Café de Nuit

Having known Ewan for over 30 years, I am very keen to know what "vulgarity" he espoused since that is extremely uncharacteristic of him. Its what makes me doubt the validity of his removal and creates certainty in me that it was political. "Rhetoric" is a very shaky excuse that cements this as political punishment.

PS-if I read that callous insult to Ewan about PTSD soldiers wrong (which I still don't see I'm doing) then YOU obviously read Ewans comment wrong.

You can PM me if you choose. Losing a 15+ year member of your boards who personally accounts for 13% of overall posts (4x as much as you!) demonstrates a serious problem is occurring here.

ASLO-whats up with the security on this site? Can you fix that so posters feel comfortable posting here?

JMaytr wrote:ASLO-whats up with the security on this site? Can you fix that so posters feel comfortable posting here?

Listen man. I'm not going to lie to you, me following you (your posts to be more accurate) from thread to thread was meant to heat your seat. To make you a bit uncomfortable. Not as a poster or visitor, but more so as me taking it upon myself (I represent nobody but me) to try and douse the flames that I saw were beginning to be spread and fanned in several areas throughout this site, to hopefully get you and your targets to think twice about your take on the situation.

I get you wanting to back your buddy, in that back of the bus, overwatch way. I respect that man because I get it. It's a role I've played many, many times. Yet in my experience before you engage in intercepting jumpers you gotta confirm the threat. Smacking the dude carrying a beer in each hand who happens to be walking past the pile of bodies is irresponsible and you not doing your damn job. Now you're engaged and your charge is left blind..

Seriously though, don't mind me. I'm just a ghost who comes and goes. I mean nothing to nobody here, so don't feel uncomfortable in posting your thoughts and ideas. I consider this little step-to a one-off, as I'd prefer less attention (and to stomp out rampant speculation) to the unfortunately events that happened between Ewan and Jester in the hopes that they, on their own, get to a point where **** will be hashed and bygones will be bygones.

Again, don't mind me. Enjoy your stay.

Edit: I edited myself with the grandma rule to save the mods the hassle. Haha

JMaytr wrote:Having known Ewan for over 30 years, I am very keen to know what "vulgarity" he espoused since that is extremely uncharacteristic of him. Its what makes me doubt the validity of his removal and creates certainty in me that it was political. "Rhetoric" is a very shaky excuse that cements this as political punishment.

PS-if I read that callous insult to Ewan about PTSD soldiers wrong (which I still don't see I'm doing) then YOU obviously read Ewans comment wrong.

You can PM me if you choose. Losing a 15+ year member of your boards who personally accounts for 13% of overall posts (4x as much as you!) demonstrates a serious problem is occurring here.

This is the full relevant quote from Jester:

Jester of the FoS wrote:

ewancummins wrote:''I'm triggered by my PC being killed."

MOD HAT: Please be respectful.

This isn't the 1910s when "shell shocked" soldiers lacked "moral fibre" and were cowards.
People have real feelings and can experience real trauma, and being reminded of said trauma conjures very real emotional distress.

I agree with you 100% that if someone said "Shell shocked soldiers lack moral fibre and are cowards," that would be a callous insult to all soldiers, particularly those with PTSD, and I think Jester would too. But that's not what Jester said. Note the quote marks, note the start of the sentence, "This isn't the 1910s when...". It's quite clear to me, especially given Jester's stance in the rest of the thread, and the sentence immediately thereafter ("People have real feelings...") that what Jester was saying, if laid out 100% pedantically would be:

"This isn't the 1910s when [people thought it was OK to insult] "shell shocked" soldiers[, as they called them back then, who we would now say suffer from PTSD, by claiming that they] lacked "moral fibre" and ["]were cowards[", which is completely off base. Now we know better.
In the 2020s, we understand that...] People have real feelings and can experience real trauma, and being reminded of said trauma conjures very real emotional distress. [So please be respectful and stop mocking those who feel that way.]"

Perhaps Jester could have been clearer with his quote marks, but reading the prior posts from both parties, it's quite obvious that Jester has taken the stance that consent, boundaries, and respect for player feelings and past traumas are important for the DM to know about and care about. It's equally obvious that Ewan took the stance that a horror game is meant to put players in uncomfortable positions, that consent and the like can be summed up in a few sentences at most, and that players who claim to be triggered by events in a horror game that they signed up for are worthy of mockery. I find it near impossible that Jester, after posting those beliefs about avoiding triggering memories of trauma, would turn around 180 degrees, mock Ewan's trauma, then turn around 180 degrees again in the next sentence to reiterate that traumatic feelings matter. It makes no sense. It's infinitely more plausible that the soldier comment was meant as an real life example of the kind of hurtful climate that he was advocating avoiding.

I'm certain Ewan could understand that Jester's quote marks meant he was echoing stuff he disagreed with sarcastically, considering that Ewan had himself just said "I'm triggered...", in quotes, to show he was echoing stuff he disagreed with sarcastically. But yes, tone and sarcasm are sometimes hard to show clearly in text. If he truly misunderstood and thought Jester was attacking him personally, he could have reported it to the other mods, and this all could have been worked out. Instead, he left and fired off a last, escalated shot when he did.

What Ewan replied back, I can PM you if you like, but there's no mistaking it as a targeted and vulgar insult. If there are any mod edits in the thread that you think were politically or personally motivated, tell me which ones, and I'm happy to tell you what was changed in PM. I assure you it was just censoring the grandma rule violations.

We are thankful to Ewan for the contributions he has made here, and that is the only thing that has stopped us from taking action in the past, when complaints were made. It is also the only reason the ban is temporary. Aside from obvious spammers, this is the only ban in the last 17 years. We don't take it lightly.

JMaytr wrote:ASLO-whats up with the security on this site? Can you fix that so posters feel comfortable posting here?

I assume you mean the "not secure" browser warning, and not Five's comments.

SSL certificates cost significant money, and we run the site out of our own pockets. Nothing happens here that needs that level of protection. Don't use the same password here as at your banking and shopping sites and you'll be fine.

If you did mean Five's "junior modding", Five, knock it off. Thanks for your attempt to quash the flames, but let us handle this.

Thank you for your clarity. I reached out to Ewan as well. I was referring to browser security, not Five's comments. And I agree with his last assessment: I am likely jumping to my buddy's "six" than really taking everything into consideration.

But consider this too:

I am 100% certain that Ewan means: "a sidebar about player consent, considering past trauma, and current likely triggers are all that's needed as a forward in a horror RPG, not a lengthy essay, or multiple pages to address, and players should consider the genre and implied themes of the RPG when deciding to play it." I think he is ridiculing, at most, the irony of the idea that players want to play horror but not be scared. Not the concept of player consent. He means, "talk to your player about it" (6 words) not write 5+ pages in a book about it. Verbiage is also likely an issue. I hadn't heard of an X card, but all my groups ever, which Ewan first founded when were wee lads, would stop a game cold if we crossed the line during play.

I agree with Ewan that horror in an RPG is about making characters uncomfortable. Fantasy is about making them feel heroic. But we both adamantly agree that characters and players aren't the same things. To quote Seth Skorkowsky: "what scares players often doesn't scare their characters."

Major parts of the gaming social contract for a GM are knowing your players' limits, not their characters when plotting horror adventures, and for players, to agree to play a horror adventure. We know we are playing horror here, so we agree to play that way, to try to help the scares, be scared, and respond accordingly. If you are asked, hey wanna play in a horror game? You should respond, 'sure but as a player, I have problems with X themes'.

I also hate gender-swapping characters in primary canon-just make new, interesting characters. And I hate changing things for change's sake. I don't think that makes me some kind of monster nor does it make Ewan one.

One of the things the news release mentioned was that "Ravenloft is moving away from its gothic-horror roots". I understand that the tropes of the genre are problematic in today's culture. Hell, Strahd is the ultimate domestic abuser-not really something to celebrate and a major trauma trigger. But that's a trope of the genre and what makes gothic horror gothic horror. Without those darker, more personal themes, the genre strays into slasher, body, and cosmic horror...and that's not Ravenloft. That doesn't mean I endorse the tropes, I just recognize that it is what it is, and that's why it falls in that gothic category.

That was obviously his point. That's what I got out of it. I do think he was being sarcastic to point out the irony I mention above, but sarcasm doesn't always translate well in written form. He admitted to me he scorched earth on the way out and that's because he felt piled upon and grossly misinterpreted. It happens.

Thank you again for taking the time to clarify for me. I appreciate that wholeheartedly.

Thank you Jmaytr for that reasoned response. Let me just be perfectly clear: The banning was a direct response to the "scorched earth" part you mentioned. None of the other stuff is something we would ban for. It's all part of the conversation, and welcome. What treaded the line and caused Jester's "MOD HAT: Please be respectful." was the perceived mockery of people who disagreed, specifically the "I'm triggered..." comment, not to mention his earlier "X cards. LOL. WTF is that crap?". The "I'm triggered..." merited only a gentle nudge, and it's my belief that's what Jester was attempting, which it seems Ewan misinterpreted, causing him to go scorched earth.

TL,DR: The dismissiveness and mockery of other people's concerns brought the warning from Jester. The scorched earth exit brought the ban.


It is my sincere hope, that after some time to cool down, and hopefully Ewan understanding that Jester did not mean to mock his service (which he confirms he did not know about), that there can be a rapprochement in the future.

Sorry does not warrant a more than 2 month Ban Period IMO

Igor the Henchman wrote:

Wolfglide wrote:Now, I never saw the unedited version of Ewan’s final response,

I did. It was disgusting.

Enough said; PM me for details…

May I suggest for this thread to be "cleaned" and posts referring to a well known member getting in a heated argument with the moderators and subsequent exodus/ban of said member to be moved in the relevant thread?

PS. I liked Ewan, I like the Moderators and I like this side. I won't take sides here. My suggestion above has nothing to do with support of either side.