[Mogor]

He's made the case for the bad actor chasing the family away, right now Killerb's online persona is that of the weird uncle, all your relatives tell you to stay away from, still family, just not someone you want around anyone on their own

[KillerB]

You posted about spambots prior. That's why I wanted an actual question. I'm surprised you can't make that distinction without resorting to sarcasm.

Yes, in response to the idea that everyone will just naturally get along if we just ask nicely. (In hindsight, I should have asked for an example of a large online community that has accomplished this, but then there'd be crickets.)

Here's the thing, on these boards we get along 95% of the time. No community, real or otherwise, can create a utopia with ) 0% conflict. That's the myth. That conflict is inherently bad and must be avoided at all cost. I submit, by trying to impose Orwellian Codes to eliminated conflict you are destined to create more.

[KillerB]

one bad actor to chase them away.

I don't accept that premise. Even then, that's a poor choice of words. At the very least it means Bad Actor means 'troublemaker' (webster's). You can list off "troublemakers" of all sorts who were on the right side of history. At worst it means "A person that attempts to lie, cheat, or deceive, in a poor manner." (urban), but I don't think you're damage reputation guy Allen. Sarcasm/Snark is your sword.

[KillerB]

He's made the case for the bad actor chasing the family away, right now Killerb's online persona is that of the weird uncle, all your relatives tell you to stay away from, still family, just not someone you want around anyone on their own

I don't appreciate the implication that comes with: 'weird uncle' you don't leave alone with the kids.

[Mogor]

He's made the case for the bad actor chasing the family away, right now Killerb's online persona is that of the weird uncle, all your relatives tell you to stay away from, still family, just not someone you want around anyone on their own

I don't appreciate the implication that comes with: 'weird uncle' you don't leave alone with the kids.

Feel free to add your own additional context to that, but thats on you if you add them.

KillerB = Weird Uncle John Corbett = Fun Uncle. Most of the folks here rather see just the fun uncle not the weird one that seems to be your online persona only

[Latok]

It seems to me -- and maybe I'm wrong here, I don't play 2E -- but it seems to me that this is fundamentally not a dispute between John and "the CC." It's a dispute between John and Ross (and, tangentially, Charlie). Ross has presented one set of facts about his work with John. John insists that Ross's account misrepresents the truth in several important respects.

I'd have to reread to be sure of any specifics, but, in general, I have never found occasion to believe that Ross Fertel is dishonest or shady. The worst I've ever been able to say of him is he's eccentric (and wrong about Discovery). So, insofar as this is a he-said-he-said between Ross and John, I think the benefit of the doubt is owed to Ross at this point.

I'm not sure I agree. As a 2E player, I've observed a lot over the last several years:

John's work as Design Director improved the quality of the cards being made. Benhosp and the other designers can speak more to the inside baseball aspect of how his Design team paradigm gave the Designers themselves more control over what was being designed and created a culture of collaboration, but the result was a move away from Hero cards and Lego set design that made deck building an afterthought - generally not a great concept in a customizable card game.

John's creation of the Hall of Fame format also reenergized the game. And again, he created something that got the community engaged by giving them direct input into the card pool. He got very little if any support from the CC initially and was left to prove it on his own. Manassters last year showed that the format worked and the feedback was almost universally positive. But it took a full year of tournament results to get the CC on board with it (though to her credit, Maggie dove in head first, attending both Manassters and TCM2, the two highest profile HoF events of the year. And now, finally, it's apparently getting official CC endorsement. I would say begrudging endorsement but I don't know if that's true and I'm trying to be fair.

Compare that with Excelsior, which was a valiant effort to simplify the game and create a new player friendly card pool. The CC endorsed the concept out of the gate and scheduled public playtesting at several major events to get community feedback. This also took a year but the tone was totally different. Instead of "prove it works and get back to us and MAYBE we'll consider it" it was "this is great! What can we do to help prove that it works!"

Unfortunately it didn't take off.

Now I'm not saying this to bang on Excelsior, I'm saying this because it's pretty clear even from the outside that to leadership, who the idea comes from is every bit as important as how good the idea is when it comes to getting CC Leadership support. And I can understand John belt a bit upset at having to constantly prove himself and not only not get any recognition, but get shown the door after busting his ass and putting in the work to make the game better. He's held to a different standard and he's not wrong when he looks around and sees everybody else with a "nerd job for life"

Now, having said all of that, none of the above excuses his bad forum behavior. He's just as expected to follow the CoC as everybody else, and the fact that he's easily the most often sanctioned member of the community shows that's sometimes a struggle for him.

Maybe I am starting to warm up to the idea of Benhosp's grand bargain...

Naetor.Ret's response is fucking spot on, I'm going to also add that 'Hero Cards' is a completely meaningless term that is solely used to throw shade at past design just because.

From what I understand Excelsior was brought about through a lot of effort from Matt Kirk, like recruiting people, creating the card pool, getting people to test it, planning a release etc. and you're comparison is that The CC didn't get the programmers to instantly put in all the support for a format that is essentially 'Corbett decides who gets to vote on a ban list' when it went from 5 cards to 20(ish?). Also I'd speculate the extent of the communication from Corbett to anyone about getting 'endorsement' for HoF would've been the bitching in threads on the 2E forums.

Moving on from 2E discussion, how does any of your post pertain to the point James made about evidence pointing to John being less honest than Ross?

[KillerB]

'Corbett decides who gets to vote on a ban list' when it went from 5 cards to 20(ish?). Also I'd speculate the extent of the communication from Corbett to anyone about getting 'endorsement' for HoF would've been the bitching in threads on the 2E forums.

Every ballot that's ever been sent has been counted. Last year there was plenty of HoF behind-the-scenes arm twisting that didn't produce much. I'm glad this year HoF is getting the support it deserves.

[KillerB]

Moving on from 2E discussion, how does any of your post pertain to the point James made about evidence pointing to John being less honest than Ross?

You guys going to make any contributions to this discussion, CoC or off-topic, that's doesn't involve unwarranted ad hominem attacks?

[Latok]

Moving on from 2E discussion, how does any of your post pertain to the point James made about evidence pointing to John being less honest than Ross?

You guys going to make any contributions to this discussion, CoC or off-topic, that's doesn't involve unwarranted ad hominem attacks?

I don't really have any opinion of the CoC at this point and all of these shitty polls show that there isn't really a discussion to be had but don't try and guilt me in to not using ad hominem attacks, I'll stop them when you do.

Though if you mean James by 'you guys', he's contributed far more meaningful discussion than you have but it is frustrating watching him keep trying to logically and in in good faith argue with you. If only he played 2E he could've learnt years ago there is no point in wasting the time and effort, you're just way to big of a troll.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

You guys going to make any contributions to this discussion, CoC or off-topic, that's doesn't involve unwarranted ad hominem attacks?

Seems to be your specialty, so why should I now play by the rules when you mostly ignore them?

[prylardurden]

You guys going to make any contributions to this discussion, CoC or off-topic, that's doesn't involve unwarranted ad hominem attacks?

Seems to be your specialty, so why should I now play by the rules when you mostly ignore them?

Because that would make you a hypocrite, after your previous campaigning.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

You guys going to make any contributions to this discussion, CoC or off-topic, that's doesn't involve unwarranted ad hominem attacks?

Seems to be your specialty, so why should I now play by the rules when you mostly ignore them?

Because that would make you a hypocrite, after your previous campaigning.

As far as I´m concerned a lot of people tried to talk with John in a cultivated manner. He discarded their efforts without a second thought, even with sarcasm and laughter.

Now everybody shall bow their heads when HE wants to talk. I don´t think so. When somebody treats me with disrespect, that somebody deserves the same treatment from me.

I´m not stupid to fall for the "now I´m ready to talk" trick. You sow disrespect, you harvest disrespect. Easy as that!

[BCSWowbagger]

but it is frustrating watching him keep trying to logically and in in good faith argue with you. If only he played 2E he could've learnt years ago there is no point in wasting the time and effort, you're just way to big of a troll.

I realized some years ago that arguments on the Internet aren't about convincing the person you're arguing with. It's about convincing the audience.

I think KillerB also realizes this, but he has a very different approach to convincing the audience.

(Of course, "a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place, to force them to acknowledge your greatness." But this rarely happens in Internet arguments.)

[prylardurden]

Seems to be your specialty, so why should I now play by the rules when you mostly ignore them?

Because that would make you a hypocrite, after your previous campaigning.

As far as I´m concerned a lot of people tried to talk with John in a cultivated manner. He discarded their efforts without a second thought, even with sarcasm and laughter.

Now everybody shall bow their heads when HE wants to talk. I don´t think so. When somebody treats me with disrespect, that somebody deserves the same treatment from me.

I´m not stupid to fall for the "now I´m ready to talk" trick. You sow disrespect, you harvest disrespect. Easy as that!

I didn't ask about John. I stated you campaigned for it:

In the end, I again want to apologize to those who are doing an amazing job in supporting the community and the game and had to make this bad experience. I´m sorry, but it was neccessary. I´m not a rude person, but I know how they think, so I had to fake a bad character. Only so I could see the CoC at work. Some of you are pretty pissed by my postings and I totally understand that. So please accept my apologies, you now know why I did it. If you still think I´m just another bully, I´ll have to accept that. That was the risk from the moment on I decided to change the tone.

Im going to stand by my previous call. You were being a problem and now you don't want to stick to your word.

Edit: Or, Allen was right and everyone will devolve. I stand corrected.

[KillerB]

When somebody treats me with disrespect, that somebody deserves the same treatment from me.

You introduced yourself to me with a campaign of "Ban John Corbett", "John Corbett 2nd Place", etc. threads. Worse, you didn't even spell my name right. I'm from Jersey dude...