Apparently, some of my (and others') recent posts have lead to me/us(?)

Note: The terms "crusaders", "inquisition", and "infidels" are not meant in any derogative way whatsoever - I just couldn't come up with any other practicable shortcut for the rough ideas I was referring to.

I am honestly not trying to fan any flames. But I don't see where - in the public discussion everybody else was trying to extinguish them either (this is generalised - I am aware that some are trying to (like Leitchy, John, and Kerry) and others who may have a weighty and founded opinion in this matter are still factual and friendly in private communications (like JSE or Jeremy).

There are, in my eyes, two major fractions on the forum at the moment: Those in defence of Robin, his heirs, and KP (believing to know what is morally and legally right), and those who have no opinion on that topic. There seems to be a crusade going on but since the crusaders are lacking a proper enemy/opponent, their rage turns against the "infidels", in line with "si Robin pro nos quid contra nos", almost leading to an inquisition.To remain in the picture, I am surprised about the size and composition of people apparently having taken up the cross.



To be honest, I do not care. I do not care not in a sense that I was questioning or intending to violate anybody's rights (even though some seem to display an adamantine refusal to understand that). I do not care in a sense, though, that I am not hubristic or hypocratic enough to consider myself such a close friend of Robin and his family that I was in a position to speak for them. Nor am I hubristic enough to deem myself capable of being able or in a position to decide a legal/moral dispute based on a contract I haven't even seen based on a foreign country's legal system I do not understand.

I am not implying that those having an opinion about the legal/moral aspects are automatically hubristic or hypocratic. I am just stating that as far as I know, most of them probably don't have any professional knowledge in that regard, and certainly don't have the necessary legal authority. So maybe they ought to reconsider their claim of absoluteness? After all, not every single question or post vaguely involving any publishing, promotional, copyright, legal, moral, what-have-you issues calls for a moral or legal lecture nor is it inevidably meant as an offense.

If the sensitiveness reaches a stage where (admittedly badly phrased) "infidel" questions like mine for the distinct law article people are basing their opinions on, or somebody else's mere pondering up the question whether Hârn would possibly be in a state of public domain (and the possible consequences of that) leads to a flame war and people being labelled morally inferior and worse, then we have lost the sense of fairness, the spirit of open exchange and discussion, the liberal democratic basis for this board. If this is then spread to other (rather unrelated) threads the infidels participate in or open, then we are even losing maturity.

The point I am trying to make all along is that all the "crusaders" have - as long as there is no valid official legal decision - is an opinion. They may base their opinion on whatever "facts" they want - they still only have an opinion. And others may have and are entitled to a different opinion. And, like it or not, again others have any right to have no opinion on that matter.

But since the crusaders have only just an opinion, they have no base whatsoever for putting themselves on a high morale horse above anybody else, nor do they have the right to condemn people, be it on a legal or moral base, a long as the situation has not been clarified by an appropriate official institution/authority.

With the initial statement, I am also not implying that those who feel thay have been (close) friends of Robin are automatically hubristic or hypocratic. Everybody has his/her own definition of friendship but maybe people should reconsider for themselves whether, according to their own definition, they actually were a real friend of Robin or rather an acquaintance or whatever, and hence consider their own justification to speak for them and claiming to know their thoughts. (Again, this is no attempt to tell anyody what fiendship is or to talk into people's attitudes.)

The sudden amount of people having known Robin so closely (and now knowing his family and their plans and opinions) is staggering, though. AFAIK, both Jeremy Baker and Ken Snellings have visited the family and can, I assume, be considered friends of the family and as being in the know of their plans and thoughts concerning Hârn. But what basis for their knowledge about the heirs and Robins plans does the multitude of others have?

I made acquaintance with him myself (through the internet only) and I suppose a lot of people know that. I talked to him occasionally and I worked together with him for a while for KP. We had a good time. Yet, we disagreed on a lot of issues, especially when (I'm exaggerating here) I told him his layout sucked and he told me he didn't give a rat's ass about my opinion. That was, however, no problem for neither of us and we continued to get along fine. Now, however, when I publicly state that I disagreed with Robin in any way, there surely is going to be at least one (more likely several) inquisitors putting me to the pyre.

I am sad that he is gone, but for me personally, there are much more tragic things. This is not intended to be harsh, insulting or disrespectful - it's just honest. I just haven't had the opportunity to get to know him good enough to claim feeling a tragic personal loss without lying. And while I can fully apprehend the tragedy of the loss for his family - my own father died when I was 16 - I do have my doubts about the credibility of the the multitude of claims to have known him and feeling a personal loss. Again, not single, distinct statements - I cannot judge that - but rather the sheer number itself.

I cannot help but sense an alarming decline in tolerance and at the same time, I do feel that in the regards mentioned above, hubris and hypocrisy are in advance. This cannot lead to any good results. I, for one, have never been belonging to either the CGI or the KP side. When I published 'Carved in Stone' after CGI changed their fanon policy in regards to the copyright notes, I continued to credit both plus the texts' author - in violation of either sides but in waht I deemd to be the best for the community - rather include a copyright too many then too little, was my opinion. And I informed each side of my motivation and intention. Then, as well as now, my foremost concern was the community. I have refrained from taking sides for the last five years, having worked for both CGI and KP, but always under the condition that that work would not interfere with my right of expressing my peronal opinion and vice versa.

Insisting on people shutting up or ending a discussion is both unlogic on a forum (as long as things remain civil) as well as infringing on their right of freedom of speech. And that right is not only inalienable, but also unconditional and not subject to modification no matter what. I know just too well how hard to accept it is for me myself if people do not agree with me and I simply cannot convince them. I, myself, don't tend to give in and let them be. But then again, I tend to stand alone in most such situations which makes it not so drastic for others. A whole group of crusaders can apply quite some pressure on people, though. But if they still cannot be convinced, is it okay to simply demand them to shut up? That, to me, rather shows lack of tolerance instead of moral high ground.

So please, let us return to a situation where people have freedom of speech and the right to both a different as well as no opinion at all. To a situation where people ask before being lectured on copyright issues, where questions can be asked freely without fear of retribution and where people ask when things were formulated badly rather than started a flamewar. I am in no way trying to make the impression that I (or perhaps other infidels) hadn't made any mistakes. I am honestly sorry if the wrong choice of words, bad and ambiguous phrasing of my own and faulty reading of others' posts on my part have hurt anybody's feelings. I am not sorry, though, if people are getting upset and angry if others just speak their mind or even just ask questions. And I refuse to be the single one scapegoat and whipping boy for the things that happened recently.

Good to have that off my chest. But the way things are standing now, I put on my asbestos undies this morning. So, please lead the way to the pyre and bring on the heat.

_________________
Steer me straight, O German one.
O flamer of mail, O Carver in Stone...

Spartan on HârnChat

A thought provoking 'crie de coeur' Sir Eldean.

I recognize a lot of what you are describing.

Whilst on the subject of sensitivity, are you sure anyone is 'insisting' on people shutting up or ending discussions? AFAIK people have just asked (pleaded) for this to happen. No threads have been closed down yet.

I see no need to break open the rifles for defence of free speech yet, (but the crow bar is always at hand, just in case).

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

Thanks for your reply, Peter.


No, I am not sure at all - it's just what I perceive at the moment - I'm not claiming these statements to be true. "insisting" probably is the rong word. As you said:


True. Repeatedly asked/pleaded, though.


Agreed. I am just giving my impression of what I perceive to be alarming tendencies.

_________________
Steer me straight, O German one.
O flamer of mail, O Carver in Stone...

Spartan on HârnChat

Dear sir eldean,

You said:
.

Alarming tendencies possibly...or a sign that the forum has become a bit more interesting

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

Matthias

We’ve collaborated for many years, I’ve recently e-mailed you, and I have not yet seen your reply, so I may be speaking out of turn here.

First, for clarity to all: the uncreditted ‘fanning the flames’ quote Matthias refers to was me. Second, I’m not entirely sure that this post isn’t simply more of the same.

Anyway, please forgive me if I don’t quote your post in proper “quotes” and just pick out a few key issues.

There are certainly people here who say ‘you mustn’t buy from CGI.’ The only appeal these people can make is to your emotions. They are not going to come round to your house and beat you up if you disagree with them. (Even though I know where you live )

A fact: “Robin's family are not receiving money from CGI for their use of Robin’s creation.”

This is an emotional, but valid (IMO) argument because it is true. We can argue semantics and contracts, but the bottom line is that Robin created Hârn and entered into a deal with CGI to allow them to use his creation. My own stance is simple. I don’t buy from CGI because they don’t credit Robin at all. However this is my view, other people have aired their views and, frankly there is nothing we can do. In fact, no-one here has any way of knowing whether I’m telling the truth about my stance. Only CGI know if I’m buying from them.

You’re free to disagree with me, but your argument seems to be simply “I want to by the product, I don’t care about the rights and wrongs.”

I don’t really see any factions. I honestly don’t! There are certainly people who disagree with each other. But they aren’t organised. You divide us into two groups, those who want a deal for Robin’s family, and those who don’t care. You place yourself in the ‘don’t care’ camp. Fine, but I can’t see many folk fighting for something if they don’t care.

In fact the posters suggesting that the best thing to do is close the “dispute” topic are not Robins friends, they are people like John, Kerry and Peter (the real Peter, not the dangerous hot water version) who are neutral or CGI aligned. Okay, I’m the exception.

If I’m being mischevious, I could say that your arguments boil down to your opinion that the people who you disagree with don’t have the professional or legal knowledge to make ‘absolute’ statements. When has that ever stopped you from giving your opinion. (Or me for that matter).

You claim to “sense an alarming decline in tolerance. Frankly, I don’t. The folks on this board are my friends (in an internet sort of way). I disagree with my friends sometimes. This is not intolerance. More, if you continue to tell people that the boards are intolerant they will inexorably become so.

There has been no ‘insistence’ that you (or others) “shut up or end a discussion” Peter the Skale is right. There have been several requests, but only Leitchy can make someone shut up, and he’s pretty good at letting folks talk.

IMO most people are simple weary of this topic. They’re saying “move on and talk about something” else not because they want to censor you, but because they’ve heard it all before. You’ve (effectively) been missing from these boards for (how long?) 18 months? “The Dispute” is an old and well worn topic. Disagreements are frequent and rarely serve any useful purpose. They simply re-open old wounds and (IMO) help to create the “alarming decline in tolerance” you dislike. I know that these issues must be aired, but they have been, extensively. And there is nothing you or I can do about the dispute.

Personally, I’d like to think that Robin’s untimely death has made a resolution easier. I’d like to think that someone at CGI could simply approach Kelestia/the Crossby family and say. “Look there’s been bad blood between Tom & Robin, Robin’s no longer with us. Can we strike a deal and negotiate a new licence.”

I suspect (though I cannot know) that all it would take to resolve this dispute is for CGI to pay royalties to the estate of the man who gave them (and us) Hârn. Why should that be difficult?

Neil

ps Aren't crusaders and infidels the same thing?

_________________
Uxbridge English Dictionary:
Iconography: Filthy Byzantine pictures

Matthias, this is a very important opening. Thank you for an honest posting which clearly shows that things are not simple.

The way I see the whole thing goes like this:



So, it's about both information and intellectual principles.

A couple of observations:

1) The discussion has more than just one question involved. It's not a simple one, and thus simple slogans like "crusader" and "infidel" only add to the heat, not to the understanding of the discussion.

2) The discussion has even more sides than presented in my diagram. Yet I think starting with this one diagram will help us to clear some stances.

3) I don't believe anyone here is really in the highlighted top right corner. Let's forget about that, and stop putting each other into that corner.

4) Not knowing of the details and choosing stuff that is interesting (i.e. the top left corner) is a valid approach. I believe most on this forum go with that, and a greater majority never ever read the topics that revolve around the questions involved.

5) Knowing the details invariably seems to lead into the lower right corner. I don't know the details, but I respect the position. There are perhaps a dozen people here who know the details, and many of them do not post. Personally, I would so like to see the original contracts and all other paperwork, because it would immensely ease the situation. These are the people who could - if anybody at all could - most likely sort the thing out.

6) Personally, I'm in the lower left corner. It is blatantly clear there is a schism, and I cannot just tiptoe around it. But I see the futility of discussing things without proper knowledge. This is a frustrating position, and at times leads into frustrated postings, easily interpreted as flames or "crusading". The simple issue I'm promoting is: can't you see, don't you agree that there's a real problem here? To deny the problem is intellectually dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty destroys all hopes of intelligent discussion.

7) People in different corners really have very little to share with each other, because they don't share the central basics: knowledge and preference. Thus any discussions with two or more "sides" present will lead into misinformed postings and bad feelings.


My advice to people in different corners would be:

If you are in the top left corner, please stop reading and commenting these threads. It will only make your brain hurt, and those who have "picked sides" will come screaming on you. Everyone will end up beaten up and soiled. Save yourselves from that.

If you are in the lower left corner, please speak only of your own decision, and refrain from demonizing others. After all, we don't really know. We would like to know, of course.

If you are in the lower right corner, please understand that others aren't there with you. Others don't know, and thus will say things against facts you might know. And unless you bring all the facts/originals on the table, we others will never know, and will remain misinfromed, and will say things that are plain wrong.


My advice to the administrators would be:

Either allow all discussions on the subject and accept the damage done to the community,

Or ban all discussions on the subject - and accept the damage done to the community.


Anything in between, like saying "please, let's move on", is not making things any easier.

Either way, the presence of the schism IS damaging the community, and as the community cannot make the schism go away, we will suffer.

But I hope we can suffer in relative agreement.

-ile

Hey Neil,

Not Fair! I want to be the real Peter! Not the ersatz version of our esteemed host! And to cap it all you then go and misname me as an encrustation of lime, or at best a graduated measure!

Peter the scold

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

This is precisely the root of my requests to end that thread. Not because I can just 'ignore it' as has been suggested, but because it's very existence (and inability to solve the problem) is an open wound to the community. I'd rather the bandage, thank you.

_________________
The Melderyn Campaign

I wholeheartedly agree with both Neil's and Rothesay's arguments.

Roland

This thread has been unlocked (with some reluctance on my part) at the specific request of some of those who posted to it. It WILL remain polite, or else it will be re-locked.

Oh, and in my opinion, Ilkka is perfectly correct; the dispute between the two parties has been beaten to a slimy poisonous pulp by this forum, and not one gram/ounce of difference has been made except that some people have given up coming to the forum in disgust. That is completely the opposite of the intent of this forum; it's to draw people into Hârn, not push them away. Further discussion of the dispute itself serves to only harm our community, and I'm beginning to think I need to start sanctioning people rather than threads.


HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR??

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

Crikey, and I was just about to break out the rifles (see previous posts)

I agree that individuals, not threads be censured.

I have personally dealt with what was percieved as rudeness (By myself to others, and others to myself), via P-mail recently precisely because the forum had become a bit bitchy/flamy: I would normally debate the issues in public (as they can be interesting and fun), but felt it would just add to the general level of prickliness.

Hopefully we can return to place where my petty squabbles can shine proudly as a weekly highlight, rather than lurk as footsoldiers in the legion of acrimony.

_________________
Plots and schemes are the same thing..

Yes, Peter L. Thank you.



Something occurred to me. The dispute subforum is one of the forums visible to non-registered visitors. It's the only real, alive subforum with relatively recent postings they can read while making their decision to join the forums.

Is this wise? Does it serve the intent of drawing people into Hârn?

The article of Hârn I wrote to the Finnish RPG magazine will be out soon. It contains a link to Lythia.com and to this forum. I can only imagine potential Finnish newbies writing the address in their browser, and landing in the middle of a dispute.

For example, an openly visible, alive questions-and-answers forum might be much more welcoming. Something like the Mangai Square, but not going into minutiae. A face where a non-registered newbie could see some ongoing discussion, and get a positive impression of how the forums function. (This would also clarify the relation of Mangai Square and Geographica Kethira to each other - today they seem to be virtually the same.)

This would naturally lead into some basic questions being repeated over and again - but that's how people learn.

Just an idea.

-ile

Interesting thought, Ilkka. I think I'll split off a new thread and open that up for discussion.

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

along the way, the permissions seem to have got crossed. Before signing in today, I could see everything!

_________________
Heroes should be uncommon. They just happen to be the PCs.

Yep, me too.

_________________
The Melderyn Campaign

Leitchy - you have a point but there are also forum members like me who missed out of all this 'dispute' who actually are interested in it, both for it's current direction as well as the historical arguments. I would not like to see this, or similar threads, cut. The level of partizanship that is sometimes displayed actually makes me feel positive about the future of Harn. Just drop the overuse of made up words and accents and I will be a happy Harn purchaser, whoever produces the goods.

I have to ask one question though, of the people who are in the know. Did Robin have a job? Harn could hardly have made him a fortune.

Hârn was Robin's full-time job, usually 18-20 hrs a day (he slept very little).

And as to seeing everything...I decided I didn't need a discussion. I just allowed guests to read most of the forums.

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

He probably also lived with very little? Or is/was Hârn actually producing a full income for one person at least?



Nice.

Actually, what was the reason to hide the forums some years back?

-ile

IIRC correctly it was the number of bots reading the whole board were slowing things down.

_________________
Visit the Nelafayn Hundred Project
http://www.lythia.com/nelafayn/

Automated spam bots trying to log in and splurge porn crap across the forums. There were other motivations as well, but those have all gone away, along with the bad bots. Now only good bots can crawl the forums.

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

Did that decision coincide with the disappearance of the dongmaster...?

_________________
Steer me straight, O German one.
O flamer of mail, O Carver in Stone...

Spartan on HârnChat

this probably ought to be in the other topic (Scribe of the Council?) but... now that everything is listed, can the login move to the top of the page?

_________________
Heroes should be uncommon. They just happen to be the PCs.

There is a login button on the top of the page (which I tend to use), but it does just bring you to a page to input username/password.

_________________
The Melderyn Campaign

One wonders why on earth you log in every time you visit. There are cookies that keep you logged in, if you allow them....

Just click the "Log me on automatically each visit" check box.

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

Unlike my own forum, where the traffic is measured in posts-per-day and thus easy to follow, it's more like posts-per-hour (sometimes minute) here. Since I tend to keep a browser window open all the time with tabs of various sites to cycle through, it becomes harder to keep track of what happens here. But if I log in and out, I can easily use the 'new posts' feature to scan what I want to read and what I don't. I found that feature loses its precision over a long login.

_________________
The Melderyn Campaign