...We should create a Corporation.

[RobbyPants]

Wait. Did he delete his fucking post while I was replying to it? See, you really have to stop doing that. It makes it impossible to carry on a fucking conversation.

Just quote the whole post that you're replying to.

Well, in that case, I did. He deleted the entire post, but not until after I'd quoted it. But, yeah, quoting the entire post would keep it intact.

[Caedrus]

Wait. Did he delete his fucking post while I was replying to it? See, you really have to stop doing that. It makes it impossible to carry on a fucking conversation.

Just quote the whole post that you're replying to.

Well, in that case, I did. He deleted the entire post, but not until after I'd quoted it. But, yeah, quoting the entire post would keep it intact.

A perfect example of contextual clues being likely.

In the case of a whole essay, quoted parts would be even more likely.

[Username17]

I guess the best case would be for Frank to say he was mistaken or that he cannot come up with an example as opposed to accusing and then quickly saying he doesn't care.

Except: that would be stupid. I know what I saw, and I didn't care then, and I don't care now. People directed me to material I had written on a secret board for a secret project and gave me the super secret password to allow me to look at it. They asked me if that was my work and asked me what I wanted to do about it. I looked at it, recognized it, and wanted to do absolutely nothing, because the work is open fucking source and cannot be stolen.

Caedrus ranting about how I'm besmirching his reputation or some shit is just shit. There was never an issue until he started trying to "exonerate" himself by showing people sections of his secret works that apparently didn't have stuff I wrote in them and then put words in their fucking mouths claiming that they had completely exonerated him when they hadn't actually seen or said shit.

There is no besmirchment of someone using copyright-free materials in a work of fiction. That is what they are there for. Caedrus' weird secrecy fetish, his crazy edits and re-edits, and his false attributions of quotations to other people without their consent are serious problems. But none of that has anything to do with me. It has to do with Caedrus being crazy and excitable and vindictive.

I offer no retraction because my story is exactly as true then as it is now and nothing is ever going to change that. And nothing Caedrus is capable of doing would prove me wrong, nor is it even important for him to do so. The only thing Caedrus can't take back is all the people he pissed off throwing temper tantrums and fake quoting people as supporting him when in reality they had no opinion. That tomfoolery is something that makes it very hard to trust Caedrus. But again, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said or did.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

Now I'm going to have to go back and read Laress' actual post again...

[Caedrus]

I offer no retraction because my story is exactly as true then as it is now

No, it's not. Hell, if it was, I wouldn't object to your story because your material is Open Source. If your allegations were true, I wouldn't *care.* It's because you're going around saying things that demonstrably aren't true about me that I care, whether you or anyone else consider those things "bad" or not. As I explained in my very first reply to you on this thread, I do not appreciate misinformation of any form being spread about me.

And if you really care so damn little, it should be easy for you to stop going around and telling people about it. Seems pretty simple to me.

fake quoting people as supporting him when in reality they had no opinion.

Oh yeah, because, you know, the people who agreed with me in this thread are REALLY just some of my many alternate accounts on the Den. I'm just fake quoting everyone.

Caedrus' weird secrecy fetish

You really spare no effort making up twisted bullshit out of nowhere, do you?

Boy, I have such a massive secrecy fetish, making a private forum at the request of some of my friends who felt that they couldn't regularly meet up for real time chats about a collaborative project. A private forum that I would give access to for basically anyone who just sent a message asking me. Which I later made fully public (including the freaking administrative records and everything) just in a hope to silence your trolling.

Yeah, I'm trying REALLY hard to be secretive. Secrecy turns me on and everything. Oh boy. I don't even publish my emails to the world wide web in general.

___

Really, I don't get this nonsense. You go out and say that I'm paranoid for thinking you're trying to damage my reputation, then go on and on about my "secrecy fetishes" and "false quotes" (What false quotes? What the hell?) and craziness and how I'm a serious problem.

Your own accusations contradict themselves. It's pretty obvious to anyone who just read what you posted that you're attacking my character.

[Username17]

And if you really care so damn little, it should be easy for you to stop going around and telling people about it. Seems pretty simple to me.

I never back down to intimidation. Ever. The original anecdote was true. It's still true. And your smear campaign to try to get me to "retract" it is never ever going to work. Because I don't change my memories because other people throw temper tantrums. I might change my story in the light of hard evidence, but you are incapable of providing such hard evidence. It is literally not possible for you to show me that the things I saw were never there on a secret board that you can tracelessly delete entire threads on. That's not possible. And you acting like it is possible, or was ever possible, is insane. You could have presented an alternate story and we would agree to disagree, but you didn't do that. You tried to intimidate me. And that won't ever work.

The issue here is you acting like a lunatic control freak. Which you are still doing. So I'll keep bringing that up every time it's relevant to the conversation. Until time itself ends or you and your lunatic vendettas become so irrelevant that you never come up in conversation.

That is a promise.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Oh yeah, because, you know, the people who agreed with me in this thread are REALLY just some of my many alternate accounts on the Den. I'm just fake quoting everyone.

The "People" who agreed with you are one person, and a bunch of people who have never seen your forum, and are taking your word.

The fact that one person who posts on your private forum agrees with you is not terribly sufficient evidence of anything.

[Caedrus]

I guess the best case would be for Frank to say he was mistaken or that he cannot come up with an example as opposed to accusing and then quickly saying he doesn't care.

Except: that would be stupid. I know what I saw, and I didn't care then, and I don't care now. People directed me to material I had written on a secret board for a secret project and gave me the super secret password to allow me to look at it. They asked me if that was my work and asked me what I wanted to do about it. I looked at it, recognized it, and wanted to do absolutely nothing, because the work is open fucking source and cannot be stolen.

Caedrus ranting about how I'm besmirching his reputation or some shit is just shit. There was never an issue until he started trying to "exonerate" himself by showing people sections of his secret works that apparently didn't have stuff I wrote in them and then put words in their fucking mouths claiming that they had completely exonerated him when they hadn't actually seen or said shit.

There is no besmirchment of someone using copyright-free materials in a work of fiction. That is what they are there for. Caedrus' weird secrecy fetish, his crazy edits and re-edits, and his false attributions of quotations to other people without their consent are serious problems. But none of that has anything to do with me. It has to do with Caedrus being crazy and excitable and vindictive.

I offer no retraction because my story is exactly as true then as it is now and nothing is ever going to change that. And nothing Caedrus is capable of doing would prove me wrong, nor is it even important for him to do so. The only thing Caedrus can't take back is all the people he pissed off throwing temper tantrums and fake quoting people as supporting him when in reality they had no opinion. That tomfoolery is something that makes it very hard to trust Caedrus. But again, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said or did.

-Username17

And if you really care so damn little, it should be easy for you to stop going around and telling people about it. Seems pretty simple to me.

I never back down to intimidation. Ever. The original anecdote was true. It's still true. And your smear campaign to try to get me to "retract" it is never ever going to work. Because I don't change my memories because other people throw temper tantrums. I might change my story in the light of hard evidence, but you are incapable of providing such hard evidence. It is literally not possible for you to show me that the things I saw were never there on a secret board that you can tracelessly delete entire threads on. That's not possible. And you acting like it is possible, or was ever possible, is insane. You could have presented an alternate story and we would agree to disagree, but you didn't do that. You tried to intimidate me. And that won't ever work.

The issue here is you acting like a lunatic control freak. Which you are still doing. So I'll keep bringing that up every time it's relevant to the conversation. Until time itself ends or you and your lunatic vendettas become so irrelevant that you never come up in conversation.

That is a promise.

-Username17

Yeah... me thinking you're besmirching my reputation must really be just shit... can't see how you're besmirching my reputation at all there...

o_O What?

...Okay, now you're kinda scaring me.

All I've ever done is say that what you're saying I did isn't true, and you're going on about my "insane fetishes" and otherwise criticizing my personality in a pretty severe fashion.

I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to intimidate you (or indeed how it would even be possible for me to go about attempting to do so). I'm not sure why you think I have the power to tracelessly delete things on the Okay, Your Turn forums (My forum was a subforum of that. And Staun was the one really running the site.) I'm not sure why you think I've had a "smear campaign" going against you, seeing as I thought this issue was resolved something like over a year ago and haven't spoken of it since until you just brought it up now. In fact, I never had a vendetta against you. I've even said repeatedly that I respect you and your work... and now you're just really weirding me out.

I say this...

While I know you'll say that it doesn't matter or something like that, I hope you have the maturity to respect that I *do* care about you casually spreading a lie about me. My writing is important to me and I work hard on creating my own content. I never took anything from you, so stop saying I did. I think this is a pretty reasonable request.

And you call that intimidation, smear campaign, and insanity? As you're railing at me about my "insane fetishes?" All I did was request that, if as you say you don't care about any of this, kindly stop smearing me.

I'm sorry, but the things you're saying simply aren't true. I don't have the power to tracelessly delete things from a subforum of Okay, Your Turn. I don't own the domain or anything, and I'm not a skilled hacker. I don't have an "insane secrecy fetish." I'm not trying to intimidate you. I've never held a vendetta against you, nor tried to "seek revenge" on you in any way. I don't fake quote people, and I sure as hell didn't falsely attribute content to people other than the writer (which you strangely say is a serious problem right after saying that you don't care. Your accusation that I was falsely attributing content is the entire thing that I was saying was false).

Frankly, your accusations have gone from trollish to creepy.

[mean_liar]

Now ask him about Criterias' writing if you want to see something really special.

EDIT - Goddamn, Caedrus. You edit your shit a lot. I JUST loaded this thread and your last post is already edited? Wow. Take a deep breath.

[Kaelik]

Caedrus, he never claimed that you claimed his material as your own.

He claimed that some of his material was on your super secret forum. If there was such a thread, of someone (or you specifically) copy pasting his material onto your forum, that would not necessitate claiming it was yours.

Likewise, you actually totally did just lie about what people said, when you claimed that neutral den members proved Frank wrong, and you were special right.

That was totally untrue, and no one is in the mood for weasels about whether you are just deluded or a liar. Frank was never proven wrong, no neutral members of then Den have ever said Frank was proven wrong.

What did happen is that no one, including some neutral members of the Den has yet pointed to a specific thread that involves copy pastes of some of Franks work.

I can point to like six of those over at Pathfinder, but their existence isn't a big deal there, and wouldn't be a big deal on your forum if you didn't make a big deal about them.

Frankly, I've never eaten at Burger King, but if someone did say I ate at burger king, I wouldn't throw a shit fit and try to prove them wrong. Frank once mentioned that some of his material was copy pasted in a thread on your super secret forum.

You blew your top, denied it, apparently supposedly made the forum public, then turned around and made the admin logs public, all to prove that you never... Ate at Burger King.

It's fucking weird, and it's one of the fetishes Frank is talking about, and it's exactly why people are still talking about it, and it's one of the reasons why everyone thinks you are insane.

The other being that you will have edited six different posts in this thread, and made a new post, and edited that post in the time I type this.

Now imagine another world, one in which Frank made his totally baseless and obviously completely untrue character assassination about you eating at Burger King one time, and you didn't turn this into an argument about Burger King.

In five pages, do you think anyone would even remember this issue? No.

But now, in five pages, we will still be talking about this shit.

[Bigode]

Back while I was on the project I noticed a few of Frank's essays from the TNE threads used verbatim to start discussions with the implication that they were OW4's words (no citation or reference to seeing them elsewhere at all). The squares discussion in particular had Frank's stuff word for word.

This has been shown to be false. I have look at the thread that this supposedly happened and there was no instance of that happening. Either it was a quote or it was a similar idea but also with other things as well. These changes were made before your departure.

[fectin]

In five pages, do you think anyone would even remember this issue? No.
But now, in five pages, we will still be talking about this shit.

This.
I seriously have no idea what the history was. I'm curious now, but really you could probably have counted the number of people in the whole world who care either way on your fingers. Who fucking cares if someone, somewhere on your forum copypasted in a wad of text.

Didn't your parents teach not to wrestle with pigs? You get covered in mud, and the pig kind of likes it.

[Caedrus]

Back while I was on the project I noticed a few of Frank's essays from the TNE threads used verbatim to start discussions with the implication that they were OW4's words (no citation or reference to seeing them elsewhere at all). The squares discussion in particular had Frank's stuff word for word.

This has been shown to be false. I have look at the thread that this supposedly happened and there was no instance of that happening. Either it was a quote or it was a similar idea but also with other things as well. These changes were made before your departure.

Thank you, Bigode.

But of course you realize, you are now just one of my many alternate accounts falsely attributing a quote to Leress in a grand plan to smear Frank, right?

Like I said before, I thought this was settled over a year ago, but just today someone informs me that Frank's still spewing this false bullshit all this time later...

clip

Actually, yeah, I'd be pretty upset if someone went around claiming that I ate at Burger King and me saying that I didn't eat at Burger King was a lie if, you know, I didn't eat at Burger King.

[Kaelik]

This has been shown to be false. I have look at the thread that this supposedly happened and there was no instance of that happening. Either it was a quote or it was a similar idea but also with other things as well. These changes were made before your departure.

Thank you, Bigode.

But of course you realize, you are now just one of my many alternate accounts falsely attributing a quote to Leress in a grand plan to smear Frank, right?

The fact that ubernoob said something that may have been wrong does not in fact mean that what frank said is wrong.

In fact, what Leress says right there is in fact indicative that Frank is correct, in that you apparently copy pasted parts of TNE material, and posted it on the forum.

And what Leress says is that the "changes" were made before ubers departure. Which doesn't mean they were made before his arrival, and so could have been made in direct response to uber saying something about it, and does in fact mean that originally, the material was not in quotes.

Nor does Ctrl-Ving some parts of Franks work and putting it next to parts of your own work make it any less Frank's work.

But congratulations, you proved that after some changes you made, a specific statement uber made was incorrect.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Just fucking agree to disagree already, and never bring this shit up again. I'm sure you both know what the truth is; I for one don't know, don't care, and never will.

[Caedrus]

Thank you, Bigode.

But of course you realize, you are now just one of my many alternate accounts falsely attributing a quote to Leress in a grand plan to smear Frank, right?

The fact that ubernoob said something that may have been wrong does not in fact mean that what frank said is wrong.

Yeah, actually, it does.

Ubernoob was Frank's "whistleblower" who "enlightened him that I was straight up copypasting his essays."

And none of that ever happened.

[MfA]

Proof doesn't enter into it, we have lots of people with accounts we can't verify and which I certainly don't give a shit about.

Can we get back to something more interesting to discuss now?

[Kaelik]

Yeah, actually, it does.

Ubernoob was Frank's "whistleblower" who "enlightened him that I was straight up copypasting his essays."

And none of that ever happened.

No, what Frank said is that someone linked him to you copy pasting his work.

The fact that uber said something that is incorrect (after changes that were made, by the neutral sources own claim, which implies that it was not incorrect before changes were made) does not change the status of whatever Frank personally looked at.

[fectin]

Proof doesn't enter into it, we have lots of people with accounts we can't verify and which I certainly don't give a shit about.

Can we get back to something more interesting to discuss now?

I have a dream! That one day shadzar and Plebian will fight to the death in a dedicated thread.

[echoVanguard]

I have a dream! That one day shadzar and Plebian will fight to the death in a dedicated thread.

Pretty sure http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52209 fits the bill.

echo

[Zinegata]

*sigh* More stupid, pointless drama from the usual suspects.

[Aryxbez]

So, why is it so hard for Frank to merely just point out evidence to prove himself right/wrong, and Caedrus right/wrong? As it seems to me, Frank is just saying he refuses to provide evidence because: " I'm always right, and have people to back me up all religiously like, regardless if they understand the situation or not." If that is the case, seems a bit immature to me, just point out the evidence to support what you say, and if you turn out wrong, oh well, learn to change your position.

Starting to sound like childish pride to me, if Caedrus is right/wrong, I and others who cared enough to continue the conversation would probably like to see some facts! I like Frank's work, and think it's awesome, so if there actually was some material in that forum, cool, if not, then it wasn't, and stop saying it was, simple as that.

EDIT: Oh, and why haven't we all banded together to make the next super awesome edition/Fantasy RPG, that blows away all the crap RPG developers out there yet?

[Almaz]

So, why is it so hard for Frank to merely just point out evidence to prove himself right/wrong, and Caedrus right/wrong? As it seems to me, Frank is just saying he refuses to provide evidence because: " I'm always right, and have people to back me up all religiously like, regardless if they understand the situation or not." If that is the case, seems a bit immature to me, just point out the evidence to support what you say, and if you turn out wrong, oh well, learn to change your position.

Starting to sound like childish pride to me, if Caedrus is right/wrong, I and others who cared enough to continue the conversation would probably like to see some facts! I like Frank's work, and think it's awesome, so if there actually was some material in that forum, cool, if not, then it wasn't, and stop saying it was, simple as that.

Because Caedrus can declare any evidence that Frank provides as fabricated, and Frank can point out that any evidence that Caedrus provides is subject to his redaction. Essentially, neither can provide evidence that is solid and substantial in any way, because there is no neutral third party source of information, and we can safely assume that no other parties either have the full story or are unbiased. Essentially you get to choose who you want to believe based almost entirely on the strength of their rhetoric.

I'm not saying either is wrong, and believing them based on rhetoric alone may be in fact good enough, but it's not like this is the kind of thing that can be permanently settled. They could argue it for another 100 pages if they wanted and it would go no further in terms of actually providing substantial proof.

[Username17]

So, why is it so hard for Frank to merely just point out evidence to prove himself right/wrong, and Caedrus right/wrong? As it seems to me, Frank is just saying he refuses to provide evidence because: " I'm always right, and have people to back me up all religiously like, regardless if they understand the situation or not." If that is the case, seems a bit immature to me, just point out the evidence to support what you say, and if you turn out wrong, oh well, learn to change your position.

Starting to sound like childish pride to me, if Caedrus is right/wrong, I and others who cared enough to continue the conversation would probably like to see some facts! I like Frank's work, and think it's awesome, so if there actually was some material in that forum, cool, if not, then it wasn't, and stop saying it was, simple as that.

Because Caedrus can declare any evidence that Frank provides as fabricated, and Frank can point out that any evidence that Caedrus provides is subject to his redaction. Essentially, neither can provide evidence that is solid and substantial in any way, because there is no neutral third party source of information, and we can safely assume that no other parties either have the full story or are unbiased. Essentially you get to choose who you want to believe based almost entirely on the strength of their rhetoric.

I'm not saying either is wrong, and believing them based on rhetoric alone may be in fact good enough, but it's not like this is the kind of thing that can be permanently settled. They could argue it for another 100 pages if they wanted and it would go no further in terms of actually providing substantial proof.

Exactly right.

Caedrus' material was on a secret password only forum that he has administrative command over. While I could have taken a screen shot when someone lent me a password to look at it, I did not. Because honestly I didn't think it was a big deal, and still didn't until Cadrus started BAWWING when I mentioned the event in an off-hand statement several months later.

Checking right now is impossible, because Caedrus can and has changed the passwords several times. And even if he gave you the passwords right now, it would only show you what was on his little secret blog right now. It wouldn't show you what was stored in his private kingdom back then. Because as you've probably noticed even casually perusing this conversation: Caedrus edits and re-edits his posts rapidly and constantly.

The entire order of operations is this:

• Someone who had a password to Caedrus' secret forum noticed clips of my writing on it and got offended.
• So they gave me the password and asked me to look at it.
• I looked at it and confirmed that it was writing I had written, and took the principled stand that ideas should be free to copy whichever which way you want, and elected to do absolutely nothing.
• Months later, I mentioned the incidence, and Caedrus flipped the fuck out.
• Caedrus attempted to "prove me wrong" by walking various people through prepared sections of his secret forum like a North Korean tour guide showing visitors how everything was fine.
• Caedrus announced that he had been totally vindicated by the UN weapons inspectors - even though the person in question piped up that he hadn't actually visited it yet and hadn't made any determination at all.

Caedrus is the guy obsessed with "proving his innocence". But since I didn't actually accuse him of being guilty of anything, that's pretty weird. And more importantly, the thing he insists on proving is that he, who is a compulsive redactor and post modifier, didn't have things that I say I saw in secret posts over a year ago before he altered and/or redacted them. That's right, he is insisting that he has proof that his password-hidden, redacted material did not contain the things I say I saw back when I saw them. That is seriously what he is claiming.

I admit completely that I do not have and cannot possibly obtain proof of my narrative. But I offer as supporting evidence the following facts:

• Caedrus really does edit, re-edit, replace, and redact posts of his all the time in every format. You can confirm that in this thread by simply counting the number of times people trying to talk to him had their replies make no sense when he completely replaced a post with a different post using the edit command in this thread. Hint: it's more than once.
• Caedrus really is claiming that it is not only possible for him to provide "proof" of what his old redacted posts did or did not contain, but that he already has. And that he did so by showing the posts to other people after they had been modified. Again, you can go through this thread and see that this is his actual argument. Unless of course he redacts that argument before I finish this post.
• I haven't actually changed my story, at all, for over a year. You can go back and read my old posts in an old thread even.

So here it is: it's a simple he-said/she-said scenario where it is physically impossible for either side to provide any actual proof about what actually happened. However, one side admits this (me), and the other side has repeatedly lied about being able to provide solid proof (Caedrus). So... who are you going to believe?

-Username17

[mean_liar]

So... if he edits his shit all the time (clearly, obviously), then... apparently nothing got used anyway, since it got edited, yes?