Greetings, Dave!

wavemotion wrote:Heh! I did think it was a little ironic after being told "10 years" "600 hours per book" and "checked and rechecked ad nauseum" that the first book I pull off my shelf couldn't be properly identified.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that too much; the listings still have a few deliberate errors just to keep people on their toes.

Red dragon armor might be a bit better for the health than asbestos, if y'dun mind having to cope with some angry dragons.

d.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:That almost made sense to me .

There's more than one way to skin a forum, erm... dragon.

deimos3428 wrote:Foulfoot updates the site on his own schedule.  Those of us that care about minute detail tend to drone on about stuff in forum threads on our own, and only use the official lists as a reference point.

So I've seen... I guess my impression was that most here cared about the minute detail. I guess that impression was wrong.

My discovery of the mistake in the DMG (Sixth Edition) listing (though acknowledged) has gone 2 weeks and the entry is still wrong. I haven't pulled any of my other books off the shelf to see if there are other mistakes but two weeks is a fair bit of time -- especially given the hostility from some here that we should remove known erroneous information quickly at the 'Geek (average time on the 'Geek from correction submission via the correction tool through to investigation and eventual correction is 36 hours actually -- often much less).

--
Dave Bernazzani
meeplemaster@gmail.com

Badmike wrote:You found a typo, jackass. Calm down.  Foul updates on his own schedule and not yours, and frankly the typo you found isn't really that important.  Call us if you ever dig up something of significance (very, very doubtful, you probably have a couple of shelves of common D&D crap).
Go ahead and pull some more books off the wall and find some more typos. But please don't bother us unless you have an actual "find" and not a nose nugget you sneezed out.

Since your site is a commerical site you probably should update quickly...although I doubt the money you get from advertisers would dry up anyway, since you aren't concerned with accuracy but with traffic generated.  

That you found a typo on the site might give you the giggles, but don't think it gives you or your site any sort of "gaming accuracy cred".  

Hey Dave?  You just became a tool. Congrats.

Mike B.

Way to over-react, Mike. 'grats to you, too.
Now, go back and tell me where Dave was throwing around personal insults?

Nice start to the year...  
d.

Badmike wrote:I know you have a agenda here, David

If so, please say what that is, since I dislike "hidden agendas" - especially those that I don't know I have.

Well, OK, if seeing people not ripping each other apart /personally/ when there is no good reason whatsoever to do so, but instead to try to focus on positive efforts in general is an "agenda", I guess you can put me down for that.
That certainly doesn't entail taking perceived slants "to the site" as direct, personal insults, escalating those on a personal level in return and then attacking the /whole/ of another site on the basis of one person.

Pax?

Badmike wrote:The entire post was an insult to the site, and the research here, which is still the premium site of D&D knowledge on the internet.  The post tried to insinuate the idea this site isn't as accurate as the RPG Geek site by the fact a typo on the site hasn't been corrected by elevating it to the level of a major error, when it is, in the end, a typo.

I don't really care much for "A is "premium", B is not" type comments.
IMHO, Tome of Treasures probably has more in-depth research detail on various 70s/80s D&D aspects and Fin's board is, at present at least, carrying out more (attempted!) 70s D&D research work. The Acaeum still has its strengths, too, at least in part thanks to how long its been around.
"D&D knowledge" does extend to the 90s/00s but that's relatively informally displayed here: heck, I might even say "try rpg.net" in the first instance.

Sure, I could've read Dave's comment as deliberately snarky (first reaction was "edgy in places" and not ideally phrased given the current audience, yes, but a valid /opinion/ from actual observations), but it's easy enough to turn the other cheek or enquire further since he /has/ taken flak for little more than asking "experts" to assist/share their expertise up to that point.
Not that I'm speaking for Dave, but I don't think there was any explicit "insinuate the idea this site isn't as accurate as the RPG Geek site" since his statement was that corrections were seen/actioned more quickly over there, not necessarily more accurately, nor addressing site quality as a whole. Peer-driven sites are inevitably more problematic in that regard which ends up being a balancing act vs. improved community involvement. It's very easy to become a bit impatient if there's no obvious feedback within a couple of weeks (or months/years) given that expectation - try Wikipedia, heh.

Badmike wrote:If anyone else wants to come on here and be a tool I'll call them out also.

Mike B.

Yeah, plain speaking is good. Up to a point, anyhow...

Giving "insiders" the benefit of the doubt to the n'th degree and indeed closing ranks with them even when they should be questioned does not jibe easily with giving "outsiders" short shrift for their "first infringement", anyhow, in my book.

02c/ymmv as ever, anyhow.

Cheers (& Happy New Year, I guess),
David.

Badmike wrote:The entire post was an insult to the site, and the research here, which is still the premium site of D&D knowledge on the internet.

I apologize for my post, Mike. It was uncalled for and a result of more than just the public flogging I've taken here: private messages on the Acaeum, direct via email and someone from here signed up on the 'Geek this week only to send me a hate geekmail about us not caring about accuracy.  This comes after a huge personal campaign to try and bring in the best of the best (we call them SMEs - Subject Matter Experts) for various domains (including here... for pre-1990 D&D material). Even I have limits - the post was a result of my not being perfect and I take responsibility for it.  As a peace offering I've sent in another donation to the Acaeum in your name (the email address and server space are yours - I have no need for another email address that I can receive scathing mail). I also had an Acaeum microbadge commissioned for anyone here that wants to show pride in this site (I own one, and have given one to Mike's account though I don't expect him to log in again).

Now... I'm still looking for help with the project. I've gotten one so far and the work in filling in gaps is slow but steady. I could use more. Please consider being part of the extended community.

--
Dave Bernazzani
meeplemaster@gmail.com

deimos3428 wrote:Someone's got to keep the riff-raff in line

Riff-raff? I'm improving in the ranks (up from Puppy and Troll).

As I'm starting getting the impression that I'm not welcome here!

Let's just cut to the chase. Any three Acaeum members here with 10+ posts want to see me gone? Just post to this thread and say so - if three of you would like to see me gone, I'll certainly take the hint. Honestly... there will be no hard feelings on this end as I appear to not be fitting in well with this community despite good intentions.  Jason? mbassoc?

--
Dave Bernazzani
meeplemaster@gmail.com

wavemotion wrote:Riff-raff? I'm improving in the ranks (up from Puppy and Troll).

As I'm starting getting the impression that I'm not welcome here!

Let's just cut to the chase. Any three Acaeum members here with 10+ posts want to see me gone? Just post to this thread and say so - if three of you would like to see me gone, I'll certainly take the hint. Honestly... there will be no hard feelings on this end as I appear to not be fitting in well with this community despite good intentions.  Jason? mbassoc?

--
Dave Bernazzani
meeplemaster@gmail.com

I haven't cared whether you stay or go, you are easy enough to ignore if you aren't going around biting people in the ass.

As for your intentions, I thought you broadcast them well enough from the start and while they seemed good for you, they also seemed like shit intentions for this site and the people on it.

You've been pretty much welcomed with opened arms by the members here, petted and cuddled and fed, but if you start going around growling, and biting and pissing and pooping like the eager little puppy in love with your own site and project I've always thought you were, and just coming here to get people to give you walkies and little snacks, and scam up years of work and research... then you are more than welcome to take off and not let the plastic pet door hit you in the ass.

Or did you call on me (and maybe mbassoc) to tell you different? And if you didn't want me to wave a newspaper at you or throw one of my old boots at you, then why the hell ask for me by name? I've been completely ignoring you and some of your more blithe comments for weeks now?

You're a smug puppy with a good amount of disingenuous weasel thrown into the mix. You must be pissing off more than mbassoc and myself to be getting private emails and angry posters following you unto geekland. Personally I've found you as appealing as a pile of poo.

So if you want someone to tell you to go, then get the hell gone, and if you don't want my opinion, then don't bother asking for it again. You aren't my puppy or my project and you do damn-all to be part of this community that I have seen except to conitually use it as a recruiting ground for your own web-site.

Now after walking into this I need to sit down and scrape your post off my boots. Serves me right for stamping on the flaming bag of it left in this thread.

Well, time for me to clean up my mess (what I get for posting in the early AM anyway......)

For Faro:

I don't really care much for "A is "premium", B is not" type comments.
IMHO, Tome of Treasures probably has more in-depth research detail on various 70s/80s D&D aspects and Fin's board is, at present at least, carrying out more (attempted!) 70s D&D research work. The Acaeum still has its strengths, too, at least in part thanks to how long its been around.
"D&D knowledge" does extend to the 90s/00s but that's relatively informally displayed here: heck, I might even say "try rpg.net" in the first instance.

Agenda: this. Now, saying someone has an agenda isn't really insulting, just noting the fact that some of their posts may swing a certain way.  I've certainly got an agenda, Zavoda has an agenda, King has an agenda, etc.  Anyway my point being you seem to be the guy who always posts when something is found "wrong" on the site with the "See, I told you guys the site isn't as accurate/up to date as it could/should be". Nothing offense about it, but tell me I'm wrong here David.

For Kflame;

This site is has some great information, but it is using elements of antiquated web-information-portal paradigms, it is, overall, difficult to navigate, and it takes a loooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time to update.

I'm supposed to take a one-post wonder seriously with a name like that? Sheesh. Go play in traffic. The fact you equate accuracy with a flashy website that gives you a rubdown while you type in glowing neon shows me that you don't have a clue to what the Acaeum stands for or what we are all about (and it shows me you cut your teeth on 3.5 and the closest you've ever come to a 1E PHB was probably the pictures on this site).  Hint: Calling us dinosaurs and misanthropes is a COMPLEMENT!  Go away kid, you bother me.

For Wavemotion;

I apologize for my post, Mike. It was uncalled for and a result of more than just the public flogging I've taken here: private messages on the Acaeum, direct via email and someone from here signed up on the 'Geek this week only to send me a hate geekmail about us not caring about accuracy. This comes after a huge personal campaign to try and bring in the best of the best (we call them SMEs - Subject Matter Experts) for various domains (including here... for pre-1990 D&D material). Even I have limits - the post was a result of my not being perfect and I take responsibility for it. As a peace offering I've sent in another donation to the Acaeum in your name (the email address and server space are yours - I have no need for another email address that I can receive scathing mail). I also had an Acaeum microbadge commissioned for anyone here that wants to show pride in this site (I own one, and have given one to Mike's account though I don't expect him to log in again).

Oh shit, now I"M the tool.  Masterfully played.  I just happened to read your post in the absolute wrong frame of mind and came down like a ton of bricks. Apology accepted, and sorry for the 500 lb barbell I dropped on your skull. A PM might have been more appropriate (or not, you are probably erasing all your email by now....) None of us is perfect as I have so aptly demonstrated, but I get annoyed at the attitude that just because the site isn't a hot rod we can't run the race.  Thanks for the donation (Foul really deserves it for the site) and the Acaeum microbadge.  There is no reason I wouldn't log in to RPG Geek again as I log in every couple weeks or so and try to correct a few items as I find them.

For Deimos:

It probably won't be anytime soon, which should tell you something about the importance of your discovery. It's just not very significant, as it won't affect the printing chronology nor the valuations.

This was stated much better than I did.  Rest assured that if you had discovered a significant variation, Dave, it would have been a hot topic of discussion and not doubt updated very quickly.

For JasonZ:

You've been pretty much welcomed with opened arms by the members here, petted and cuddled and fed, but if you start going around growling, and biting and pissing and pooping like the eager little puppy in love with your own site and project I've always thought you were, and just coming here to get people to give you walkies and little snacks, and scam up years of work and research... then you are more than welcome to take off and not let the plastic pet door hit you in the ass.

master of the extended metaphor......

For King;

I don't have a problem with you being here. For the most part your perceived "tone" has been pretty civil IMO. By now most people in your shoes would be throwing vulgarities, threatening to sue, or calling the FBI to report Acaeum members for supporting terrorism. And the fact that you apologized for posting what some people perceived as an insult makes me think that you are sincere in what you are trying to accomplish. Most people wouldnt have bothered

.

King is right. You don't even rate as a pest to the level of the Gameguys and Jonbs we've dealt with over the years. Don't let a few pissy PMs scare you off. Besides, most of us here like to argue, where would the fun be if we all agreed?

Mike B.