Fan letter to CGL, Because we care Options

[Kagetenshi]

If there wasn't obvious trolling and sock-puppetry nonsense going on, it wouldn't look so much like there was a lot of trolling and sock-puppetry going on, y'know?

You might want to mention where the sock-puppetry is going on; I was writing this off as defensive paranoia, but since that seemed uncharacteristic I wandered over to check out the company boards and all of a sudden it became obvious what you were talking about.

~J

[hermit]

Is there more than the one account on the official board that's trolling? I was aware only of one.

[Kagetenshi]

I don't know, I just encountered one obvious sockpuppet. I was there to verify Critias's status relative to his rocker, not get involved in another forum (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

~J

[hermit]

I know Stahlseele registered an account named FrankTrollFan or somesuch and used it to post a couple times. More than this?

[Adarael]

TranqFrollman, as well.

[Kagetenshi]

The one I ran across was TranqFrollman or somesuch; the comment didn't look obviously trollish, but it was clearly someone's sock.

~J

[hermit]

Yes, but was it more than once?

[Kagetenshi]

The account had something like 8-12 posts. I stopped looking as soon as I found it, because it demonstrated adequately that Critias's comments weren't barking mad (which they appeared to be when I'd still only seen the threads here).

~J

[sabs]

Americans do not grok the deep seeded kneejerk reaction to anything Nazi that Europeans have.

WWII was that thing that happened over there.
That war where their Grandparents (and in some cases great grand parents) were bad-asses.

It's not like for us Europeans who grew up with stories of how it was. in a very visceral way.

[Critias]

There's a "TranqFrollman," for instance, that claims not to be Frank or StahlSteele, and has had about one post out of their every three be a link to, or a copypasta of, a Frank review, a leaked document, or both.

I'm not a mod over there, so I don't know exactly how many others there are (sorry, I'm not gonna dredge through the 217 pages of user names to find more clever reformattings of Frank's name) -- but I know that that sort of stuff doesn't do anything positive. It adds to an "us vs. them" mentality, in my opinion, and doesn't contribute to the community.

I'm not a mod, so I can't ban anyone, and I'm not even sure if it's worth banning over, or anything like that...but I'm just saying, as me, personally, that stuff like that takes away from a discourse, rather than adds to it. Much like the leak itself, it's more the atmosphere it creates than any specifics of the leak that's damaging. Multiple accounts, trolling accounts, stuff like that, it all encourages a circling of the wagons, instead of open discourse. I don't want to see the Shadowrun community turn into some Seelie vs. UnSeelie court BS, that hurts the game by driving a wedge between fans and writers (because I'm both, not one or the other).

I'm not in on whatever PMs Aaron (or anyone else) sent around, so I don't know what was said. The PMs weren't to me, so I don't particularly care to know what was said. I'm just saying that either way, no matter who's saying it, stuff like this isn't doing anyone any favors.

It all comes down to the signal:noise ratio, again.

[hermit]

Maybe, sabs. It's still ... well, American style insensitive, at the very least. And they DO have a very active neo-nazi scene. Most real hardcore Nazi organisations active in Europe actually have their HQs in America.

I know that that sort of stuff doesn't do anything positive. It adds to an "us vs. them" mentality, in my opinion, and doesn't contribute to the community.

I know there was this one account, but that hardly warrants accusing dozens of people to be sock puppets, does it? seems a bit like a ... comfortable excuse to me. Also, antagonising or arrogantly dismissive (or really badly communnicated) comments by authors also really help in creating this mentality.

I don't want to see the Shadowrun community turn into some Seelie vs. UnSeelie court BS, that hurts the game by driving a wedge between fans and writers (because I'm both, not one or the other).

Neither do I, but ... well, let's just say the way CGL communicates their points is not helping, either. A little less arrogance and a little more transparency would go along way, though.

[Kagetenshi]

Critias: I guess my larger point was that you're treating multiple different communities as the same community, which is wrong even when there's overlap, and can lead the non-overlapping parts to think you're out of your tree when you call out things like obvious sockpuppetry that are obviously absent in the place where the calling-out is happening.

~J

[Saint Sithney]

I cannot know your state of mind and level of cumulative frustration by the time that developer chat happened. That said, I found your behavior in that chat to be confrontational and abrasive. I make no judgment about whether or not your attitude was justified. I can't make a judgment from text only about whether or not you even realized you were being abrasive. What I am saying is that I agree with the general sentiment behind Malachi's second point and I see evidence to support its application to you when I read the developer chat. It would be extremely difficult for me, personally, to work with someone who was confrontational like that all the time; especially when most of the interaction is not going to be in person, where body language and tone of voice can take some of the harshness out of the language used.

Really, this is just part of the difference between a discussion and a debate. When dudes are having a discussion, they can collaborate ideas into a cohesive whole as the process moves along. However, when dudes generally pick sides and set themselves into a debate, they throw the full weight of their side at the other, only keeping those parts which survive the process to integrate into the greater whole of their current opinion. So, just because people are debating, that doesn't mean that they don't consider those ideas which disagree with their view, they just integrate the strongest of those things into their view, silently, after the close of the debate. Shit that could be a discussion sometimes turns into a debate because of bias. It's a fact of working in a collaborative creative environment.

If I can add anything to this thread I'd want it to be the idea that doubting the quality or style of someone's work isn't the same as doubting their good intentions.

[Stahlseele]

There's a "TranqFrollman," for instance, that claims not to be Frank or StahlSteele, and has had about one post out of their every three be a link to, or a copypasta of, a Frank review, a leaked document, or both.

not me, not frank, but i know who.

[hermit]

Not me either. I am not registered on the official forum. I have enough forum accounts as is, and those suit my needs well enough. Feel free to compate IPs.

Also worth considering: There is ZERO obligation to keep one forum name in several communities. If the TRanqFrollman has one account on the official forum, then that is not sock puppeting. He may be known under another name at the Gaming Den or whereever, but sock puppeting really is the wrong term then.

[Critias]

Critias: I guess my larger point was that you're treating multiple different communities as the same community, which is wrong even when there's overlap, and can lead the non-overlapping parts to think you're out of your tree when you call out things like obvious sockpuppetry that are obviously absent in the place where the calling-out is happening.

~J

I'm not the only one, or even the first, to treat much of this drama like it's one big snarl of arguments and debates, instead of as though it were several distinct conversations happening in several distinct places. For instance, the very post I wrote mentioning this sort of thing was in reply to comments about writers dismissing criticism as sock puppets and trolls (which, to the best of my knowledge, was a comment he made based on things being said elsewhere). But since that comment was made here on DS, I replied to it here on DS.

What was I supposed to do, copy-paste his post and start a new thread about it over on the SR forums? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

At any rate, I'm glad you took a second to go find out I wasn't just making stuff up.

[hermit]

which, to the best of my knowledge, was a comment he made based on things being said elsewhere

Elsewhere on Dumpshock.

[Critias]

*sigh* And another attempt at communication goes down in the snarling flames of hair splitting and argument, instead of conversation.

Please listen to me. Please. Please. I am not debating anything. I am not pointing fingers at one side or the other. I am saying that all trolling when discussing this sort of thing takes away from anything potentially positive. If Aaron pissed you off in PMs, that -- by nature -- takes away from anything positive he might have said in public, right? Likewise, if someone is posting under a variation of Frank Trollman's name, with multiple links to Frank Trollman's posts or leaked documents, then -- regardless of whether it's "sock puppetry" or not -- it comes off in a certain light, and makes it easy to want to ignore that person as a troll.

If any one writer comes off as arrogant and dismissive, suddenly all writers are said to be showing an arrogant and dismissive attitude. If one critic is seen to be blatantly trolling and insulting instead of, or in addition to, saying anything positive...well, some of that attitude might rub off on other critics. We're all human, and exactly this sort of miscommunication and stereotyping is what happens when lines get drawn in the sand, when the wagons get circled, when the drawbridge gets raised, or whatever other allegory you want to use for an "us vs. them" mentality.

And I am saying that is bad for Shadowrun. As a fan as much as a writer -- as a fan more than as a writer, since I've been playing SR since 1990, and none of my work for them has even hit shelves yet -- I'm just saying that I wish everyone could tone it down a little.

I'm not saying not to criticize work you don't like. I'm just asking people, as someone with no authority whatsoever to enforce the asking, to be aware of what they're saying and how it's being taken. When someone accuses you of being a Nazi sympathizer, for instance, it takes away from any honest message they have about liking or disliking your writing. When someone calls you a "scab" it makes it hard to think they're being unbiased with the rest of a literary review. When someone says something to you in private messages that contradicts what they say in public, it makes it hard to think they're being honest and transparent. It all goes both ways, and I'm just standing here wishing everyone could keep it a little more civil, so that the respective messages don't get lost in the noise.

[Kagetenshi]

Also worth considering: There is ZERO obligation to keep one forum name in several communities. If the TRanqFrollman has one account on the official forum, then that is not sock puppeting. He may be known under another name at the Gaming Den or whereever, but sock puppeting really is the wrong term then.

Mm. At the least, it was clearly a handle not intended as a durable means of identification.

I'm not the only one, or even the first, to treat much of this drama like it's one big snarl of arguments and debates, instead of as though it were several distinct conversations happening in several distinct places. For instance, the very post I wrote mentioning this sort of thing was in reply to comments about writers dismissing criticism as sock puppets and trolls (which, to the best of my knowledge, was a comment he made based on things being said elsewhere). But since that comment was made here on DS, I replied to it here on DS.

What was I supposed to do, copy-paste his post and start a new thread about it over on the SR forums? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

At any rate, I'm glad you took a second to go find out I wasn't just making stuff up.

Well, like I said, I think the best solution would have been to qualify the location of the observed sockpuppetry. I don't think it's an issue of the utmost priority—it took you repeatedly making reference to obvious puppetry to make me think "wait, why haven't I seen anything like that" hard enough to go looking—but, well, during some period when it was between my threshold of notice and my threshold of going-looking it definitely cast a paranoid tone on your comments.

~J

[otakusensei]

I'm not saying not to criticize work you don't like. I'm just asking people, as someone with no authority whatsoever to enforce the asking, to be aware of what they're saying and how it's being taken. When someone accuses you of being a Nazi sympathizer, for instance, it takes away from any honest message they have about liking or disliking your writing. When someone calls you a "scab" it makes it hard to think they're being unbiased with the rest of a literary review. When someone says something to you in private messages that contradicts what they say in public, it makes it hard to think they're being honest and transparent. It all goes both ways, and I'm just standing here wishing everyone could keep it a little more civil, so that the respective messages don't get lost in the noise.

You might not want to start your posts in a manner that sounds like you see a light and understanding that appears to be beyond the reach of everyone else. Being honest here, it just shuts people down as much as the stuff you're pissed about. And you're pissed, we get it. I am too, just at different stuff.

For my 2¥, the thing that I would like to see is someone taking those accusations of Nazi sympathy, or lack of care in their work, and addressing them point blank. If they are slander, if they are false then you can should correct them. David Hill tried that on the official forums, and though I don't think he did a very good job, I don't think his particular position was very defensible. That section needed to be cut or strongly revised and development failed him. But not saying anything at all is almost worse. Almost. When you don't hear any response, you just assume that they can't say anything to defend themselves. And that makes the accusation sound true. Yes, that tactic can be abused to slander someone, and does on most forms of talk radio. But we're not talking about an approach to foreign policy here, but a really questionable section from a book that makes some people feel legitimately uncomfortable about being in their game.

Aaron posted a really insightful bit about naming conventions in the gear section. While I don't agree with some of his choices, I respect that he is openly communicating. Will he get flamed? Of course. But the alternative is being damned by your own silence in the face of vocal opposition. It isn't really fair, but it is part of publishing these days and it needs to be addressed.

[hermit]

If Aaron pissed you off in PMs, that -- by nature -- takes away from anything positive he might have said in public, right? Likewise, if someone is posting under a variation of Frank Trollman's name, with multiple links to Frank Trollman's posts or leaked documents, then -- regardless of whether it's "sock puppetry" or not -- it comes off in a certain light, and makes it easy to want to ignore that person as a troll.

Okay, yes, that is quite in your face. I don't defend that person and I don't think it is really helping. Hoewever, it's a bad thing to insinuate I, or really anyone here, is behind this. Odds are they'Re not (it's one person and it's just as probable it's a Gaming Den person, rather than soemone who's majorly active on Dumpshock).

I am not even saying this is not trolling you, and you should heed what that person says. But not everyone criticising war is that person.

It all goes both ways, and I'm just standing here wishing everyone could keep it a little more civil, so that the respective messages don't get lost in the noise.

Yes, that'd be good. People like Aaron popping in and adding fuel to the fire, apparently because they think that's fun, rather than examine their writing, neither shows them as very insightful people, nor helps anything. Sure, I was very harsh, and at least on the first day way over the line, which got me a very deserved warning for trolling. However, neither was every critic, nor does that make War! in any way a better product (and no matter how much people like Aaron delude themselves, there's not much praise for War! to go around anywhere).

If any one writer comes off as arrogant and dismissive, suddenly all writers are said to be showing an arrogant and dismissive attitude.

All who post about it in the open I know about are (well, David Hill ... maybe he was just incredibly clumsy and ingorant and stupid. Maybe.). If there was, say, Filamena Young or anyone else here and would be responding in a calmer manner - like you are - that would surely help.

When someone accuses you of being a Nazi sympathizer, for instance, it takes away from any honest message they have about liking or disliking your writing.

I do not do this lightly, believe me. It's a damning accusation, where I come from probably far more than in America (maybe like ... being called an atheist socialist?). It's just, Hot Spots is so full of incredibly bad stuff, it's really hard not to really, really wonder about the author's intentions. Maybe this is a case of cultural misunderstanding. Sure, my own cultural background makes me biased. But I do not call people Nazis lightly. Auschwitz in itself as a setting wouldn't necessarily have sufficed, there even was a very well done concept of an Auschwitz run involving a nazi pen charegd with camp fury here. The way it is treated though is sickening. The 'explanation' and the gypsy massacre, even more so. This reflects on David. In a very, very bad way.

If you, as an author, do think gypsy massacres and Auschwitz the forbidden tomb make for fun, light hearted, good stories for a tabletop game, maybe there is something wrong with you.

[sabs]

Auschwitz can be used for a very.. dark, make you think story. It can be used in a way that is interesting and thought provoking, even in Shadowrun. But the treatment it got, seems very irreverent. And does make me question the writer's intentions, or at least sensitivity.

[hermit]

That other run discussed somewhere, about the sylvestrines wanting to release angry ghosts, crossfire and different factions being after Wirtz' pen, and the ending scene with the Mexican standoff and the remaining Sylvestrine killing herself by releasing them in the required ritual? Yes. That's actually a very good idea. It does not treat 1.1 million dead as some sort of Forbidden Tomb in the Eye of Terror where you go to loot Bile's Scalpel, it treats the whole matter sensitively enough and makes for a great story if it works as a run. Just to show Auschwitz can be used and not piss off anyone if done right.

[Kagetenshi]

This is untimely because of waffling over whether to comment on it, but I figure I ought to.

Aaron, especially, brushed off anyone pointing to (fundamental) flaws in his arguments, and then took it to PMs to be a dick

I believe this to not be done with malice aforethought—I've noticed that both on the board and on PMs he'll often open with something very confrontational and defensive and then move on to a reasonable discussion. After I posted this post he engaged me via PMs for more details; this opened with the observation that he suspected I was trolling, but since then the exchange has been reasonable and cordial (no one has changed their minds yet, as far as I'm aware, but serious discussion of the issues has ensued).

The problem is that, well, inflammatory openings tend to get inflammatory replies. In that sense I'm not really here to defend him, but there's evidence that the issue is more nuanced and less damning than simply refusing to consider opposing viewpoints.

~J

[hermit]

The problem is that, well, inflammatory openings tend to get inflammatory replies. In that sense I'm not really here to defend him, but there's evidence that the issue is more nuanced and less damning than simply refusing to consider opposing viewpoints.

Well, maybe. My patience with this shit ran out around PM 2 where he told me he sees himself as incapable of making mistakes and I was a troll for not agreeing with him on how awesome he is.