Wandered over to RPGnet to look at Carcosa threads today and...
It's months later you're still taking these peoples' money, RPGnet?
Three months later?
Christopher Allen, Shannon Appelcline, and everyone at Skotos Tech and RPGnet--take a long look at what you're doing over there.
-
-
-
Here's a weird thing I noticed while trying to write this: go to Google and search "dndwithpornstars" and "warlords of vornheim" (or "Jack Vance" or anything else in the title of one of my posts).
Now Google "dndwithpornstars" and "Open Letter To Shannon Appelcline and Christopher Allen At Skotos" or just "Shannon Appelcline" or "christopher allen". I don't get many links and the links I do get don't lead to the actual post.
That's weird, right? That's the only time that's ever happened.
-
-
-
JOESKY TAX:
28 comments:
Your tax contribution is really great. My players will definitely be seeing this hooded figure in a game very soon.
that IS powerful suspicious
other search engine pull up the right page right at the top. but I can't think of any reason/method that Google would block specific search results.
For me, the second hit on Google was to the correct post. The first was to the IHiwMA facebook page
I got the same result as Revenant.
I stopped reading anything on rpg.net when they banned you.
I guess when your feeding them money, then RPG.net doesn't given a single fuck if your sexist or not. Seriously build your own forum because I am pretty sure you can get a strong following from that.
Also recently bought Numenera and got a copy of Teratic Tome. I think I only saw two pieces of art in Numenera that flash out nudity and none of it were sexy. Hardly sexist at all either considering all the heroic women were well armored and look fierce. Don't know why Numenera got a down vote for that. On the other hand Teratic Tome had shown more far more boobs than any thing I seen recently in a rpg book yet it gets high praises in RPG.net. Just what the hell man?
I actually decided to tell the Skotos people that I felt those ads are tasteless, and got a really interesting reply.
It turns out they have tried different ad providers, and the one they use now are far better than some. Still, there are some advertisers, notably those above, which makes you cringe.
The way I understood it, they get the ads as a feed, and they are tagged for what they contain, but some of they purposefully use the wrong tags and even change them around. Skotos have already blocked some of them when they found out about that, but it is a moving target.
Skotos are not the only ones who feel a bit annoyed by it, apparently:
http://themarysue.tumblr.com/post/64683990795/ah-a-perfect-tumblr-post-for-me-to-reblog-to-say
I feel much better about that part of rpg.net after I've gotten that explanation.
Sure, they still have moronic moderators, but that's a social problem created by the culture of those boards. Ron Edwards have some interesting things to say about things like that, in his posts about why the rules at the Forge was like they were. I'm pretty sure Ron is dead on something there.
That dodge does NOT let them off the hook--if they actually cared, they'd simply close off any ad channel that sent them those ads, rather than whack-a-moling the individual ads.
They care way more about money than their alleged values though.
Zak, if you really care about it in detail, shoot off an email to them. It was not hard to find their contact info.
The full story was far more detailed than I wrote. That ad channel is way better than the alternatives. Frankly, that business is a mess. Closing that one off would leave them with no more good options, was my impression.
Anyway, he was quite convincing. But, like I said, send them a note. I think they are actually trying.
Andreas,
Of course I care.
Of course I pointed it out (in public and private).
Of course I got a total bullshit response from Shannon and/or whoever runs their twitter account.
Of course I can email you the info if you think I'm lying.
if "Closing that one off would leave them with no more good options, was my impression." then how is it that there are _any_ _other_ RPG forums that manage to exist without these ads?
Shannon Appelcline and Christopher Allen simply want money more than they want to do the right thing.
Hey, chill. I'm not suggesting anyone is lying. I didn't know you had contacted them, and I totally believe you got what you consider a bullshit response. I felt their answer was convincing, and you apparently did not.
How is it that there are other rpg forums without those adds? I have no idea, since I abhor web forums and stay away from them. They might all be full of it, I wouldn't know. The Skotos representative I talked to claimed that feed was 90% ok, and far better than their other options. Maybe they are not aware of any better, or that one gives best bang for buck. I was convinced by that argument, clearly you are not. It's ok.
I wonder if there is that much money involved in this business at all. Maybe they felt the whack-a-moling game was the one that gave at least some cash. *shrug*
I think it's great that you brought all our attention to they issue, and we might have some differences about how to handle it. Still, it's an important conversation.
"I felt their answer was convincing, and you apparently did not."
You did not get the response i got.
As for the rest: "some cash"?
They can't pretend botching Monte and Shanna out for having a succubus in their game is SO ok that calling people on it is grounds for dismissal from their forum while _themselves_ profiting from a far more obviously sexist thing. That's straight up hypocrisy.
There isn't any defense of that and they haven't mounted one.
Even if they'd be _penniless_ without their boobie ads, it still doesn't excuse them if they're going to pull that shit.
I think your main beef is their board policies, and I'm just caring about the ad. That might be why we seem to get two different pictures of this. I consider the board policies a different matter, not related to their business, a culture and not a tech issue. You clearly do not.
I don't totally agree with you, but I can see your point.
You keep making assumptions.
If you don't know a thing ASK don't make a stupid assumption.
What I care about is that the ad demonstrates the hypocrisy of the policies.
If you think they're "separate" you're not grasping the hypocrisy: Shannon Appelcline and Christopher Allen invited in _both_ the ad company _and_ the mods.
They thus are openly subscribing to opposed philosophies:
1. You don't promote arguably sexist things for money
2. You do promote openly sexist things for money.
If, in your next comment, you are about to assume some other new thing
do
not
do
that
and instead _ask a question_ to see if what you are thinking about my position might be true
Clearly we are talking past each other. I didn't assume anything, I proposed something.
I still think it was a great idea of you to start the discussion.
But, let's end it. We disagree. That's it.
Incorrect:
"I think your main beef is their board policies,"
That isn't "proposing" that's "assuming.
"Proposing" would be "Zak, do you think that...."? Or "Is it possible that..."
You assumed--that's stupid and wrong and slows down anybody understanding anything and is the reason forums suck.
And if you just disappear out of the conversation without addressing that and pretending you didn't do it, you're slowing it down even more and making the process of having a conversation even harder.
Which would be counterproductive.
Ok, it might be a cop out to just drop it.
Hmm. You are right. Maybe I was relying on implied meaning instead of spelling it out. Sorry.
I intended that as a suggestion to be considered. I no longer speak English daily, so maybe my thinking is a bit muddled.
When it comes to the mods I think you will get a dysfynctional forum with idiotic behaviour unless you do like Ron did at the Forge. That's a hypothesis. I think Skotos would get a hell hole even if they asked nice people to moderate, just because they did not have the strict rules Ron had. I might be wrong, but I think so.
The ads I find tasteless, and contacted Skotos asking them to explain why they are there. They seemed to me to be actively working towards addressing that. I don't think they have even considered that in the context of the behaviour of the moderators. I assume that, but it's just a belief.
I suggest that they are correct in their way of thinking that the moderators and the ads are not related. Unless I totally misunderstand you, you disagree, right?
I disagree and since they _responded_ the first time I pointed it out, it's _impossible_ they are unaware of the connection.
Your suggestion that the mods and ads are unconnected is simply contrafactual:
Shannon Appelcline has _openly stated_ that he approves of the moderation.
Therefore ONLY 2 THNGS CAN BE POSSIBLE:
a)-He approves of the mods
or
b)-He hypocritically claims to because it is convenient/efficient
--
If a), then his _also_ allowing the ads (even in the name of profit) is, by definition, hypocritical. The mods regularly decry far more debatably sexist behavior performed in the name of money.
if b) then he's just hypocritical to begin with
Unless you _address_ this contradiction, you're not saying anything that makes sense.
I disagree and since they _responded_ the first time I pointed it out, it's _impossible_ they are unaware of the connection.
Well, they can be aware, but not agree with you that it's connected. But, sure you have a point.
Shannon Appelcline has _openly stated_ that he approves of the moderation.
Well, that I was not aware of. If you have stated it, I must apologize for being a sloppy reader. I disagree with that stance of his.
If a), then his _also_ allowing the ads (even in the name of profit) is, by definition, hypocritical. The mods regularly decry far more debatably sexist behavior performed in the name of money.
Here is where I imagine we disagree. I think. I claim Skotos and Shannon is not *allowing* the ads. They think they are bad and try to block them and technical reasons make them show up anyway, once in a while. Sure, it can be considered allowing, but I was convinced by their explanation that they think they have to do it this way for financial and technical reason. You don't believe that is correct, right?
If Shannon "hypocritically claims to because it is convenient/efficient" I think it's because he is between a rock and a hard place. He can not claim otherwise, because it would undermine the role the moderators have. It might be hypocritical.
I am of the opinion that they created that situation by having a forum with less draconian rules than the Forge. That might be totally wrong, but it's my hypothesis.
I might not be making sense, in that you might be correct. I am trying, though.
"Here is where I imagine we disagree. I think. I claim Skotos and Shannon is not *allowing* the ads. They think they are bad and try to block them"
It is easy to prevent the ads: do not use the service that provides the ads.
"Sure, it can be considered allowing, but I was convinced by their explanation that they think they have to do it this way for financial and technical reason."
FOR LIKE THE TENTH TIME: "Have to for financial reasons" just means "We are greedy"
Otherwise _no forum would exist without these ads_ and lots of forums do.
Do
you
grasp
this?
"
If Shannon "hypocritically claims to because it is convenient/efficient" I think it's because he is between a rock and a hard place. He can not claim otherwise, because it would undermine the role the moderators have.
"
And the moderators _should_ be undermined. They are doing a shit job just as the ads should be removed since they're shit ads.
The only thing forcing Christopher Allen and Shannon Appelcline into this hypocritical position is the desire to make a certain amount of money.
Ok, I think we have flogged the horse enough. Thanks for you taking the time to discuss it.
No cop outs.
Is that "yes, i see"
or a "no, i don't, but I can't support what I'm saying and/or don't believe in having real conversations so I'm leaving"
?
Well, I think unless you can actually provide source of ads which "other forums" use I think I will give Skotos the benefit of doubt.
If you really want to change things, or just be angry on the internet, that is.
You might refer to it as a cop out, if you like.
Well the excruciatingly obvious examples would be therpgsite and story-games.
So: address that
Now you are assuming things. Nothing is "excruciatingly obvious" if you are not a forum user, like I've said I am not.
So, have you found out what kind of advertising solution they use, and contacted someone with the power to change things at Skotos, suggesting they try that solution?
That's a deflection:
Skotos is already aware of the existence of those other forums. And many others. They refer to them in correspondence.
Anyone can go to them any day and _not_ see the For Male Gamers Only ads. It's not some kind of secret only I have access to.
If they actually cared about the issue they claim to care about, they would do the work to solve the problem, not wait for me to do it for them.
So: address that.
I should address? You raised the issue, and don't actually do anything more than sprout aggressiveness? I thought we agreed that we disliked how rpg.net looked, and wanted to change that.
Am I your enemy here?
I tried to talk to the responsible people. That's how you change things. Are Skotos aware of those forums, and their ad solutions? How do you know they have not tried them? There might be technical difficulties involved to use them you don't know about.
You think you know where to get non-offensive adds? Suggest options then, talk to people. You have no idea how you negotiate about things, do you? It's easy to sit here and yell about greed.
I will now assert that you want to be angry on the internet, since you apparently have no interest in working toward a better rpg.net. You just want to slag them, and argue condescendingly on your blog.
Fine, feel free. I'm not interested, though.
I have told Skotos I dislike their ads, and have talked about how we can help out by notifying them when something shows up that's no ok. I've done some constructive work. Arguing with you is just pointless.
I don't understand why you think there's aggression here.
You are making assumptions, I am simply fact-checking them.
Here's another mistake you made:
"Are Skotos aware of those forums, and their ad solutions? "
I already answered that concern.
If you can go and find the answer (hint: it's on this page) then you might be rational enough to make continuing this conversation worth it.
Skotos talked to you nicely, and fed you a line. You believed their line,
They lied to me and fed me a line and I questioned it and they got mad and stopped answering my questions.
As I already said: if you want to see this correspondence, you may ask for it.
But
stop
assuming
you
are
the
only
person
who
has
thought
up
the
obvious
ideas
you're
proposing.
Post a Comment