The Pathfinder Online dream, (or is that debacle) is over. All that remains is for the vultures to tear away the final scraps from the rotting carcass. It gives me no joy to say this, but I do admit to a certain feeling of “I told you so. Why exactly has this gone down the toilet so badly?

The reason is the leadership, or lack thereof. Ryan Dancey, who resigned for personal reasons, (yeah, right), and of who the company is so very sad to see him go, (my guess is that an office party was held with the remaining staff before they were all sacked as well), was just terrible in his role. Is it possible that everything this guy touches turns to shit? For me it became clear that PFO was going to have a serious problem way back in 2012. I was posting on their official forums at the time and Ryan convinced the Pazio crowd to spread the news of the online version of the game to those only playing the tabletop RPG. So these experienced gamers came across to the forum and they had a look at what was being offered. And they made some good constructive criticism.

Which Ryan took pretty damn badly. He set his rapid fanboiys onto them, you know the types I mean. The ones that have invested their entire emotional existence into something so that any words against their dream will be taken as a direct personal attack. Ryan Dancey was the King of the fanboiys. I was stunned. But I was also happy, because the curtains had been opened and the end result was clear to see. Clear to see if you weren’t a fanboiy. The thread that opened my eyes was this one. Captain Marsh comes in with some good questions and valid concerns. The fanboiys pile on to mock and belittle while never once addressing his arguments. And then Ryan Dancey enters the fray to try and finish the guy off. Amazing stuff to read, particularly with hindsight. Notice Lisa Stevens, the Goblinworks CEO, entering the discussion at the end to try and salvage the situation. Why she didn’t sack Dancey right then is beyond me.

Ryan set about creating a game that he wanted to play, and probably about 20 other people. All the while charging potential players outrageous sums, (if I remember correctly, it was roughly $1000 to play alpha), for a chance to play a buggy game with graphics that looked like they crawled out of 1997. The original vision was exciting. But over the three years that vision crawled inexorably towards the vision of the fanboiys, leaving the original project a tattered hulk.

Their economic plan was to charge a few people a lot of money to play the game. As any good goblin will tell you, that ain’t the way to make money. You want a lot of people to not pay very much. Then all you have to do is keep some of them. How many did they keep? Go and have a look at their forum and see how many people have responded to the news of their imminent demise. In the beginning, new threads would receive hundreds of replies.

Look, these guys raised something like $1.3 million over two kickstarters which is a hell of a lot of money when you consider what games like Life is Feudal are putting out for a fraction of the cost. Instead of using that money efficiently, they went on a mad recruiting drive and hired a bunch of full time people, (I think it was around 20). You don’t have to be a genius to calculate 20 full time game designer salaries over three years and see what it will cost you, ( a lot more than their kickstarters raised). This is why kickstarter is overall a bad idea. With no accountability for all that money raised, a lot of people have paid for a bunch of people to work on a giant turd for three years.

Pathfinder will finish up soon, mark my words. And people will conveniently forget that it happened. But the next time you see a kickstarter for a game, remember what happened here. And whenever you come across a situation where fanboiys shout down any reasonable discussion, it’s time to pack up and leave.

At the start of GamerGate in September 2014, a chap called Max Read who was an editor at Gawker wrote an editorial piece declaring war on gamers. He hoped to make the term a dirty word. When Intel pulled their ads as a result of his editorial insanity he called them a few names;

“… So let’s say it now: Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity. It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs …”

Oh dear.

It’s taken a while for his hubris to catch up with him, but dear Max has been fired, sorry! sorry!, I mean ‘resigned.’ And the more mainstream sites are starting to catch on that maybe, just maybe, these GamerGate people might be on to something:

“… When a friend, Beth Haper, first alerted me to the cultural significance of #GamerGate, I was skeptical. Really? A bunch of gamers were going to expose the bias and corruption of the media? This seemed improbable, but the fact that #GamerGate was arrayed against feminists drew my interest because, of course, I was working on a book (Sex Trouble, $11.69 in paperback, $1.99 on Kindle) about radical feminism’s War on Human Nature. Let us stipulate that #GamerGate is not “political” in the usual Left/Right Democrat/Republican way that Americans typically think about politics. Nevertheless, as fate would have it, the exposure of the Zoe Quinn/Nathan Grayson connection made gamers aware how unscrupulous women could exploit feminist politics and how unprincipled journalists were willing to assist this tawdry little racket. (See “The #GamerGate vs. Gawker War.”)…”

That quote is from a piece over at the other mccain, and a damn fine piece it is too. Have a read of it and rejoice that things are slowly turning around. Although if you’re not rejoicing, then I suppose you need to start being a little worried. Or afraid.

In my post in June on the boycott of Tor Books, a reader posed me this question:

“… I’m concerned that your boycott of TOR is just setting you up for further disappointment. It solves one problem, but what happens tomorrow, when an employee of some other publisher targets you for a blast of hyperbole? Instead of dealing with an ever-growing blacklist, why not come up with a whitelist of publishers who can guarantee that they’ll never expose you to anything that will offend you?…”

There are a few misconceptions here, and whether they are deliberate or not it is in my interest to clarify a few points. Firstly, there is what I call a classic misdirection when he states, “… why not come up with a whitelist of publishers who can guarantee that they’ll never expose you to anything that will offend you? …”

Also known as a strawman argument, this is an obtuse attempt to falsify the position that I originally intended. It is also amusing, in that the misdirection is actually a classic position of the new young American left. Trigger warnings anyone? But to clarify, the boycott of Tor is not to protect our sensitive feelings from happening across anything that might cause us offense, (we’ll leave that up to the SJWs). No, the boycott is because we don’t want to give money any more to people who publicly state that they hate us. This has been a tactic of the left for many years, and it has worked for them. The reason that conservatives haven’t employed it thus far is because it makes us feel icky. But desperate times call for desperate measures and it is time to take a stand.

Which leads me on to the remainder of his question, what do we hope to achieve. Sure, he says, you may win this little battle but someone else will just come along tomorrow and upset you. What, you mean someone like Ellen Pao?

Drooling idiots like Damion Schubert have been declaring GamerGate dead for quite some time now. They still don’t realise what GamerGate actually is. It is the true line that has been drawn in the sand when a whole bunch of us realised that we didn’t have to put up with the SJWs shit anymore. Everything else flows from that moment in time last September. And this isn’t just a fight back. It is a gathering of a tribe of like-minded people who are happy to stand up and fight for what we believe in.


Some of you may be aware of the maelstrom of controversy that has engulfed the science fiction and fantasy publishing world over the sad puppies and rabid puppies campaigns over the Hugo awards. If you’re not, then it’s a something you may want to have a look at if you’re interested in the push-back in the culture wars against the SJW morlocks and Marxist hordes. An excellent place to get started is this round-up of posts by the author John C Wright:

The drama around Tor books, a subsidiary of Macmillan, is in response to statements made by Tor staff about their own readership. Irene Gallo, an associate publisher and creative editor at Tor books said this:

“… There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot…”

The readership did not take well to this libel and Tor were asked to deal with the matter. Their response has been nonexistent. I mean, it’s pretty weird that a company would label their own customers this way, but that is what they have done. And it seems that the powers at be at Tor are either struck dumb with indecision or are actively complicit in this drama. Having dismissed all those people emailing them in protest as ‘bots’, (which was interesting to me as I myself sent some emails and I’m pretty sure I’m not a robot, although at times I fear my wife has cause to disagree), Tor were given adequate time to issue a statement, any statement, to deal with the situation.

None came. So the boycott of Tor books has been called. I have 16 books published by Tor in my personal library. Not only will I no longer be purchasing books from Tor again, I intend to dump my books on the secondhand market at cheap prices. This is in response to this post from Moshe Feder at Tor books. It seems that he thinks any commercial issues will be averted by people buying a Tor book for a day.

Even John C Wright, one of Tor’s own published writers, is unable to express support for Tor in this situation. Make your own minds up, dear readers. But rest assured that the culture wars have not been lost. They were only originally winning in the first place because our side couldn’t be bothered turning up. Now it’s on.

I’m playing the Witcher 3. It is probably, without putting too fine a point on it, the best single player rpg I have ever played, and I’ve been playing them since about 1986. It is everything that Skyrim promised yet failed to deliver. But more than that, it has given the giant middle finger to the social justice warriors who crave conformism under the banner of ‘equality.’

There have been rumblings on reddit and twitter about the fact that there are no black characters in the Witcher 3. One poor writer at Forbes berates himself for having missed this terrible fact, which he missed obviously because of his white privilege. It seems to have escaped these people that the game is set in a feudal Slavic country, (the game designers are unabashedly Polish). I expect next that they will take to task a faithful recreation of a game set in Samurai Japan for not having enough Black warriors to play, or wymens for that matter.

The reaction from the game designers? A frosty silence while they point at their sales figures.

But for me the real revelation was during the opening zone of the game, (spoiler alert coming). In one of the quests, you the witcher are tasked with finding a hunter who lives alone at the edge of the woods. He has some information that you require. He is a sad and cautious man having been driven from the village due to him being a ‘freak’. You as the witcher suspect lycanthropy and offer to cure him. It turns out that he was found in the hay barn with the local lord’s son doing the naughty. The son killed himself, the lord fell into a depression and his lands collapsed and the villagers ran the hunter out of town.

And here we have the first realistic approach to homosexuality in a fantasy feudal setting in a game in a very long time. Because it makes sense in the context of the world. Anything else, such as the ridiculous gay marriage in Elder Scrolls Online, merely rubs your face in their activism. This was dealt with in a mature, respectful, and realistic manner. I could have jumped for joy. In fact, I must admit to a couple of real life fist pumps from behind my computer.

If a game was set in contemporary America, Northern Europe or Australia, and had the exact same turn of events then I would be upset. Because it would likewise not be realistic for the game world in which it was set. And it would not only cause me to scratch my head and wonder if as a player I had mistaken the setting in which I was playing, it would also yank me out of any immersion that I was enjoying.

Of course, the SJWs are crowing on this subject that anyone who approves of this scene in The Witcher 3 is a homophobe etc etc rinse and repeat. And that is because they are avoiders of truth. They have their agenda, they have hoisted their colours to its flag, and so by God they must continue with the charade notwithstanding any uncomfortable realities or logical arguments that happen across their path. Logical absurdities are fine of course.

So all praise The Witcher 3. The game designers have given us a great game and given the middle finger in no uncertain terms to the SJW brigade. And they’re making gobs of money. But then again, the SJWs hate capitilism too.

After my post on NBI group think got a lot of attention from the targets of my arrows and barbs, I knew that there would be a fair bit of discussion, (read general loathing where everyone agrees with everyone else), about my post. However, unless they directly linked to me I didn’t seek them out. Which means that I only intend at this stage to interact with one other blogger on this issue, as he was the only one with the courtesy and courage to link to me.

Tobold. He and I have disagreed in the past on … well, just about everything. And I disagree with points he has made in this post. But at least he has the guts to link to me so I can respond.

Anyway, Tobold’s post starts with a quote from Burke on good men doing nothing. I like that quote myself, and it sums up my attitude to GamerGate. Which means that I believe that those on the side of Gamergate are the good men. In other words, the opposite of Tobold who uses the same quote to say the same thing. Tricky things these quotes. Tobold has linked to a post about my NBI smack-down that did not have the courtesy to link back to me. The post in question in its format says essentially nothing. The writer makes no real claim or argument, and there is no cohesive thought to the small piece except to say that I am bad, (without even referring to me by name causing some commenters to ask who on earth he is talking about), and that this mystery person is on the wrong side of history.

Tobold writes, “… To me that appears to be the worst possible way to respond. You neither engage or even acknowledge the person you disagree with, but you also don’t ignore him and keep silent about the issue …”

I agree, (hey! we agreed on something!) Tobold however, doesn’t address the reason why they did not engage with me. Why it is that they wish to stay in their own echo chamber of stilted thought. The reason is that they are intellectual and moral cowards. At heart they are afraid. They exist in a world of doubt and fear. The more afraid they are, the more they must hold on to their opinions and thought processes as a flag pole in a terrible wind. They do not wish to be challenged. And they seek, not to engage with a dissenter, but to simply label them and dismiss them out of hand. Rowan Blaze originally stated that I was not even worth expending mental energy on, which is weird seeing as he seems to have expended a fair bit.

My favorite comment from Blaze’s post is this one from somebody called Chestnut:

“… I really felt even more attacked reading that post, and I may even tackle the first talkback topic now, whereas I was hesitant before …”

The poor dear feels so attacked. This nicely sums up the appalling cowardice in the SJB crowd. Not only can they not engage with a contrary opinion, they use the excuse of invented violence to substantiate their refusal to do so. I am amused as I consider just how they might go in a debating competition. State their team’s viewpoint and then put their hands over their ears, begin wailing, and demand a safe place when the opposition has their turn?

For I did not personally attack or abuse a single person in my post, contrary to what Tobold claims. I stated that there was group think, quoted from each blogger that I was able to find, and commented on how they did or did not fit in with my group think hypothesis. Of course I used my usual outstanding wry humor, startling wit, and self deprecating sarcasm, ( a lot of which the usual suspects amusingly misinterpreted), but at no point did I abuse, attack, or insult. The closest I came was pointing out that the name of a blog seemed narcissistic.

Responding to Tobold’s post, Rowan Blaze said this:

“… You have every right to link to posts you disagree with; I have done so myself when engaged in a worthy debate. However, I decided not to for the precise reason that I was not going to feed the troll with pagehits coming off my blog …”

His justification for not giving me the opportunity to respond is that I might get page hits. Rowan’s comment betrays what is important to him, not what is of importance to me. I could give not two whits of page hits, but it is obvious that Rowan values them very much indeed. Why is this? I assume because he associates self-worth with how many people click on his own blog. Which means he really really really cares what people think of him. And thus he must have the correct opinions to stay on the good side of this crowd of sheep. There can be no other explanation as I have no advertising on my blog so I can not in any way benefit from page hits. Or maybe he just does not want to run the risk of one of his readers agreeing with me. Better for them to just trust him at his word I suppose than have them make up their own minds.
He also is happy to link to someone when engaged in “worthy debate”. I assume that means debating with someone he more or less agrees with.

In their eyes I am obviously not a worthy person. There are plenty of comments on his post from well known bloggers stating that they had never heard of me. Dismiss the person, not the argument is their preferred technique. If they can dismiss the person, (I have never heard of him therefore obviously he is lesser known and thus not an ‘important’ blogger), then they don’t have to stand up and actually debate whether or not their is any merit to my arguments. This betrays the heart of the problem. The individual is more important than the argument. When a differing viewpoint is discovered they rush to discredit the person saying it. The argument itself? Left untouched. So the person is a homophobe, or is unknown, or is a bigot, or as one of the bloggers I linked to commented on my post and said about me, a sub-human.

I, apparently, am sub-human for having a differing viewpoint. And people say I am the attacker and the insulter in this case? It is all too easy, and all so intellectually fraudulent.

In conclusion, I wish to append one of my own favorite quotes. There has been a lot of talk on freedom of speech, on how freedom of speech does not mean freedom to have a platform. My answer is simply to quote Thomas Paine.

“… He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself …”

Tobold and I may have our differences and disagreements, but I am confident that he would be happy to sit down and discuss them over a glass of red wine or a bottle of Belgium dark beer. And that is one of the highest accolades I can give a blogger on the other side of the fence in this day and age. Sadly, for it is sad, it seems that none of the NBI group think crowd would be similarly inclined.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers