Contents

Talk:RPGnet

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Role-playing games Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I think the widespread view out there that RPG.net, particularly its tangency forum, is very left leaning (and strongly critical of America) should get some mention in the article. Not suggesting we state that it is left leaning, only mention the view out there (which is the single biggest criticism of RPGnet). 98.110.177.20 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is important. I find gamers to be a mix of Conservatives and Liberals, but just because they go off on tangents declaring their liberal ideas hardly makes it that the "political mood" should be mentioned as such in an article. The subject of the forums is Role Play Gaming- a subject that is hardly political- and that is why 99% of people go there. I have been annoyed by the rants of Conservatives there as well. Also, the assumption that lefties are "critical of America" probably comes from the fact you disagree with the commenting. If you have a problem with political flaming, contact the RPG.net administration and discuss the problem.

And it is hardly the single biggest criticism. That would be the moderators and a set of board rules that basically ends with "The staff moderates to the spirit of the rules and the context at hand. Conforming to the rules to the letter is not a magic talisman against moderation if your posts are bad for the forum." What is bad for the forum is opinion, ill defined, and not the same from mod to mod (it can vary wildly). Sometimes being on the forum is like walking on eggshells.

Stilleon (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you guys should add that they banned advocacy of Trump in 2018 saying that his administration was an "elected hate group". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C35:97A8:40CF:A46D:6601:4B6F (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's notable enough to warrant a mention yet. Hate speech, white nationalism and such where all already banned under RPGnet's previous rules. While the formalization made a brief splash in the TTRPG community and inspired Ravelry's recent change of policy, that's about it. I'm not sure we can even find reliable articles on the subject to cite. — Radnyr ^(talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are bucket loads of Citation Needed markers in this thing. Should those sentences just be nixed at this point? 107.3.64.211 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some markers lack reasons and make no sense at first glance, unless they're a request to link to archived versions of the site. IE: the marker for "Reviews have been an important part of RPGnet since its inception". Of the site sections present in early 1997 only reviews remains. This alone makes its importance self-evident. Others don't seem to be requests to clarify statements, but attempts to nitpick on specifics of the content found on the site mentioned in this article, as "Most columns cover gamemasters offering advice on running roleplaying games to other gamemasters, but there is some variety". What sort of ref would validate such statement except for a direct link to the site's content? That would be a pointless self-reference. If we have to nix something, it's the superfluous Citation Need markers. 2804:14d:5c70:8c39:9047:de69:647f:b2f2 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After carefully reviewing the contributions made by the user that added most Citation Needed markers, I came to the conclusion they were intended to vandalize the article, just like the other edits by this user, which are now long reverted. Therefore, I'm removing the random Citation Need markers. Please, follow the template and add a reason in case you feel any of the removed markers are truly needed. 2804:14d:5c70:8c39:9047:de69:647f:b2f2 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.67.157.218 (talk) [reply]

As an examination of the forums will show, Infractions are no longer visible to non-members. 47.148.91.54 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? This doesn't contradict the article. Just because you have to be a member doesn't mean it isn't open to the public. Anyone can open an account. It's not hidden behind admin privileges or the like, everyone on the board can see them, therefore it's public. Canterbury Tail talk 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]