• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Infraction for Zak S: 17) Permanent Ban

Ettin

Your Problematic Fave
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Post: [Numenera] W.T.F., Monte!
User: Zak S
Infraction: 17) Permanent Ban
Points: 1000

Administrative Note:
A whole lot of things

Message to User:
Just so we're clear, this is the result of a staff decision and not something I'm doing on my own.

Nor is it because of your opinions! Discussion is RPGnet's anti-drug, and for that it needs a beautiful rainbow of viewpoints. This is because you are consistently toxic to that discussion.

You serially derail sexism threads with bad-faith arguments. You insist that nobody can ever make generalizations about anything ever (even when they're not), then post generalizations. You pull out arguments that boil down to "words don't mean things" like that's ever been constructive outside the philosophy forum. You're passive-aggressive and occasionally condescending, you post anecdotes as facts, you tell people that things can't be sexist because you know ~females~ who would disagree. You're convinced that you're always right and refuse to consider otherwise, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep making up strawmen to dismiss people who disagree with you (cf. the pass-agg "stop assuming all women are alike!" business, asserting that feminist game bloggers and others who disagree with you must be "conservative", every time you say "Tipper Gore" ever). You don't take anything that isn't agreement for an answer, and will argue in circles about it instead of making the positive contributions you could be until you get bored or someone makes you stop.

These things happen a lot! The Numenera thread is by no means the only one, and the post I've chosen as an infraction is just an example: Insisting that this one monster is Definitely Sexist because it doesn't meet an arbitrary definition of sexism you came up with, asserting that anyone who disagrees has to produce scientific studies about elfgames (that work with your definition of sexism) which have been mysteriously absent from your sexism thread derailing posts up to and also beyond this point, waving around your G+ followers as an army of faceless posters who totally have your back on this, and passive-aggressively insinuating that people who disagree think all women are alike, are the real sexists and need to do their research. That is the kind of un-chill posting we are talking about here.

Like I said, that opinion rainbow is something we should totally reach for, and it's nice to have people to break up the steamroller threads we get every once in a while, but for that to work we need people to elevate the discussion instead of bringing a hamster wheel keyboard powered by sophistry-flavoured energy drinks to aggravate everyone until it's shut down. We have plenty of other posters who can bring that discourse to the table without bringing along all that other stuff, and you have most of the rest of the internet to have this discussion in.

We would topic ban you from sexism chat, but a lot of this applies to the other discussions you typically have here and we have tried explaining things enough times that it is probably best to just skip that.

Sorry, but it is time to take a Zak sabbath. Appeals to the admins.

Original Post:
I take it that you've performed these studies on whether RPG sexism contributes to the overall level of cultural sexism and/or have links to the peer-reviewed articles in which the studies were published, then?
This is the heart of it.

Nobody does this research or even seems to ask for it. And they should.

That this idea is going to turn away more women than it brings in has no experimental evidence behind it.

That this idea is going to make folks' attitudes towards women worse has no experimental evidence behind it.

So if your only case against the trope is Monte is being accidentally sexist (via effect) it's pretty much accusing someone of sexism with no evidence.

The idea that this is even a sexist trope in Monte's hands is based on claims it will have a sexist effect. It requires them to be true. It doesn't seem fair or right to do that in absence of anybody trying to test it.

Me, here's who I can test: 2000 blog readers and G+ people. 4 figures of "I Hit It With My Axe" fans on Facebook. Mandy's fans which are like in the 5 figures. We ask what keeps women from gaming: The data we get has nothing to do with content and everything to do with a social environment of weird controlling nerd boys.

But, hey, that's a biased sample

Somebody do some research, rather than assuming all women are like the ones in your environment.

The closest thing we have in terms of experimental data on anything moving the needle of gaming concerning women is the advent of Vampire which proves:

Tim Truman illustrations of sexy vampires --male and female--attract female gamers, a lot of whom want to dress like them.

Folks who run conventions and publishing companies and forums should try to do a better job by publishers, designers and women by actually basing claims about what is and isn't bad for the community on testing stuff.
 
Top Bottom