Banned for Discussing Pathfinder's Flurry of Blows!

[Master Arminas]

Well. I have now been (temporarily) banned from posting on Paizo forums. This is in relation to the changes in flurry of blows that they sprang upon us last week, and our pressing the developers for a 'clarification' of their intent, since they are 'reexamining' the issue. Here are the threads in question (the first is now locked and they have deleted thirty-six posts):

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5drg?Attacking-with-a-weapon

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ec0?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5fm0?Simple-fix-to-Flurry-of-Blows

So, my ban came about from this:


FlaK: Wow, that's sucky. Sorry for being under a rock and needing to catch up. Good post for clarification, then, though my personal instinct would be to fight the 'change'... (but this thread isn't about that so I digress).

To which my reply was:


It's not too late, Flak. Raise up your Voice! Stand up for what you Believe! Let them know your thoughts! Feel free to chime in here, http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ec0?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows , if you want to press for answers!


Needless to say the post was swiftly deleted. And a moderator said:


Gary Teter: Removed a post. Either add to the discussion or click the FAQ link. Do not campaign for votes.

My answer?


Touchy aren't we. I guess we struck a nerve. Yes, there are a lot of folks fighting the change with all the tools we have at our disposal. The problem with changing everything to match how the developers (apparently) intended Flurry of Blows to be is that those changes require additional downstream changes in other rules, which require more changes, snowballing.

For example:

1. If two-weapon fighting is how flurry is supposed to work, can a monk make an unarmed strike as his off-hand weapon (his unarmed strike text states he can't).

2. If he can't use unarmed strikes as his off-hand, then perforce they must be primary weapons, and an actual weapon has to be used in the off-hand. For weapons like the temple sword (which isn't light) do the flurry modifiers increase to those normally used for two-weapon fighting or do they remain a -2 to the monk's adjusted BAB?

3. How are you supposed to use a two-handed weapon while flurrying? Mainly applicable to the sohei archetype.

4. In a similar fashion, what about reach weapons? You still threaten with your feet, so if your opponents are at 10' and 5', do you have to split attacks between your reach weapon and an seperate opponent in range of your feet?

And many, many more. All of which can be found on the new thread to which Lobolusk refers.

That better, mister moderator?

To whit I received the following reply:


Gary Teter: Not one of those questions belongs in this thread, as far as I can tell. Please keep comments on-topic for each thread you post in. Appropriating every single thread where flurry of blows is brought up is being a jerk. Please do not do it again.

If you have specific commentary related to the suggestion raised at the top of this thread, then go ahead and respond. Otherwise, please bow out.

I then posted this message, on the Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows thread (which I started).


A moderater just removed one of my posts on the thread Simple Fix to Flurry of Blows and directed us to either FAQ the thread or discuss the topic, but don't campaign for votes! And I was just answering another posters lamentation that he hasn't had a chance to contribute by linking to this thread and encouraging him to raise his voice and be heard.

I think we hit a nerve, gentlemen. Well done.

Master Arminas

Whereupon I got this message:


Gary Teter: You know what, master arminas. Take a few days off. Hitting a nerve with people whose job it is to keep the messageboards civil and fun does not equate hitting a nerve with the developers.

And while some folks agreed, others began to question the moderator on hitting me with a temporary ban from posting, asking him if he was trying to silence the issue. Citing that, in their view, my posts have been civil and well-articulated.


Gary Teter: If you want to discuss messageboard moderation policies, please take it to website feedback.

More grumbling.


Gary Teter: If you want complete freedom of speech you can do it on your own website. When someone is behaving like a jerk we'll take whatever measures we need to to ensure that our messageboards remain a fun and friendly place. Agitating and campaigning across multiple threads rather than answering the questions posed is jerk behavior. The Pathfinder rules, as published by Paizo Publishing, LLC, are not the result of a democratic vote. They are OGL, so if you want to create your own version you can totally go for it.

So, apparently I was agitating and campaigning, and for that I was banned without so much as a warning: regardless of the fact that neither agitating or campaigning are listed as activities not to do when posting in Paizo's own rules. Apparently, for desiring a spirited and continuing debate on the rules, I am a jerk and had to be slapped down. And so I have now been banned from posting, for an unspecified period of time.

Jerk is defined as:
A foolish, rude, or contemptible person.

So was I a jerk?

Master Arminas

[Valairn]

Paizo tends to be a little ban happy actually. So this isn't entirely outside their normal range of "quit disagreeing with us" mindset.

Honestly the ruling that you can't use the same weapon over and over is just CLUMSY. Its such a nonsense implementation of the skill. Rogue's TWF, Monk's Flurry. There should be a noticeable mechanical difference.

The whole point of Flurry of Blows it supposed to represent more than just having more weapons. It's utter nonsense to rule it to work as two-weapon fighting, because if that was the case. You should just give the monk two-weapon fighting and call it a day.

Regardless, I will continue to rule that yes, you are more than welcome to flurry with any monk weapon, even if its two handed.

[Vendle]

It looks to me like you were given several warnings regarding the nature of the threads.

I hesitate to reply at all, because now the impression that I have is that you're seeking attention/pity/validation from peers, which completely misses the point of the original ban.

[Ashtagon]

As Keld Denar noted, you don't bring disputes from other parts of the net to here.

That said, without pointing to a specific event, their moderation policy (and one other issue which I am bound over to not discuss) is why I generally do not post on the Paizo boards.

[Siosilvar]

Somewhere between "That better, mister moderator?" and the next post you made, you appear to have decided to attempt to antagonize the mods. That's a bad decision no matter where you are on the Internet.

[Wyntonian]

Well, yeah, you could have managed to be slightly more polite, I think.

It may interest you to note that Gary Teeter was the name of the jerkface traffic cop who spent his entire life within radar gun range of my high school. Coincidence?

[Darth_Versity]

I have to agree with the others on this, if your looking for pity you really came to the wrong place, from what I can see you were told to stop by someone who holds more power than you and you refused. That never leads to anything good.

[Nich_Critic]

First off, you know you can not follow the rules of a text based RPG if you don't like them, right? It's not like they're locked in a binary file somewhere. If you don't like the change don't use it.

But as to the greater question of why you were banned... well, the internet isn't a democracy. They own the site and they can ban you if they want. In return, you can stop visiting or posting there. It doesn't matter if anyone else thinks you were being a jerk.

And don't bring external problems here.

[Master Arminas]

Yes, I do tend to use sarcasm (which is hard to read on a posting) quite a bit, but I wasn't trying to bait the moderators. He said don't do this (referring to taking over another thread) and I retreated to the one I began. Still, this too shall pass. I just find his posts from the thread AFTER I was cut off from posting rather funny. His responses to the men and women who were defending my right to speak out.

Master Arminas

[Rejusu]

So, apparently I was agitating and campaigning, and for that I was banned without so much as a warning: regardless of the fact that neither agitating or campaigning are listed as activities not to do when posting in Paizo's own rules. Apparently, for desiring a spirited and continuing debate on the rules, I am a jerk and had to be slapped down. And so I have now been banned from posting, for an unspecified period of time.

So was I a jerk?

If I was to make a judgement based on just what you've posted? Then yes. You were being a jerk. Your tone was aggressive and patronizing and you went after the moderator like he was somehow responsible for the change. You also were most certainly warned. Maybe not explicitly so, but it's pretty obvious from here that the mod in question gave you plenty of opportunities to walk away. Instead you kept aggravating the issue.

[Master Arminas]

First off, you know you can not follow the rules of a text based RPG if you don't like them, right? It's not like they're locked in a binary file somewhere. If you don't like the change don't use it.

But as to the greater question of why you were banned... well, the internet isn't a democracy. They own the site and they can ban you if they want. In return, you can stop visiting or posting there. It doesn't matter if anyone else thinks you were being a jerk.

And don't bring external problems here.

Point taken. I shan't do so again.

MA

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: As has been mentioned, this sort of topic is External Baggage, and not an appropriate topic for discussion.