. If Im not mistaken, these incidents led some posters here, including a mod or two, IIRC, to break with him as well. Fox may previously have held Pundit in higher regard than he does now, but he'd hardly be alone in that.
 
Gringnr said:
As for your list, it actually seems a lot milder than the man's rep would suggest. Thank you for posting it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I said in the other thread my issues are the harrassment and the lies about the pub. The other stuff? Reason for me to dislike the guy but no more and that's not something that matters in the greater scheme of things.
Gringnr said:
I would point out that Fox's former association with Pundit ended either when Pundit encouraged political violence while calling literal nazis "heroes" (his Battle of Berkely blog post), or when he mocked a woman who claimed to have been sexually harassed and assaulted. If Im not mistaken, these incidents led some posters here, including a mod or two, IIRC, to break with him as well. Fox may previously have held Pundit in higher regard than he does now, but he'd hardly be alone in that.
Click to expand...
I only consider it relevant because of Fox's own tendency to go in hard on guilt by association when he feels like it. The charge isn't support, it's hypocrisy.
 
I legit fail to see the hypocrisy. Dude bailed on Pundit at the same time as many others. If he were still hanging or advertising with Pundit or Zak, after having condemned them, which he isn't, sure. But nah. This one doesn't stick the landing. I remember when Grim Jim left Inappropriate Characters over a matter of integrity, Daniel congratulated him and praised his choice. More to your point, unless you can find any instances of his condemning someone for past associations with someone they have since disavowed, which is what you seem to be getting at here, I'm gonna have to say that this myth is...разрушители-легенд-Mythbusters-гифки-песочница-526782.gif
 
mod note I think we can drop the Daniel Fox discussion. He can’t speak for himself here since his banning (which will never be rescinded due to his slander of the Pub after the fact) and nobody’s opinion is going to be swayed with so much water under the bridge.
 
A Fiery Flying Roll said:
I mean this thread would seem to me to show that you're wrong on that - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/which-one-warhammer-4th-edition-vs-zweihander-revised.9524/

In that one there was a bit of snark about Fox then I told people to take it elsewhere and the posts were spun off into a new thread.

This thread has no snark at all - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/flames-of-freedom-powered-by-zweihaender.6807/

Your readthrough threads were left alone.

No snark here - https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/zweihander-available-in-oh-so-decadent-dead-tree.3200/

In fact I accept I might have missed some, but those are the Zweihander threads I can find from a title search.

I think it's important to differentiate between threads about Zweihander and threads about Fox or his business practices here. It's the difference between a thread about Lion & Dragon and a thread about RPG pundit. The thread that kicked this all off was decidedly about the latter.

The Nerdcognito interview (which you were the first to post) wasn't really that much about Zweihander at all. It was specifically about Fox. So yeah, you probably can't post Fox doing promotional interviews without some pushback, but that doesn't mean the same is true of posting about the game Zweihander.

Serious question. Are you wanting me to post a full list of allegations I believe have hard proof or is that unhelpful at this time?

I will also say that one thing I'm finding frustrating with you is when you insist on evidence you've been previously shown. What Fox said about the Pub was not only posted in a thread you were in. Seems a bit of a cheek to talk about the need to earn good faith when you've done this to be frank.

What unproven allegations do you think have been posted? I can think of three that would qualify.

Gaming Drivethru. Hasn't come up that much and I've previously said I think it's not true.

Took credit for getting Pundit removed after Consultantgate. I haven't really looked into this one tbh, because I don't really think it's an especially damning issue. I agree with you that he didn't for one simple reason. Consultantgate was 2014. This photo is from 2018:

View attachment 80479

Yeah, it seems unlikely Fox would have campaigned to have Zak removed and then gone drinking with him later.

So that's two of the possible accusations. One of which I've previously dismissed, the second of which I've said that while I have no idea what Fox has and hasn't claimed he did, but yeah, timeline is wrong.

So the one's that's left is the abuse allegation. And the details have been provided before in a thread you were in. (No, I'm not going to make the alleged victim repeat themselves whenever you ask for the same evidence that's already been posted). And that one pretty much comes back to my point that I don't think that "this would be admissable in court as a witness statement" is an overly high burden of proof. You seem to want a paper trail which isn't how this kind of thing works, especially with someone who is known to delete content from the Internet.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that he was punished enough just by the fact that he went drinking with Zak. Can you imagine trying to have a conversation with that guy with a few beers in him?
:irritated:
 
Zak didn't strike me as a drinker, more the sort of guy who would judge you for drinking.

Daniel would have shares in Brewdog, obvs.
 
Ladybird said:
Zak didn't strike me as a drinker, more the sort of guy who would judge you for drinking.

Daniel would have shares in Brewdog, obvs.
Click to expand...
Zak seems like the kind of guy who would loudly tell you he doesn't drink because alcohol interacts badly with his psych meds, then later post on his blog about how he protected a girl from getting roofied because he supports women's right to drink without being roofied.

Daniel, of course, would buy everyone a drink then privately message you later asking you to venmo him the money for it.
 
spittingimage said:
Giganotosaurus Giganotosaurus would insist that you try an obscure cocktail from the 1930s that's traditionally served in a piece of the fuselage from a Fokker bomber.
Click to expand...
You've completely mischaracterized me and insulted me!
I would insist that you try an obscure non-alcoholic cocktail from the 1930's that's traditionally served in a piece of the fuselage from a Fokker bomber.

I just can't abide the taste of alcohol.
 
Giganotosaurus said:
You've completely mischaracterized me and insulted me!
I would insist that you try an obscure non-alcoholic cocktail from the 1930's that's traditionally served in a piece of the fuselage from a Fokker bomber.

I just can't abide the taste of alcohol.
Click to expand...
Giganotosaurus Giganotosaurus would be complaining that they made his virgin Cuba Libre too strong and surreptitiously putting pineapple on people's pizza.
 
TristramEvans said:
What it looks like is everyone ignored Endless's blue text. Not cool guys.
Click to expand...
Honestly I'm confused. I didn't see any blue text warning everyone to stop the joking around. I'll go back up and double check. :sad:

Edit: Oops, I found it. Though I thought we were teasing one of our Pub members and not that guy anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top