Talk:RPGnet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Theory threads?

RPG.net has been remarkably free of theory threads as of late; I suspect that they were added at the behest of a disgruntled user. I'm removing that sentence from the article.

-Darren MacLennan

[edit] Article cleanup?

At 03:38 on 4 Apr 2005, Almafeta made an edit stating “Removing damage done by 141.140.129.173” However comparing older versions of the article shows that 141.140.129.173 (an IP at macalester.edu) is the original author (09:57, 16 Feb 2005) even though Almafeta accuses them of doing “damage.” The deletes in question were actually performed by 207.164.198.149 (an IP at trytel.com) less than four hours after 141.140.129.173 wrote them. Regardless, the entire “memes” section is woefully short of the factual standards generally held to articles on wikipedia. -- Kralizec! 17:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Severely edited, removing the inappropriate 'memes' section - --JamesCat 08:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You know, that's very interesting. I'm assuming most contributors to this article have been posters or former posters, and as far as I know I am the only regular posting from that domain. I may have been the one to do this alleged "damage", if I failed to log in - but in any case, the difference between the two versions is entirely in a paragraph that I (or someone else at Macalester; I don't remember) added, and the "fixing" consisted of turning it into a "memes" section. But what puzzles me is that I know for certain that I didn't create the article in the first place; I remember being startled to learn that the site even rated a Wikipedia entry. teucer 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice edit on the rpgnet rep, Platypus--fair enough to me.

What's up with ShannonA logging in and arbitrarily deleting the mention of both the IntelliTEXT ads ,lack of a search function, and theory threads? With the excpetion of the theory bit, all are fact. The theory bit is widely carped about on several different forums. I understand RPGnet is his site, but that doesn't mean he gets to ignore facts. 83.33.170.198 07:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think ShannonA is simply trying to remove the NNPOV language. Consider the text that's been removed and restored (emphasis mine): "In addition, DESPITE having a large membership fund drive and banner ads, RPGnet has DECIDED TO ALLOW IntelliText link ads to PEPPER their forums, a move WIDELY CRITICIZED IN SOME CORNERS." Read that out loud with emphasis on the ALL CAPS words and I think you'll hear the fact that it's decidedly non-neutral and dripping with sarcasm and venom. It could be written in a more neutral light. Not to mention, what does a membership drive and banner ads have to do with whether or not Text ads are appropriate? RPGNet isn't a non-profit organization last time I checked; they're free to make money however they like. The mere presence of text ads hardly warrants such language (if a mention at all) since said ads are to be found all over the Internet at this point, and just because some users don't like them (I dislike them myself) doesn't mean they should be called out as anathema. They're just ads; you can find the same ads on any number of popular websites. Not to mention, the text ads don't just appear in the RPGNet forums, but elswhere on the website, so it's inaccurate to boot. In short, I don't think this is about ignoring facts. It's about one guy defending his work and other people attacking it, rather than everyone cooperating and trying to create a neutral, factual article. The paragraph in question needs rewriting, if it needs to be there at all, and others within the article probably need the same treatment. Aeonite 07:23, 18 May 2006 (PST)
    • Entirely the case, Aenoite, thanks. For any others, please read the NPOV article if you're confused. Wikipedia is at heart an information source, not a bulletin board, and that should be reflected in the content no matter what your personal opinion on a subject. The other problem with some of the recent comments is that they violate verifiability. If you're using phrases like "some people", "some say", or "in some corners", that's not attributable fact, it's hearsay, and that violates one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Aeonite's edit dramatically improves the NPOV for these topics. ShannonA 11:15, 18 May 2006 (PST)

[edit] politcal leaning of site

In all fairness to people of conservative or Libertarian viewpoints, and to RPG.net, I think it wise to include some type of statement about the political atmosphere of the site. The site has a very liberal bias without question. Not sure how to go about stating this as a neutral fact. I tried to, hope it is acceptable. Any ideas, or suggestions? -Tetragrammaton 20:08, 19 May 2005

  • There is no 'bias,' at least when it comes to politics. There are other biases, to be sure, but political isn't one of them. Putting that in the article is falsehood, not fact. (By the way... 'liberal' as an adjective isn't capitalized.) Almafeta 01:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree; there is an EXTREME left-leaning bias to the site. Apparently it's a requirement to be a Democrat to be a roleplayer I guess. -- 70.33.147.160 23:50, 5 November 2005
      • I agree with 70.33.147.160, Being someone with right leaning views and speaking them on Tangency is about the same as a rolling in ground beef and kicking a bear in the nuts, I guess that "Tolerance" is a Do as we say, Not as we do kind of thing... --Theredstarswl 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Please... the people you're so caustically trumpeting as liberal hypocrits ("Do as we say, not as we do...") are your thirteen to seventeen demographic. Teenagers, upon discovering that yes indeed, the internet is for the most part (without a sysadmin's knowledge) anonymous, will snarl and snipe with all the gusto they'd like to be serving on their parents out of the painfully typical angst the age group carries. The last two comments are amusing at least, in that they in an attempt to decry an act as they perpetrate it. I'm so tired of hearing mouth-pieces talking about bias as if they'd had a single neutral or uncoloured opinion in their lifetime. Go watch some "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.


          • Interesting comment at the end of that. Just further proves the bias that rpg.net has (but they're never going to admit it). They "play safe" by very loose interpretations of the rules when banning right-wing members, but sometimes they haven't even done that!
            • RPGnet asolutely leans to the far-left. It is also biased towards discussion for a number of pet games, which are generally more protected from overt criticism than more mainstream titles. Moderation is selective in the extreme, and tends to be enforced ont he same side as the moderator's and admin's personal beliefs. If you're a Catholic, Republican, Libertarian, or any sort of even moderately conservative individual, keep in mind their standard percpetion of these things is about as tolerant and nuanced as that of a White Wolf RPG title. 131.48.240.20 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
              • With the caveat that I haven't visited the site in six months I'd say that's a bit extreme. RPGnet does have a bias towards the center-left/liberal position but is not so draconian as might be made out. A social conservative will find him or herself in a minority, and possibly unpopular if he or she is even slightly vocal but being socially conservative is not an automatic death sentence! A note is perhaps justified that the populus are liberal in outlook, but the mods are (generally) non-partisan, and most of the posters are fair minded. Ross Nolan 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does "social conservative" mean "hating gay people" or what? 'Cause then, yes, that might be problem. Hate = bad.

[edit] Almafeta

Thank you for your input. I will edit accordingly. However, would it not be safe to indicate that RPG.net is known for leaning to the left. That is a fact. I lurk there quite often and see a very left-wing slant to both the moderation and politics of the site.

BTW; would you be interested in adding an entry for RPGHost.org. I plan on starting a page here about that site, to help build the wikipedia database.

Oh, for the record, if you are indeed the Almafeta who was just banned from RPG.net, I think you got dissed. Hope its only a temp ban. :) -Tetragrammaton 21:50, 19 May 2005

The moderation is slightly biased in favor of the right wing, but only slightly so. F'rex, compare the people who have been banned. If you don't count spammers and troublemakers, you get (liberals): me, 007Bistromath, Curt, Samurai, Contracycle; (conservatives): Rob Lowry, Pawsplay, AGFP, Mahubrahad, Vegasthroat. Pretty evenly balanced.
And no, it's not a temp ban. PatrickY tempbanned me earlier this year without reason, declaring it was his opinion that it would make the boards a better place; when StephenLS permabanned me on a falsehood, the newly-adminified PatrickY upheld it with as much justification as the tempban. Ah, c'est la vie. The forum administrators only speak for themselves, only have power on the forums, and represent neither the ownership nor the users of RPGnet; I still may use the wiki, and of course I've got more reviews coming along.
By the way, you'll want to sign your entries. Use four tildes, one right after the other, like this: ~~~~ Almafeta 22:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear that Almafeta. I am only an occationaly user of RPG.net (user name Elrick of Melbourne). I like to read the articles and forums. Seems to me the place has gone a wee bit mad. Anyway, hope I can be of help here at Wiki. I will do my best. :)
And thank you for the sig information. Tetragrammaton 04:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this information acceptable

Added the rules and guidelines link. Also expanded the info on membership and users.

Considering how many people I have seen banned over the last couple years, I really feel that a warning to conservatives (like poor old Mahu) and libertarians, is in order. -Tetragrammaton 22:12, 19 May 2005

[edit] More politics...

I was on RPG.net for two years (before being permabanned IMO unjustly for non-political reasons), and there is a popular political slant too the forums. A majority of posters lean to the left and social conservatives especially might be pretty unpopular.

That said no paticular political view is enforced by the moderaters and while a person with conservative views might be socially frozen out, he won't be banned simply for his views.--83.70.244.143 4 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)Ross N

The site doesn't have any bias in moderation policy when it comes to politics, but as a matter of forum culture Tangency is certainly rather left-leaning. It isn't enough so to prevent there from being a number of well-respected conservative posters, though. (And, of course, Tangency - which isn't really an integral part of the site, though without it the forums wouldn't have the community feeling that they do - is the only place where politics are noticeable at all, unless you see Exalted as a political issue.) teucer 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, re being 'leftist': the Usual Suspects? Almafeta 11:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
They're a prety small minority among the regular posters, especially with ChildofHaqim and Mahu having been banned. Also, ISTR Rob Lowry sporting a Republicans for Kerry sig, though I may be misremembering. teucer 17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think that was me.  :o --Kralizec! 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I know I'm used to thinking of Lowry as an old-school conservative rather than a GWB-style conservative, though. teucer 05:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that this respect for "conservative posters" is very much targeted towards fiscal conservatives rather than social conservatives. It's a cold place for the latter.

Granted I'm hardly unbiased as I was permabanned after breaking a rule that close scrutiny of the posted rules fails to turn up, so make of that what you will... RossN (still bitter)

Um, IIRC you were banned for a long series of posts that were remarkably unkind to other users, some of which crossed the line into outright trolling. The only reason your ban was at all surprising was that it was based on a harsher interpretation of the "no personal attacks" rule than had been used previously - part of a trend toward stricter interpretations of the rules that was not at all confined to social conservatives. --teucer 04:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that. I never personally attacked anyone, and rather seem to recall I was usually the target of personal attacks rather than the other way around. Certainly seemed more tolerance of rule breaches on those occasions... RossN

[edit] rpg.net people

What does everyone think about an "rpg.net" people section? There's already a mention of the fact that a lot of industry professionals post there, but a list of actual names might be nice; more to the point, it would be cool to have a list of people who posted there before being offered professional work; Scott Lynch is the first example that comes to mind, and Al Bruno (to a lesser extent) might also fit; I'm sure that on a site of rpg.net's size, you could compile a fairly decent-sized list. Stilgar135 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG.net Darlings

In the section discussing the "RPG.net Darlings" phenomenon, I edited the section which claimed that Exalted is disproportionately popular compared to games with "far superior sales" such as D&D, GURPS and Rifts; in fact, of those only D&D can reliably be said to outsell Exalted. King of Old School 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this page correctly named?

I want to raise the question why this article is called RPG.NET when all the info in the article, and info on http://www.rpg.net/ calls the website discussed RPGnet. I would suggest that the article RPG.NET should be moved to RPGnet and a redirect set vice versa to how it is now. - Waza 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/p/g/Talk%7ERPGnet_dca6.html"