|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 26, 2018 6:32:09 GMT -5
Just to pop in and make an observation. It is ironic to see a post being made that uses un-attributed material. That scan of the purple section of the page certainly looks a lot like what we have, because it looks like it is taken from the original master mimeograph stencil, and we happen to possess that very same one. Thus to begin a commentary about a fallacy by using unattributed material is a fallacy. *CLUNCK* And two fallacies are, well it's not like logic, it's just a heaping helping of fallacy. If you can't even tag something within the text with an attribution, how do you expect to be taken seriously? As it stands now, it looks like Jon Peterson made the entire image, because it has his tag on it. YOU GO JON! This is beyond sloppy. It looks like the work of angry drunk gnomes Certainly not reputable historians. What are you talking about? There are only two scans posted in this thread, one by Cedgewick with attribution and one by you. Where in this thread has anyone manipulated a scanned image? So I don't understand what you are talking about. Further none of us claim to be historians, but we do have the right to criticize those who make that claim. Or are you claiming that you and Jon and others should be able to post and publish any claims you want without anyone questioning things. You seem to be saying it is fine to post on other venues where the management protects the "historians" from being questioned too closely, but since we don't roll over and swallow anything someone says, we should not join the debate. And if we do join the debate, we are immediately attacked in an effort to silence us. Yeah, I guess that is the way that the writing of history works. Apparently this forum alone out of the whole Internet is not allowed to link to images so that things can be discussed, even though that is done everywhere on every forum. As far as the Arneson estate, they like many of us are probably tired of Dave Arneson being robbed of his just due by people who know better, but persist anyway. I really have to ask what is the big payoff financially for people in denying credit to Arneson? There has to be a lot of money on the line to justify the continual denying of credit to Arneson for so many to be so invested in the effort, but I for one fail to see what the $$$$$$$$$$ incentive is. Why can't people make just as much money telling the truth? But none of us have any financial oars in the water so maybe that is why we can be objective, unlike all the Arneson naysayers who obviously have some financial gain in denying Arneson credit. The entire idea of "holding historians accountable" is absurd. It goes against the entire field of scientific research. It's also a delusional fantasy, as there is no historian police department out there ready to put people in cuffs. I am well aware that history is written by the victors and that many of the things I learned in school books about both world and American history were complete fabrications, lies and distortions. It is correct that we are fools to expect "history" to be composed only of the truth. The main stream of the agreed version is powerful and usually triumphs over the truth. Why should the history of D&D be any different. I guess all of us sheep should just swallow whatever we are fed and not question anything.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 26, 2018 6:45:45 GMT -5
Now to respond to some people's comments about my having left in a huff. It is one thing to criticize methods, it is another thing entirely to engage in character assassination. There is even a legal term for unfounded character assassination, it's called slander. I refuse to take part in slander against Jon Peterson. Frankly, I don't want to get sued. In fact, I expect to see him at the next GaryCon and get into a huge argument over drinks with him about some game related thingie, because, that is what Jon and I do. Toodles! Where has anyone slandered you? Where has anyone slandered Jon Peterson? What in the world are you talking about? You said this before that we were attacking Jon on a personal level. Quote the specific items where you think that is happening. I do not see that anywhere. So either drop the accusation or tell me what you are talking about. If you are going to throw around the threat of lawsuits, then you had darn well better explain what you are talking about and point (link) to specific posts. This trying to guess what you are talking about is not working. Vague statements without pointing to the "problem" doesn't accomplish anything. As the Admin, I cannot remove anything that I can't find. So come down off the high horse and point me to the "problem." If there is one I will remove it.
Hopefully this kind of theft will not continue and future use of our hard earned material will be used with an attribution.
Let's start with - where is it? Where is the thing that you are claiming is stolen? I will be happy to replace that item with "Censored - linking not permitted"
|
|
|
Post by robjn on Oct 27, 2018 5:07:41 GMT -5
There is even a legal term for unfounded character assassination, it's called slander. <JOURNALISM101>Actually, the legal term, since this is a written medium, would more likely be "libel."</JOURNALISM101>
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Oct 27, 2018 11:18:17 GMT -5
If a person takes this scan and puts it out of context, where is the attribution? Oh, hey... Look Jon Peterson is posting the entirie thing now. i.imgur.com/mHAL6ML.pngAs to the tone, I found the tone of the entire discussion was getting a bit out of hand. I decided to drop out before it did get out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 27, 2018 11:50:24 GMT -5
If a person takes this scan and puts it out of context, where is the attribution? Oh, hey... Look Jon Peterson is posting the entirie thing now. i.imgur.com/mHAL6ML.pngAs to the tone, I found the tone of the entire discussion was getting a bit out of hand. I decided to drop out before it did get out of hand. Point the scan you are talking about that you claim a current poster stole. You cannot come here and accuse us of theft and then refuse to tell us what specific item or items you are talking about. Tell me the specific post or posts you are talking about. If you fail to do so you lose all credibility yourself, because if you won't identify it, I can't fix it. The image you link here is linked by Cedgewick in the OP and there is nothing out of context about that post. If you think it is out of context, then it behooves you to explain why it is out of context, because I don't see it. Additionally, Cedgewick has not posted here in the last 17 months, but you know him personally, so if you have a problem with the OP I suggest you take it up directly with Cedgewick instead of coming here and trying to bully us with lots of vague comments and accusations that you refuse to explain. Also I followed the link and there is nothing on the screen to indicate who posted it, so if it was Jon Peterson, I have no way to verify that statement. Odd he would post it there instead of on his blog. It is ironic to see a post being made that uses un-attributed material. That scan of the purple section of the page certainly looks a lot like what we have, because it looks like it is taken from the original master mimeograph stencil, and we happen to possess that very same one. Oh BTW, everyone can go to the OP and see that the scan in that post is fully attributed since the image itself was defaced and damaged (and obscured part of the text) by having a stamp applied to it by the owner. The link to the blog post that the OP is referencing is also provided. So that statement that it is un-attributed is shown to be false and needlessly inflammatory. Again if you have a problem with that post take it up with Cedgewick, whom you know personally and we do not.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 27, 2018 12:29:29 GMT -5
From the OPJon Peterson wrote here: I agree with Jon. Yet, in this 2012 blog post, Jon wrote: Jon posted only the section in black below, removing the non-mass-combat half of the report:Fully cited in the blog post by Peterson and that cite for the source of the image was quoted from the blog post by Peterson. Fact: the source of the scan is fully cited by the OP. A partial (i.e. abridged) image was posted on the blog and the OP posted the full uncensored image here, same source for the partial and full image is stated as from a late-1972 Corner of the Table (fanzine).
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 27, 2018 13:41:13 GMT -5
I seem to remember Cedric apologizing for this. Please let me know if I am misremembering this.
Simultaneously at the same time, may I note from my fanzine days of the 60s and fandom history of fandom going back to the early 1930s, the differences between mimeograph and "ditto"/spirit printing, which caused historical misunderstandings among sf and comics fandom historians for decades. Ditto (the purple pages) used carbon-type masters and much wood alcohol - and faded terribly in most cases. The scan was obviously of a ditto'd page, and I am shocked it looks so good.
Mimeographing required literally cutting the stencil - either removing one's typewriter ribbon or cutting a drawing into the stencil, then attaching the stencil to a drum, which squeezed ink through the holes in the stencil onto paper. With much practice, one printed sheets with words and pictures. Before gaining expertise, one created pages covered with blobs of ink - as were you and your room.
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Oct 27, 2018 17:36:10 GMT -5
From the OPJon Peterson wrote here: I agree with Jon. Yet, in this 2012 blog post, Jon wrote: Jon posted only the section in black below, removing the non-mass-combat half of the report:Fully cited in the blog post by Peterson and that cite for the source of the image was quoted from the blog post by Peterson. Fact: the source of the scan is fully cited by the OP. A partial (i.e. abridged) image was posted on the blog and the OP posted the full uncensored image here, same source for the partial and full image is stated as from a late-1972 Corner of the Table (fanzine). I am merely saying that you are not responsible. You are not hosting or linking the item. The graphic presented when taken out of context only shows one thing, peterson's watermark, as it should. But the purple part is not from peterson. Thus the citation on the graphic is incorrect because Peterson never showed the lower part. The lower part seems to come from a different collection which is not cited. If the graphic is seen out of context, as we all know people cut paste things all the time, then there is no attribution on the document for the lower part of the graphic. Pretty simple really.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Oct 27, 2018 20:48:08 GMT -5
I removed the [] from the image link so that we could see the actual image link. So you and Cedgewick are posting the same image and if yours came from Jon Peterson, then so did Cedgewick 's image so it is correctly attributed. Both images show a black part and a purple part from the same link. This is a non-issue. You say that the purple part is not from Peterson, but you link to an image that you claim is Peterson's and it has the same purple part, so it is according to you from Peterson when you post it, but not from Peterson when Cedgewick posts it. Since we have shown that your whole point is completely untrue. I am going to go ahead and quote all of your posts so that you can't delete them and hide the information like you did the last time.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Oct 27, 2018 20:55:42 GMT -5
I'm not back. I am gone. Drive by posting. If a person takes this scan and puts it out of context, where is the attribution? Oh, hey... Look Jon Peterson is posting the entirie thing now. i.imgur.com/mHAL6ML.pngAs to the tone, I found the tone of the entire discussion was getting a bit out of hand. I decided to drop out before it did get out of hand. IMO nothing wrong with the tone at all, when people do things that look a bit off, it is proper to call them on it. From the OPFully cited in the blog post by Peterson and that cite for the source of the image was quoted from the blog post by Peterson. Fact: the source of the scan is fully cited by the OP. A partial (i.e. abridged) image was posted on the blog and the OP posted the full uncensored image here, same source for the partial and full image is stated as from a late-1972 Corner of the Table (fanzine). I am merely saying that you are not responsible. You are not hosting or linking the item. The graphic presented when taken out of context only shows one thing, peterson's watermark, as it should. But the purple part is not from peterson. Thus the citation on the graphic is incorrect because Peterson never showed the lower part. The lower part seems to come from a different collection which is not cited. If the graphic is seen out of context, as we all know people cut paste things all the time, then there is no attribution on the document for the lower part of the graphic. Pretty simple really. Pretty trolling since since the graphic is a single image and both the OP link and your link are the same link and you say your link comes from Peterson and that means that so does the OP's link. So proper attribution has been done by the OP all the way back at the beginning. Thank you so much for wasting our time with your completely untrue accusations as has now been proven using your own posted information.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 27, 2018 22:01:59 GMT -5
From the OPFully cited in the blog post by Peterson and that cite for the source of the image was quoted from the blog post by Peterson. Fact: the source of the scan is fully cited by the OP. A partial (i.e. abridged) image was posted on the blog and the OP posted the full uncensored image here, same source for the partial and full image is stated as from a late-1972 Corner of the Table (fanzine). I am merely saying that you are not responsible. You are not hosting or linking the item. The graphic presented when taken out of context only shows one thing, peterson's watermark, as it should. But the purple part is not from peterson. Thus the citation on the graphic is incorrect because Peterson never showed the lower part. The lower part seems to come from a different collection which is not cited. If the graphic is seen out of context, as we all know people cut paste things all the time, then there is no attribution on the document for the lower part of the graphic. Pretty simple really. Now that you have went full pedantic, do you have anything useful to contribute. Much ado about what turns out to be absolutely nothing. Maybe we should start a new thread and review Peterson's book.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 27, 2018 23:19:13 GMT -5
Review Peterson's book? When I did that, I was taken to task for it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 27, 2018 23:21:26 GMT -5
Review Peterson's book? When I did that, I was taken to task for it. I didn't see your review, where is it at?
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 28, 2018 12:35:08 GMT -5
Review Peterson's book? When I did that, I was taken to task for it. I would be interested in reading that (again?) too. Should we call historians to account for distorting Arneson? According to the guy doing the most thorough (I assume) documentary, the answer is no. He and Rob and many others who are in the know seem to believe that the burdon for accountablity is on the amature press. Personally I think that Mr. Arneson was a man, and men are not easy to peg down and define, in fact it is impossible to do so. Truth, when it comes to men, are equally elusive, especially on the subject of Dave, who unlike Gary, did not keep as many notes. All that is left of his games are the falable memories kept in the heads of some players. I don't know about you, but I prefer to keep my players in the dark as much as possible. Historians need facts to work, and hard data, but that data was kept in the mind of a man who was just as disorganized as the rest of us. I take kindly to the work of Boggs, he seems to be the best at handling us armchair speculators and our crazy theories. I personally am just glad that people are taking risks and sacrificing things to do the real legwork and I think that it is unfair of us to begrudge them too much. This is a work in progress and I don't know about you, but I lack the funds, the time, and the skill to do what the real historians are doing. I don't think that the distortion (outside of HASBRO's self-centered time-line which is understandable) is intentional. Unless some undiscovered master notebook appears which acts as a smoking gun, many of our beliefs in regards to the subject is probably just a matter of faith.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 28, 2018 17:46:15 GMT -5
Review Peterson's book? When I did that, I was taken to task for it. I didn't see your review, where is it at? Back on DriveThruYerRPGrightNOW back when it was first published.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 28, 2018 21:45:10 GMT -5
I didn't see your review, where is it at? Back on DriveThruYerRPGrightNOW back when it was first published. I'll have to look and see if it is still there.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 29, 2018 0:26:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I think he removed or edited small portions of the PDF, but that would require me re-reading it. Haven't been able to force my way back into it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 29, 2018 7:25:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I think he removed or edited small portions of the PDF, but that would require me re-reading it. Haven't been able to force my way back into it. So you think the pdf and the dead tree book are no longer the same?
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Oct 29, 2018 7:43:29 GMT -5
Haven't re-read it. Just something someone mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Nov 2, 2018 22:09:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Nov 2, 2018 23:13:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Nov 7, 2018 16:01:10 GMT -5
I'd love/embrace the views/opinions of those that were there...sadly I was an ignorant child when D&D came out (approximately 7 if 1974 is truly accurate.) In the forward of OD&D Gygax acknowledges Arneson as follows "...Dave Arneson decided to begin a medieval fantasy campaign game for his active Twin Cities club. From the map of the"land" of the "Great Kingdom" and environs - the territory of the C & C Society - Dave located a nice bog...
I guess my point is, has this dead horse not been beatin enough? Dave's game would have gone one direction had he the inititiative possessed him. Gary beat him to the "initiative" (sorry) and the rest is history. It's also my understanding that a lawsuit occurred and Arneson got some satisfaction from it despite NOT being acknowledged as the ""father of roleplying." Why is that not considered adequate?" Apologies for the rant...
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Dec 2, 2018 9:24:31 GMT -5
Just to pop in and make an observation. It is ironic to see a post being made that uses un-attributed material. That scan of the purple section of the page certainly looks a lot like what we have, because it looks like it is taken from the original master mimeograph stencil, and we happen to possess that very same one. Thus to begin a commentary about a fallacy by using unattributed material is a fallacy. *CLUNCK* And two fallacies are, well it's not like logic, it's just a heaping helping of fallacy. If you can't even tag something within the text with an attribution, how do you expect to be taken seriously? As it stands now, it looks like Jon Peterson made the entire image, because it has his tag on it. YOU GO JON! This is beyond sloppy. It looks like the work of angry drunk gnomes Certainly not reputable historians. Wow, my scan has been manipulated to look like it is a scan from Jon Peterson. I don't always agree with Jon Peterson, but he always makes attributions of what and who within his articles; although I do take umbrage with him not also noting the provenance of his artifacts, but he may do it to protect his sources. I give him the benefit of the doubt. I too have sources who prefer to remain unknown. The entire idea of "holding historians accountable" is absurd. It goes against the entire field of scientific research. It's also a delusional fantasy, as there is no historian police department out there ready to put people in cuffs. I have shared never before seen material with many people. It's not likely you would see that part of the page, if I had not shared it. All I ever ask for is an attribution. And it cost me a movie budget to get many of these things. Think of it as, I bought 5 cars and all I got was a box of old paper -- They weren't free to my partner and myself. My business partner is very experienced in the internet business. We have had people use our material on the web before. We are not unfamiliar with Website take downs, gosh I can click the link for the image and find exactly where it is. Not only do I share a great deal of material with many researchers, I don't tell them what they can say about these things, or how they interpret them. My attitude is: here you go, here is a thing. Now off you go, do your own thing. Don't forget to say thanks by citing your source -- Secrets of Blackmoor: The True History of Dungeons & Dragons, or with a website tag. Hopefully this kind of theft will not continue and future use of our hard earned material will be used with an attribution. Secrets of Blackmoor cannot speak for the Dave Arneson Estate, yet they would likely be disappointed to see that there is no attribution associated with the image for Dave Arneson. Perhaps that should be noted as well, since he created this fixed copyrighted material. But, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. So here is an example of what most people learn in college when they take a english 101 class and learn about citing sources. Consider this a lesson on how to be a historian. See along the top there. An attribution and provenance: Courtesy of the Daniel Nicholson Estate and: www.secretsofblackmoor.comOur own tag to say: Hey, we spent about 10 grand on a week long shooting trip for an entire film crew, and if you re-use this, you gotta credit us too. It cost us a crap load of money. Not only that, but we found it in a pile of papers and nearly missed it. Now of course , there is no David Arneson attribution. We left that up to other researchers to analyze the handwriting. Yet, our article did state that it was likely Dave Arneson. Now to respond to some people's comments about my having left in a huff. It is one thing to criticize methods, it is another thing entirely to engage in character assassination. There is even a legal term for unfounded character assassination, it's called slander. I refuse to take part in slander against Jon Peterson. Frankly, I don't want to get sued. In fact, I expect to see him at the next GaryCon and get into a huge argument over drinks with him about some game related thingie, because, that is what Jon and I do. Toodles! I've added an attribution to the image in addition to the initial attribution that included a link ("due to the efforts of the Secrets of Blackmoor folks"). Please consider supporting the movie! Their kickstarter can be found here:
|
|
|
Post by secretsofblackmoor on Dec 3, 2018 1:49:36 GMT -5
Thanks Cedgewick.
|
|
|
Post by korvin0starmast on Dec 8, 2018 13:45:01 GMT -5
Shortly after I was introduced to RPG I was doing that as well. Talking an Avalon Hill or SPI games that was the right time period and mashing it up with Traveller or AD&D. Half of the action of a AD&D campaign ran by a friend of mine was handled using Swords & Sorcery by SPI as we went around recruiting from the Evelyn Woods and making sure that the Orcish Revolutionary Council didn't get any traction, those darn Reds! I hold a similar view, Mr. Conley. I would like to second Mr Conley's point about how mutable the early RPG experiences were. There was so little material where I lived, in Virginia, that we made up a lot of it as we went along. I didn't read any Jack vance until I was out of college, so I really didn't "get" the D&D magic system. (Strategic review? What was that?) We were high schoolers (1975ish) who were not cognascenti in the wargaming world of adults. We were slow to learn that, like Avalon Hill's magazine The General, the D&D game and TSR games had support via the strategic review. Wasn't until I was in college a couple of years later that I even knew about the Ranger. (And then Dragon Magazine showed up! Throw Confetti!) We mixed and matched games like what Rob described: we had a Space Quest / D&D game one time that was nuts. (The ion chatter wasted my platoon of beserkers). On board games, we had massive wars on the Blitzkrieg board with armies from other AH games filling in the countries between Great Red and Big Blue. That excerpt from the battle in Blackmoor that Jon has a scan of reminds me of the kind of chaotic things we were doing, only those folks had a better handle on what they were up to. (Only one guy in our group had AH's outdoor survival, and none of us had enough money to build napoleonic / medieval armies, so Chainmail was a weird reference for us. The alternate combat system was all we used). We came to D&D from Risk, Diplomacy, SPI games, AH games, chess, and so on. All of us read SF and Swords and Sorcery stories like Conan, Elric, John Carter, and so on. And comic books. ----------------------------------------------------------- To answer the question posed in the OP: engage in an honest dialogue with Jon. That would seem to be the path forward. Heh, two days ago I signed up to support the kick starter. Odd juxtaposition to see it in this thread. Hope it gets made.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Dec 9, 2018 10:16:27 GMT -5
I hold a similar view, Mr. Conley. I would like to second Mr Conley's point about how mutable the early RPG experiences were. There was so little material where I lived, in Virginia, that we made up a lot of it as we went along. I didn't read any Jack vance until I was out of college, so I really didn't "get" the D&D magic system. (Strategic review? What was that?) We were high schoolers (1975ish) who were not cognascenti in the wargaming world of adults. We were slow to learn that, like Avalon Hill's magazine The General, the D&D game and TSR games had support via the strategic review. Wasn't until I was in college a couple of years later that I even knew about the Ranger. (And then Dragon Magazine showed up! Throw Confetti!) We mixed and matched games like what Rob described: we had a Space Quest / D&D game one time that was nuts. (The ion chatter wasted my platoon of beserkers). On board games, we had massive wars on the Blitzkrieg board with armies from other AH games filling in the countries between Great Red and Big Blue. That excerpt from the battle in Blackmoor that Jon has a scan of reminds me of the kind of chaotic things we were doing, only those folks had a better handle on what they were up to. (Only one guy in our group had AH's outdoor survival, and none of us had enough money to build napoleonic / medieval armies, so Chainmail was a weird reference for us. The alternate combat system was all we used). We came to D&D from Risk, Diplomacy, SPI games, AH games, chess, and so on. All of us read SF and Swords and Sorcery stories like Conan, Elric, John Carter, and so on. And comic books. ----------------------------------------------------------- To answer the question posed in the OP: engage in an honest dialogue with Jon. That would seem to be the path forward. Heh, two days ago I signed up to support the kick starter. Odd juxtaposition to see it in this thread. Hope it gets made. I concur with TPD, great post. We love to hear how people came to the game. Open honest dialogues are great, sometimes they are hard to have on venues that make a habit of excluding people.
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Dec 9, 2018 17:29:22 GMT -5
I got to this thread via a reference from the Introductions board.
To the extent that I understand the issue, I have no dog in this fight. Although I trained as an historian to an extent [BS in History, with several now-long-expired credits toward a Masters], I haven't consciously used those skills in decades. While I still care about accuracy, achieving it can be highly problematical and tends to remind me of the Schrodinger's Cat dilemma.
As to Old School credentials: I came to RPGs comparatively late in the game, having been only vaguely aware of them while in high school (graduating June 1982). My first actual gaming session was sometime in the fall of 1984, while on station in Zweibrucken [West] Germany. My GM was my enlisted-dorm roommate Jesse Logie and all we had were his battered "red devil" DM Guide and matching Player's Guide. After that first evening, I expressed interest in DMing and Jesse let me run him through a solo dungeon, created as we went using the DM Guide's Random Dungeon Generation appendix. He thought I did quite well. In the first week of January, 1985 Jesse "re-gifted" me a boxed Starter Traveller set that some relative of his who didn't understand the difference between fantasy and science fiction had sent him for Christmas. For the rest of my two years there, on alternate weekends Jesse ran D&D and I ran Traveller.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jan 3, 2019 21:49:58 GMT -5
Aren't they all too old for a cage fight to be interesting? (Ducks and runs away laughing)
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jan 3, 2019 22:10:42 GMT -5
Aren't they all too old for a cage fight to be interesting? (Ducks and runs away laughing) Not if those ducks of yours aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jan 3, 2019 22:28:39 GMT -5
Aren't they all too old for a cage fight to be interesting? (Ducks and runs away laughing) Not if those ducks of yours aren't. They are old grey ducks, they hang around the stables with the old grey mares.
|
|