The irony here is that most people have no idea of the deliberation that goes on behind the scenes before the mods make an officail action. Yep. We're all about consensus.

Plus, Freedom of Speech on the internet is a fallacy. You only have as much freedom as the owners of each site allow you to have.

OK, just curious:
How is this hole thing going to affect US here on Dumpshock?
If we take a look at the Disclaimer at the Bottom of the Board-Page it reads:

If the License is lost by CGL, then does this still apply?

It's dated anyway, since Topps chopped up WizKids, kept the flesh and sold the bones to dance elsewhere.

Going back through 7 years your heavily censored forums have removed
45 threads total
which are composed of
13 Porn sites
13 Duplicate Topics
13 Discussions initiated on topics listed in ToS
6 Threads with more then 10 posts that went off the deep end with multiple really nasty ToS violations and totally inappapropriate posts that put the CGL speculations threads to shame (And I did check them, my eyes bleed)

dont duplicate topics usually get merged instead of removed?

13
13
13
and 6
?
wow, that's quite a cooincidence.

Um... can I get a list of those porn sites?
j/k

So in ten days we'll have official information about when PDFs of Vice and Seattle will be available again?

Are there going to be any substantial changes from the original print runs when they're released?

Despite the deliberation, despite those that are for and against what the banned person spoke of, despite everything, you (the moderators) chose to ban a person who only voiced what some others are thinking. You silenced a vocal person in the debate that has spawned not 1, but 5 threads (more if you consider the ban posts.) I understand moderation and I understand the stances on free speech, but you have silenced the opposition based on a very dicey TOS violation. Do what you will, but by censoring a person that gave information on a rather large portion of one side of the debate, you have thrown your towel in for the Status Quo. So now it has come down to a bunch of people sitting around and tossing ideas and speculation around without a source of information from one side of the situation, without his regurgitation of information from his source, you have squelched any retort or response.

The post he used that lead to his banning was a response to the other person acknowledging that he had a "disagreement" on another forum with him. If you don't want to hear the truth, don't bring up the subjects you are afraid to broach. Without seeing the so called deliberation that the moderators claim, I can only think that he was silenced based on ill feelings being held by people of authority here on Dumpshock.

Dumpshock is a forum full of fans. Fans for the game of Shadowrun. Granted, by playing Shadowrun, we are all subjected to some storylines of deceit and foul play, and sometimes I think that can wheedle its way into our view of the real world. I believe that the truth lies in between the two sides. I don't think we will ever know the true story behind what has happened, and I am sure, that for the most part, this forum has absolutely no right to know the full truth. Yes, some members of this forum have a stake in the truth, but not all and not neccessarily should the truth be laid bare on these pages.

If we, as Dumpshock readers, cannot discuss the game, the situation, or the debate, without fear of being banned or censured, then what kind of debate is it?

The true victim here, is the game property. My personal feeling is that, with Loren L Coleman doing the negotiation for the renewal, CGL and IMR might have a chance to retain the publishing rights, and that is a win win for the SR community. What happens after Coleman's usefulness to the organization after this, is hopefully handled with much care and consideration. I just hope his actions up to this point doesn't put nails in the coffin of one of my most favorite games systems.

It isn't, Stahseele.

Thanks you, then i don't really need to care anymore.
I don't get to play much anyway, and this here has become way more important to me than the actual game in itself.

well some people like conflict and see it as a healthy expression of active minds.

Seriously though, you can disagree and debate without stooping to personal insults and flaming.

Something the US politicians have actually forgotten, but hey...


Playing nice does not mean agreeing with each other it just means being polite about it.


..I think I might have lost track of what I was attempting to say here >.>;

Ideally, but for example if I was asked to do that I might not have a clue and I might simply remove the empty duplicate Topic.

Aha, makes sense.

You know, you always can create topics in the internal mod forums to learn how to use the board software.

Ah… time for that signature.

..Am I the only person who thinks that if someone comes in here pointing fingers at our moderators and making accusations, they should at least have posted more than once ever?

And yet my account has been around longer than you. Just because I haven't posted up until this point doesn't mean I haven't been around.

Statistically speaking, it's not that likely… for any opinion.

What does the amount of time registered have to do with it? If the only thing you've ever contributed is a single post accusing someone of wrong doing, what sort of impression does that make? We don't know you, we have no basis for comparison with how you normally act, what your opinions are, who you are. Except that you accuse the moderators of censorship, when they ban someone whos been warned over and over again and given many chances and knew exactly what they were doing and what would likely happen.

I am grateful to Trollman for bringing us the information.

I do not think that that gives him leeway to act the way he was.

Hes a grown man, I'm very certain he can take care of himself, and accept the consequences of his own actions.

And you sit here attacking me of posting my opinion. I guess I have to have a 140 posts in order for my opinion on the forums to matter. I posted what I thought of the Frank Trollman banning. and I posted what I thought of the rampant speculation that is going on. and what I thought of the situation. If you don't like it, gnore it. If you think I shouldn't have any weight in discussions, perhaps you think new posters shouldn't be on this forum...

this exact response to my opinion is very indicative of why I have only lurked.

People here have an elevated opinion of their own beliefs. very well. I will not post here. You win, how petty of you!

Should I also note that you attacked me based on my newness here?

Honey, you are -very- defensive, and seem to be looking for a fight. Contrary to your angered accusation I was not attempting to get you to post less, if you will read more carefully, I was attempting to get you to post more. I believe its fair, that if someone is going to throw around accusations, that we have some idea of who this person is, where they stand, the measure of their character, if you will.

No, your attempt was to discredit me as a poster because I have not posted in the past. If you disagree, then disagree, but don't assume because I defend myself, that I am trying to be combative. If you want me to post, don't come out and claim that I shouldn't post what I feel because I haven't posted before. that is counterproductive to your claimed goals.

I don't see anyone getting banned for discussing any of the above, only for personal attacks and perhaps a little trolling/flaming.

EDIT: Hell, even warnings during this have been few and light.

The TOS violation that they nailed Frank for was just the straw that broke the camel's back. He's got a history of major TOS violations going back a number of years, and he'd been warned more than once about TOS violations on this topic alone. They didn't silence based on one dicey TOS violation (which, FWIW, I tend to agree was pretty lame compared to some of his other stunts in the same thread); hell, they didn't even silence him, if you want to get down to it. They banned him from their forums based on a long history of causing trouble, deliberately and with malice aforethought, on these forums.

Honey I don't have to 'discredit' you, and I'm not attacking you. It is a personal feeling of mine that someones first post should not be one which is an attack against someone else.

In my mind its like.. say you had a group of gamers that liked to meet in the evenings at a cafe, and as is their nature they often get into debates. Over and over again you see one getting very personal and angry and yelling, and eventually after asking him many times to calm down, hes asked to leave.
Another patron of the cafe observes this person leaving and comes over to the group to tell them they suck, they've never spoken to this person before, they don't know who he is, hes just someone who also sat in the cafe and liked to listen in on their conversations.

Its ..simply not the best first impression, and doesn't hold the same impact as it would if said person had been a part of the group, and they knew who he was.

You certainly do have a right to your opinion, and a right to express it. I have a right to disagree with you, and to think that thats a terrible first post, and hope that future encounters are more pleasant.

heading out to celebrate my anniversary now, you guys have fun.

I'm pretty new here my self. I'm not throwing stones, but they have a point when a poster's first post ever is a rant against the admins that banned someone.

Looks like that someone that got banned had another account and is getting on that account to keep the fight going.

I'm not saying that's what's going on for sure here.

But it LOOKS like that. I don't think Dragon girl is all out of line, and the overreaction and defensive responses seem to only back up that possible assumption.

So.. lighten up. Dragon Girl isn't nuts.

... Well.

Not for THAT.

*fist shake* you take that back, I'm plenty nuts.
okay really gone now.

Despite my loathe to continue this discussion because It will eventually lead nowhere....

They say Frank was unprovoked in his attack. I disagree. The person he was responding to, probably didn't even think his response was an attack, merely a recognition of their connection in the past.

here is a link to the post in question.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=912123

And yet, Dr Funkenstein can take a pot shot at Frank right afterward. Perhaps the good doctor got a warning, I don't know, but Frank made a connection and was banned for it? No one on this forum denies that Frank is caustic and blunt, but this, in my eyes, was not an attack. Hence, this is why I believe it was just a (somewhat poorly chosen) opportunity by someone to "wield the oft dormant banhammer" on a person that has been a thorn for far too long.

Rant. Interesting choice. I am guessing you don't hold my views, so of course I am ranting when I disagree?

Do I need to lay down credentials in order to "prove" my innocence to post here?

Being well spoken doesn't generate more leeway.

Not that I would know.

BlueMax

Post? So he only ever violated the ToS once? Really? That's new news.

Edit: I hate when I hit post too early.



I'm with you on the first paragraph. Not so much on the second. One doesn't link to the other. We're quite able to discuss the situation, the game, and have the debate...within the ToS. Same as virtually any forum site you engage in on the internet. Though obviously, ToS will vary from one place to another.

That last part, though, that's the part I'm most interested to see. How CGL handles events moving forward, if they retain the license, particularly in regards to the public information presented...I think that will have the biggest impact on fans deciding how they feel about the end result. (Outside of quality product being produced, of course.)

His post basically said: how could I forget you, you are an idiot. If that is not an insult, I don't know what is. And yeah I suspect people with histories get banned quicker, you know 3 strikes and you are out, or 57 strikes or whatever it is in this case.

On a side note the 3e fighter was roughly balanced with the 3e wizard. Could someone make a wizard and play a wizard at high levels that blew the righter out of the water sure, but any versatile class given too much leeway by the DM will do that. The problem with D&D is it did not have a defined setting that actually dealt with high level spells and effects, so most wizards could scry, teleport and kill all they wanted and the DM did nothing.

You are taking what I said out of context. This is a common problem with people. Think critically before jumping off the deep end.

The post referenced is the post from the banning announcement. I suspect that I didn't make that clear to you.

here is a link for you to peruse.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=912956

Careful with that kind of talk. Haven't you heard? It can give you cancer

And it would be awkward if Frank were your oncologist.

You are right, I haven't been on the EN boards in years so I was getting antsy for D&D talk.

In a roundabout way I am sure you could take offense to just about everything anyone posts. That is the way of the world these days.

The disturbing thing is, Frank is in medical school. Can you imagine his caustic attitude in a hospital or doctors office?



Every game system has a point in which it doesn't function as intended. Despite what many people think, I believe the current (and most of the past) stable of writers that have worked on Shadowrun truly cared about the game. CGL, despite the financial storm it is in now, has people who care about this system. I think they have people with a good focus on where they want to take the game. If things fall through and CGL loses the publishing rights, who knows when(if) we will see more official content.

It is in our best interests as a gaming community to see as little disruption in the production process as possible. That being said, its not in our control on who is in charge. The lamentations of Dumpshockers is not going to change the structure of the upper management of IMR or CGL.

It's amazing how people can see one guy (who happens to have more TOS violations than anyone else I've known in the 8 or so years I've been around) get banned and they think we are censoring debate. Wow.

When I tried to convey my message with image links to the Kama Sutra, you blocked them. I went out of my way to make sure the images didn't even look like anyone's avatars.

That's about all I have to say about that.

BlueMax

"House" is now running it's sixth season, isn't it?

Well… we have yet to see a ToS reference for the removal of links in those two posts.

No. You're ranting because your first post was an attack on the admins about a guy that got banned for reportedly a large number of violations, and how horrible it must be not to be able to state an opinion. While totally ignoring the universally held fact that the guy in question had already broken the rules many many times and had been warned many many times and that this was just the last in a long line of events and documented behaviors.

A term that might fit better would be 'harangue' "A long pompous speech, especially one delivered before a gathering" or " A speech or piece of writing characterized by strong feeling or expression; a tirade"

If you want to quibble, but the fact remains the same. In the online world. Chiming in for the 'first time ever' on a forums boards, criticizing the admin of those boards over someone getting banned only a few days after that person is banned, can appear (( Truthfully or no)) As the person in question using the anonymity of the internet to simply create another anonymous account and jump back into the fray. The fact that your account was created months previously doesn't really factor in. As the person in question has been warned and warned and warned by the admins of possible banning, thusly could have created an anonymous account previously in preperation or precaution of bannings in the future.

As stated before. I don't know that you are, but it's not strange at all to say it looks like you _could be_. Thusly calling into question your first post ever, defending someone who's long standing behavior has lead to a ban, is not out of line.

Do you need to lay down credentials in order to prove your innocence to post here? No. You do not. Acting like the person in question that got banned and being bombastic, and aggressive, over-defensive, and pointed... just isn't going to help you look like a neutral third party. You indeed come off as the guy under a different name defending his own actions.

I don't know that you are.

I'm not accusing you of being so.

I'm just saying, you could be, and to look at your posts, it'd fit. So don't act so put out like you're being amazingly abused when you conduct such behavior.

I'm a big fan of Frank's. He and I have discussed medical school on a few occasions. I can assure you that he is smart enough not to act like a jerk in a professional setting.

I think that the crew cared about the Storyline, the world and about mutating the feel to match their vision of technological advance/realism. The story and changes from the past stories, came first. Rules simplification probably came second. However in a game with constant expansion, regression testing is required.

Every SR4 group I know thats lasted over a year, has a list of "patches". They aren't even house rules, because they can mostly be found in the suggested variants in the book.
It would be a nightmare for me to run SR4(or 4A) at a convention where I let people bring their own characters. The Magic Rating 6 mages and the Resonance 6 TMs would blow the lid off of everything.


BlueMax

Methinks it's time for thread 6. Trollman ban debates should be consigned to the threads re: moderation.

Yes I think you are censoring. Trollman was the largest source of information outside of CGL and IMR that was posting information. He was also the most polarizing figure on the forums. he did deserve a ban, but he deserved that long before the financial issues facing CGL. He had violated TOS on numerous occasions, and you reversed your previous bans on him prior to any of this starting up. Yet when he is finally permabanned, it is for such a frivolous comment. By your standards, it was the moderators fault that he ever got to the number of violations that he had.

A doctor who is egotistical and uncaring about patient feelings? I'd be shocked.

Shocked if it stood out as unusual, that is.

You know nothing about my standards.

Actually, why not? You'd not be the first who'd be demanded to in this debate.

Nah. Our unofficial thread recap-er went and got himself banned . But I agree that gripes about moderation really should be in the designated forum and thread.

Sure, but that was clearly an insult.

Step 1. Say X is arguing that Y was wrong.
Step 2. Say, anyone who thinks Y was wrong is an idiot.
Step 3. Claim I didn't just insult X, because I broke the insult up into two connected thoughts and did not insult X directly.



I basically agree with you here. But I'll say the current crop of SR4 writers/developers focused in taking the game in a direction I dd not care for. Not saying it is universally wrong, but just not for me as much as previous editions. Though I do like the core of 4es mechanics, its in the rules details and story where it falls apart for me.