Don't delete or unpublish comments unless they're actively defamatory or something. That'd be my preference.

I find it quite confusing when comments disappear. Also, often, there's good stuff mixed in with the vitriol, so it's a shame if that disappears.

I'm not too worried about that Forge thread itself, you understand. It was just an idle question on my part.

Graham

That thread only existed because people fell for a series of classic internet forum gambits: the strawman, a few ad hominem attacks, calls to authorities and some passive aggressive schoolyard arguing.

These things in themselves should be unacceptable here.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

I reckon that if you psychoanalyse everything that's put out, you'll find fault everywhere, often where none exists. It's never easy reading any kind of motive into forum posts because of the lack of physical cues such as body language, tone of voice or facial expression. (Incidentally, smileys might help, can we do those here? I never found out how!)

From time to time there are bound to be misunderstandings, fallings out and so forth. I think it's better to accept this and trust that everything can be sorted out amicably in the long run. If it cannot for some reason, then some sort of intervention may be necessary. That kind of decision however can only be made if within the forum there exists a position of authority, the moderator or something similar with the power and the will to enforce it, but also with the sensitivity and tact to know how to do so without causing offence, when to apply strongarm tactics and when a simple appeal for calm will be sufficient. I think such may be necessary on the offchance that a real troublemaker does begin causing strife here, but does this go against the principles of the CE? Maybe the situation will never arise, but it would be better to be ready for it all round.

Ash

I've pondered over an answer to this question for some time because it is a very difficult question to answer fully and in the way that I feel is necessary. I see this from two very different angles:

1. I've noticed that debates or discussions that have opposing opinions on this site tend to have some rather interesting rules of play which certainly make me quite reluctant to get involved in them. The first is that when someone believes that something is irrelevant to the topic they can sort of have an informal veto on it and 'suggest' that it shouldn't be considered in the topic when blatantly the person bringing it up does think it is relevant. Whilst this may be a great tactic to keep threads within topic it has been used to cut the legs out of someone's argument and as someone who uses analogy, comparison and precedent a lot in debates, it makes me nervous. The second is more an atmospheric thing that you can disagree as long as you agree really? The collective/mutualistic nature of things tends to foster quite a strong feeling of 'status quo' where discussion is allowed but out-and-out disagreement is not. Now these may be me just being a total noob but it does give me a certain icky feeling when considering posting on some subjects. Now, what does this have to do with deleting posts I hear you mutter? Well, I think that as CE develops and promotes itself you are going to see more people drifting towards the site and more people are going to have to learn the social ettiquette that drives the discussions, which means that more of these situations are going to occur. I know the site isn't great on laying down rules and procedures but some 'Read Me' file that says 'look guys, we want you to discuss things, but we don't encourage X. Y and Z on this site for 1, 2 and 3 reasons' would be useful.

2. The nature of the transparency of Collective Endeavour's forum operations sometimes makes me raise my eyebrows, I must confess. In a previous mail I laid out my 1.2.3.4 criteria for interaction with the site and I wonder whether the 1 & 2 people really need to see, well, discussions like this? If people are using CE as a touchstone for their game's fans is it suitable that they also see the inner workings of the site's management laid bare before them? Similarly, is it suitable that they see incandescent flame wars as part of that front page presentation? In some ways its a very cool attitude but in others it's potentially very harmful, which means that there has to be a mark that is passed when a post is brought down.

Now having said all that, I also agree with Graham that in these threads there are usually things that come up that can be really helpful - I would have never re-bookmarked the Forge glossary or found out there was a new one without the Forge thread, for example. However I think that there is a time and a place for everything and sometimes the place isn't the front page of CE.

My own forum, which has been running successfully now for seven years runs a policy of self-policing, low moderation and new poster guidance that is actually very similar to this one - and it suffers from the same problem of new posters learning the status quo. However it is self contained and not a front piece to a website and that I think makes a lot of difference in whether you delete, unpublish or post and be damned!

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

...FWIW, I think the rules I've been operating on are pretty simple but I've never bothered to formalise them. So:

1) Keep threads on track, but accept that there are other related topics worthy of and deserving discussion. For example, Destriach's trying to throw ideas about for his Digital game and the thread becomes a debate for whether games need a focus or not. That's a very interesting topic and a fine debate to have, but it's not for the Brainstorming forum (it's for Game Design really) and it's not really about Destriarch's game.

If you just want to point out to Destriach that you think a lack of focus will lead to a weak game, please feel free to do so in his thread, because you're talking about a subject in direct relationship to his game. If it starts to be a discussion about game or setting focus in it's own right (which that one did) then it needs to be off that thread and in it's own. As a good rule of thumb, any time a thread has two posts in a row which discuss something interesting but don't relate to the thread topic, then it's drifted.

You want to have a conversation on that topic, please start a new discussion in the right place, don't continue to drift that thread off topic any more than it is already. Post a link to that new thread too, so that people know not to carry on discussing the new topic in the old thread.

2) The only thing I learn from people who agree with me is that they agree with me.

Which is not to say that posting "I agree!" is not valid or permitted, but it's generally not very useful (unless it's a response to something which ends "who agrees with me?"). I'm usually looking for people saying either "I agree, but...", "I agree and..." or "You're full of shit, here's the counterargument you haven't thought of."

This is the way we learn, by being challenged. If someone challenges your ideas, it doesn't mean they don't respect them or that you are wrong or anything, just that their ideas are somewhat different. Like I'd never really comment on Gurps as a system because I think it's pants, but I accept that a whole lot of people used to like it and have fun with it. Up until about 10 years ago, I was one of them (Gurps GM 1988-1997). But hey, that's not my bag these days daddy-o. But I acknowledge that there may well be interesting stuff I can learn from Gurps and the techniques employed by people who love it.

If you come here and act like Gurps is the be-all-and-end-all of RPGs (which nobody here does, mind you) without acknowledging that it just aint for some folks, well, that's rude and you aren't like minded with us.

3) We all know that the internet is an imperfect means of discussion because it relies on language and language is a crap way of communicating. But it's the best we have, and beyond waiting for everyone to be together in the same place at the same time (which would only cater for those of us who attend cons and drink together at them etc etc) this is the only alternative. So we'll get misunderstandings, strawmen, misunderstandings mistaken for strawmen and the whole gamut of internet communication fuck ups. It's part of the medium and unavoidable. Even the strictest of moderation will not prevent this. We should all be careful, understanding and try to avoid them with thought, consideration and, above all, the ability to not fucking post reactionary shit without thinking.

We all still do it, but it happens a lot less here than on a lot of other fora. It's starting to happen a lot more now than it used to becasue there are more members than there used to be. While I know I can make a statement like "all games written before august 4th, 1988 have been scientifically proven to be shit" and know that everyone here's going to just laugh and know that I'm joking, I also know that sooner or later some pillock will turn up and start thinking that I actually mean that.

4) The words "In my opinion" used in an online RPG discussion are as often used and just as redundant the words "I LOVE ANGELINA JOLIE!" Really, I'm sure she's very flattered, but do you think that the other people posting on the internet need to hear that?

Of course it's in your opinion, almost everything is an opinion and whatever isn't opinion will be clearly stated as such and backed up with evidence. Posting "that's just your opinion!" when someone disagrees with you is pointless, the conversation will go much better if you just accept, quietly to yourself that you know it's just their opinion and that yours is different.

Basically, if you're going to present something as fact rather than opinion, be prepared to back it up with evidence. If you want to disagree with something someone has presented as fact and backed up with evidence, please present counter evidence, otherwise all your ddoing is making noise and contributing nothing.

5) Equally, if you do love Angelina Jolie, please keep that to yourself, kthx?

6) The only real flaming and "proper" argument that's been had here was about The Forge and some of their definitions and attitudes (or percieved attitudes). I'm not about to get into the discussion about members of The Forge being, y'know, just a bunch of pretty normal guys who're grouped together because of a few shared opinions and circumstances and not some kind of evil conspiracy or Cult Ov Thee Personality Ov Thee Darke Lorde Ron. But at the end of the day, the Collective Endeavour is a collection of y'know, pretty normal guys who're grouped together because of a few shared opinions and circumstances. And a lot of those shared opinions happen to include some of the same stuff as The Forge, in terms of RPG theory and game types and whatnot. If you want a hint, look at the founding members and point to the one guy who's never been on the Forge booth at Gencon. If you can't see that talking smack about Forge theory or whatever here is a stupid thing to do, then you're a fucking idiot lacking in basic social skills.

I'm not saying that you can't post here if you disagree with anything Thee Darke Lorde Ron ever said, but bear in mind who's company you're keeping here and what's likely to set them off and behave accordingly. For example, I think some Forge theory is bollocks, and find the attitudes of some members infuriating at best and pathetic at worst. But that's not something I'd want to discuss here with these folks.

7) At the end of the day, we're all supposed to be here to learn, not to score points for our own opinions or some freaky "tribe" we self identify with. Approach discourse here with a desire to learn and everything will be fine. So try to think what you (or someone else) will learn from something before you post it.

8) Having said that, everyone's human and mistakes are made. When someone says something you think violates your opinion of how this site ought to work, there probably ought to be a process for handling that. I'm in favour of people just saying, calmly and politely "Wait, dude, are you accusing me of X?" without that degenerating into flames, because in my opinion (which as I stated, might be utter shite) most flames start out as relatively simple misunderstandings. But maybe that wouldn't work, at least, I'm pretty sure it would with a lot of people here.

Now, I'm not suggesting that these are site policies or any such bollocks, but at least you know you'll be titsing me (personally) off if you behave contrary to these guidelines.

As for the flame posts?

Move them to another thread if they are off topic and lock it so it can be referred to. If they're not off topic, leave them where they are and make a clear statement that this sort of thing's not on.

In this case, lock the thread but don't delete it, or delete the thread if the forum software doesn't permit locking. I don't think anything in there is a massive loss to anyone. Although I'm not saying that the thread is worthless, I think it's worth less than the hassle this might cause if someone less well socially adjusted comes along and stirs that particular shitstorm up again.

One thing I did want to mention which I think bears keeping in mind is that there is a difference between deleting posts because they are nasty and offensive, and deleting posts at the request of the people who write them. I would also like to make it doubly clear that I didn't so much ask for the last thread to be deleted as suggest that it would be better if it was. I was quite open for anyone else to disagree and would have been happy to go with the consensus. I wasn't actually expecting it to be just removed out of the blue like that (although actually it's not been 'deleted' per se) without first getting the opinions of the other participants.

Ash

I go to Paris for 3 days, and this happens? Man, now I'm in the odd situation where there's oddness and tension and mutterings and I have no idea why!

On one hand, if some people said some things they aren't proud of, should I go back and read them and form opinions of those people based on comments they'd rather not have made? Or should I definitely be allowed to so that I can form those opinions, this being a social site, correctly and not through a grape vine? I've already had one "Well, I never knew X was that kind of person" comment which I can no longer investigate by reading the actual thread.

Who knows the answers to these questions? Not me, I'm afraid, though I'd love to know what was said to spark this whole thing off. I know the Forge and terminology in general have been touchy subjects in the past, but to be honest, if it isn't in the past it would be good to know what not to say about it in the future.

Shevaun

...in my mind for having the thread out there in the open, since it would stop people speculating on what happened (or about what actually didn't).

On the other hand I'm glad it's currently unpublished since I'm sure more than one person would have stomped in adding to a thread that was amicably finished, with misunderstandings and differences acknowledged.

Anyway, I took the decision to unpublish it in the meantime so I'll take the cop for that. Though I think it's maybe better to have this kind of thread here without the added distraction of a thread awaiting re-ignition in the background.

Oh, Rich makes really good points above (for me). Is some kind soul going to grab all this cool stuff one day and make an FAQ.

I think unpublishing the thread is pretty bad. Nothing against you personally, Gregor, and I know we'll talk about this reasonably and resolve it amicably. But unpublishing/deleting the thread, to me, wasn't helpful.

Because...why's it been unpublished? Because someone thought it was finished? Because someone didn't like what was said? Because someone thought that any additional comments would be unhelpful? (On the last point, I'd prefer it to be locked, not unpublished).

Also...I hate to bring it up...but was it a moderation call? If so, who's moderating this forum? Was that decided? (It may have been, but I don't remember)

If we're going to do things like delete threads, I'd really like a clear moderation policy and an announced moderator. There wasn't either, before, because we didn't moderate, but if we're moderating, I'd like it a bit more transparent.

Sorry to be a pain in the arse. But I feel strongly about things like this and I'd prefer it out in the open. And, for myself, I really would like that thread republished again until we decided.

Graham

Fair point Graham, and I've published it again.

I'm not sure if it was helpful, or not helpful, of me to unpublish the thread. But my feeling at the time was that it had foolishly, and far too quickly, spiralled down a regretable track. And the track it had gone down was at an end. (Though, of course, sitting waiting to be kicked off again by anyone stumbling in.)

I unpublished it because it lived in a grey area and I preferred to be overcautious and find where we wanted to go first.

Oh, you're not being a pain in the arse at all. No worries.

There is an obvious tendancy, on any forum, for people to moderate things if they can, just because they can. But usually the only people who can are ones that have been agreed to be moderators in the first place :)

I had assumed, from limited knowledge, that Gregor *had* been appointed a moderator at some point in the past.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/

We don't have any officially appointed moderators, although a fair few of us have the rights to do so. In the 13 or so months we've been active, this is the first time moderation has been needed, so hopefully it was a one off. I'm a little bit disappointed that we ended up in a situation where Gregor needed to step in and do something, but I'm glad he did, even if it was only to defuse the situation.

If this happens again I guess we'll need to look at how we moderate the site a bit more, but until then I suggest we as we have been - continue to self-moderate, read threads charitably, think before hitting reply and try not to fill the forums with "me too," "I agree" or other such hollow posts.

Oh, is there a way to lock posts, Matt? And would we prefer that to unpublishing them? I guess, I'd maybe have preferred that but I didn't see any lock post button.

I'd prefer that we don't go down the road of moderating content of posts, but we've been going along fine with a few people un-spamming or moving posts to the best forum for them, deleting duplicates and pruning/grafting drifted posts into separate threads. (For example, I hardly blink when I find Rich or Matt has tidied up some organically growing threads.)

One other thing is that when I asked for some self-reflection before further posting I was specifically not asking for any justification to me as an Admin or a mod, or even for any posted answer. When I said that, I said it as a fellow member and I was hoping people would think to themselves before posting again.

Again, FWIW in as far as my opinion is just one of many and in the interest of transparency:

Gregor, I think you did exactly the right thing with the thread. I'd have rather the thread be locked during the "cooling off" period than unpublished, but as far as I can tell, locking threads is yet another function that Drupal lacks.

Given what we have to work with, I think this is the best solution. Unpublish =/= Delete, with an unpublished thread/post you can always decide what to do with it later.

I don't really want to get into the situation you have on, say, RPGNet where threads get "pulled backstage for review" or any such nonsense.

Post author and moderators can turn the original posts comment option to "read only", which prevents further comments.

It's every forum members responsibility to moderate themselves and post with a degree of maturity. If something pisses you off, the easiest response is to not reply straight away. Take the time, nobody will think less of you for mulling things over and posting with clarity.

Disagreeing is fine, encouraged even. Posting in anger or using divisive tricks to "win" is not. Leave the Internet elsewhere when you arrive.

More to the point, if you post like a jerk, people do notice and the general result is that people either ignore you, refuse to associate with you or don't buy your games.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Well, look, I'm uncomfortable with the moderation at the moment. There's no moderator, but I'm seeing ad hoc moderation by whoever feels like moderating the thread.

It's been bothering me for while: it's one reason I post less on this forum than before.

For example, in Dice on a black blackground, Gregor's just moderated. Don't get me wrong: it's good and necessary moderation. But, for example, could I have moderated that thread? Can anyone moderate?

I'd like it to be formalised: "Gregor, Rich and Andrew [or whoever] moderate threads when necessary". That's all it'd take.

Anyway, perhaps I'm the only one worried about this and, if so, fair enough, carry on as before.

On the unpublish/delete thing: do understand that, to those of us without the advanced privileges, they're pretty much equivalent. The thread disappears from view. I'd really prefer locking to unpublishing. But, again, I'm only one person, so if others disagree, carry on.

Graham

I like the thing where the initiator of a thread can moderate their thread, so with your dice thread I was kind of hoping that you would say "hey, I've got what I wanted from this thread I think it's done". Would that be a sensible general rule? It's a good idea to get this formalised, Graham.

If anyone wants to start up a new thread because of a topic that came then that's what they should do rather than derail an existing thread.

Matt's now pointed out how to lock posts, so in future if we had to do that then we could. Though I'd prefer that we wouldn't have to.

But note that if something is deleted then it's gone (as Neil found out when he bombed his own post a while back and he had missed the data base back-up). Oh, leaving something permanently "unpublished" would be a pain in the ass, as the posts sit in the akismet moderation queue waiting to be published (along with any "spam" posts).

Graham, for someone with balls of steel you act prickly and unsure of yourself at times on here. So I'm super happy for you to speak up about this, and put in your much-valued opinion.

I don't know who has moderator responsibilities on here, though. Matt, do you have the list?

One of the key things about here is we're about the games and the issues to do with publishing and playing. We're not a chatty site for socialising or for posturing.

The more of us there are, and the more we work as a gorup, the more chatting and socialising will happen, its pretty much inevitable if you want to keep a fun and light atmosphere (which is the impression I get).

Possible solutions are more moderation, or a PM system (which I would really like to see, I've posted stuff that would be a PM if it were possible because I don't know people's emails) a way for logged in users to see other user's emails (i.e. PM-lite), or an off-topic or tangency forum.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/

Yeah, that's what Conventions are for ;^)

More seriously though Graham, if you think something needs moderating and want to moderate it, then go for it. The main moderation that's required is usually splitting threads when they drift too far. If anyone objects to your moderation, we'll have another thread like this one to discuss specific rules. But I really don't think that's needed at this point.

If you're unsure about a specific bit of moderating, open a thread in admin and we can all decide what to do with the thread in question.

How does that sound?

And, sorry, yes, my previous post was a little prickly. In my head, I was all sweetness and light, but when I read it back...yeah.

Useful clarification on what "unpublished" means. Thank you.

So, if I have this right:

1. There's an expectation that we're about the games and issues connected with publishing and playing. We're not here for socialising and posturing.

2. Anyone, essentially, can moderate a thread if they feel it's gone off the rails. If there's a problem, we'll take it to one of these threads.

3. The original poster is particularly welcome to moderate their thread and call it closed.

Yeah, that's sensible, and I'm happier with it being formalised.

Personally, I'd add:

4. One thread per topic. Sure, you can tangent it for a couple of posts ("Hey, RIch, this reminds of that thing". "Yeah, I remember that thing, it was like this. Anyway, back to topic.) But after that, take it to a new thread.

With incredible irony, my model for moderation is The Forge. I think the moderation there is excellent: Ron picks up Internet-baiting and calls it for what it is. I wouldn't necessarily want Ron's directness, but I'd like a similar moratorium on Internet back-and-forth snippiness.

In that Forge thread, I actually think, with respect to Per, that his second post should have been moderated. Those comments about "if you're really interested in discussing..." and "if it's just Forge aversion, then I suggest to stuff it" are great examples of snippy Internet language that's obviously going to lead to an argument within five minutes.

I think it's more important to moderate that level of argument than swear-words and ranting. When I say moderate, I just mean a "Come on, let's talk about this civilly", as Gregor did later.

(I've used similar language myself, of course, and I should have been moderated too. It's just that that's a perfect example of the "Internet-baiting" I was talking about. Sorry, Per, will buy you a pint.)

Graham

Cheers, Graham.

I've been sitting on my hands since the infamous thread was momentarily "unpublished" - it's probably futile if I try to explain why I wrote what I wrote, but perhaps some cultural/lingual differences play a minor part as well. That's not an excuse, mind you, I stand by what I wrote, even the "snippy Internet language". I think the Forge-generalisation that triggered it was un-called for. Was it an over-reaction? Maybe. I'm only human.

Looking back at the thread - Gregor gave us a hard stare, and that was it. It should have ended with Ash's last post, and would have been an instructional example of soft moderation.

I have no problems with moderators and with moderators locking thread after asking the posters to behave or whatever. Deleting/removing threads, apart from spam etc, is never a good idea.

Per :D
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

On the other hand, if we don't socialise, how can we consider ourselves friends? For some of us it may be that this is the only place that we really have contact with each other. Surely some friendly banter is allowable, if not necessary? I mean to say, yes, we're about games development and mutual self-promotion etc, but we also need to function as a unit and that requires more than just mechanical logical interaction, especially when it comes to convention presence. We need to be friends as much as we need to be contemporaries, especially when we consider that in a very real way we are also, in a sense, rivals (though friendly ones I'd hope.)

Ash

This is going to sound horribly flippant, but: By posting constructively.

Want to show friendship? Be a friend. Play somebody else's game and post actual play. Post a review. Post a coherent critique. Help somebody with their game design. Help somebody with layout. Help with editing. Provide solid solutions and useful techniques or ask useful questions. I guarantee people will think more of that kind of poster than somebody who mainly posts a few jokey "me too!!! Lol!!!" comments.

Say we have a member HeadChopper216. When the question comes up "do we want to associate with HeadChopper216?", will people respond "Yeah, he's great, he posted that really insightful feedback on my game." or "Who? The guy who always hangs around, but doesn't add much of use?"

More seriously, if this is the only place you have contact with us, then you're never going to get the most out of it. Ever. Convention attendance is a key driver to smallpress success, but that is another topic.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

No offence, but it takes more than critique for me to consider myself friends with anyone, regardless of how constructive the criticism. Naturally we don't want the frivolousness to overrule the purpose of the site, but without being able to make smalltalk it just feels like a business meeting. I think there's room for both, so long as the purpose of the site isn't circumvented. We all need to relax now and then.

Ash

I have to say Matt that I have seen plenty of posts here (ones that I happen to think are perfectly acceptable) which don't fall into the category of constructive gaming posts. We do see a lot of jokes here, they just happen to go along side the game-oriented business of the site, which is fine surely as long as its kept in check.

As for not getting the most out of things if we can't meet in person, well that may well be true, but some of us just can't go to the cons, as we discussed before in the membership thread. Unless that becomes a requirement of joining we'll just have to accept that not everyone is getting the same out of the CE.

Of course now I am guilty of going off-topic, for which I appologise. Maybe a separate discussion tone and whether we should have any non-gaming threads, or a non-gaming forum?

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/

Friendship (and by this I mean the ability to hang out together without feeling uncomfortable, rather than considering someone a viable godparent or best man or whathaveyou) comes from a number of things - familiarisation, respect, honesty, shared outlooks and trust.

I don't see what these things have to do with chatting HERE on this site or indeed, within the topic of this thread, snapping and arguing with each other.

By reading each others posts, we will become familiar. By working on each others games in our own time, we will gain respect. By giving good useful and sometimes delicate feedback we will experience honesty. By feeding the focus and purpose of the site we will show our shared outlooks and by working with each other without having someone tell us we are breaking rules - by knowing our boundaries - we will gain and earn trust.

It appears to me that what is happening in this and a number of other threads is the group passing through that good old group dynamic thing of forming-storming-norming-performing. Hackneyed it may be but if you look at recent events (established group encourages new members, new members 'break' the unwritten norms of the group, norms are re-examined thoroughly and new norms established or old norms reinforced...) then it is pretty much working as intended!

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

If not here, then where? I for one don't know anyone else from this forum personally, and have very little or no contact at all with you guys anywhere else. And that's the chatting I mean naturally, not the snapping etc.

Ash

Email?
Facebook?
Any number of other sites which have less focused purposes?
AIM, MSN, GoogleChat?

Oodles of options. However I think my emphasis could have thrown my intent - CHATTING here rather than chatting HERE would have been more appropriate.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Ok then, let's explore that. If I wanted to chat to you for example, which of those sites would I find you at, and how? Don't forget that there's no private message here, so people will be reluctant to leave open details in the forums because spam bots will find them more easily.

I really do think we need, if not a tangency thread (which I am not so fussed about), most certainly a PM option.

Ash

Gregor said much the same to me on the weekend. "If you want to Chat use email" When I protested that I didn't *know* people's emails he pointed out that he did and I could just ask him.

Now is it just me or does it seem weird that the system for contacting someone is to try and use another user as an Address book? No offence to your kind offer of help, Gregor, which is much appreciated, but that just seems silly to me.

Now I don't use chat, AIM, IM or anything of the sort, and to be honest my barrier for giving people my email is a little higher than it is for some others (i.e. I would much rather be PM'd than emailed by someone I knew only from a forum). However if we don't want to do things by PM (and I am sure Matt said he *would* have PM's soon actually) then let's at least have contact info on the user pages for those that choose to display it.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/