Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Conrad Cook is a blackmailing asshole
286 views
Skip to first unread message
Adam Thornton
Jan 30, 2012, 11:35:10 PM1/30/12
to
Hey, Interactive Fiction Community, or what remnants of it remain here:
Conrad Cook is a blackmailing asshole.
He has accused me, on intfiction.org, of being Jacek Pudlo, and demanded
that I give him my interview correspondence with Mr. Pudlo as proof that
I am not--which seems a little odd, since surely if I had written the
answers as well as the questions, then coming up with both sides of the
conversation wouldn't be very difficult.
I wish to state, categorically and for the record, that I am not, and
have never been, Jacek Pudlo.
I also wish to apologize to Jacek in that I *did* forward the email
thread to Conrad Cook, because although I am aware that I hold Jacek and
his work in much more esteem than the rest of the IF community, I really
would rather *not* be thought to be him. Although I would have prefered
to merely scream "publish and be damned," I did not, and am experiencing
some regret over that.
Note that my reply to my blackmailer on intfiction.org does NOT mean
that I will be moving my IF-related correspondence activity over there.
If you cannot cope with Usenet, you do not *deserve* text adventures.
However, all denizens of these august newsgroups be warned, lest it be
*you* that Cook's accusatory madness fixes on next: he is a blackmailing
asshole.
Adam
Conrad Cook is a blackmailing asshole.
He has accused me, on intfiction.org, of being Jacek Pudlo, and demanded
that I give him my interview correspondence with Mr. Pudlo as proof that
I am not--which seems a little odd, since surely if I had written the
answers as well as the questions, then coming up with both sides of the
conversation wouldn't be very difficult.
I wish to state, categorically and for the record, that I am not, and
have never been, Jacek Pudlo.
I also wish to apologize to Jacek in that I *did* forward the email
thread to Conrad Cook, because although I am aware that I hold Jacek and
his work in much more esteem than the rest of the IF community, I really
would rather *not* be thought to be him. Although I would have prefered
to merely scream "publish and be damned," I did not, and am experiencing
some regret over that.
Note that my reply to my blackmailer on intfiction.org does NOT mean
that I will be moving my IF-related correspondence activity over there.
If you cannot cope with Usenet, you do not *deserve* text adventures.
However, all denizens of these august newsgroups be warned, lest it be
*you* that Cook's accusatory madness fixes on next: he is a blackmailing
asshole.
Adam
Peter Pears
Jan 31, 2012, 3:16:03 AM1/31/12
to
> Note that my reply to my blackmailer on intfiction.org does NOT mean
> that I will be moving my IF-related correspondence activity over there.
> If you cannot cope with Usenet, you do not *deserve* text adventures.
I don't blame you for saying such a thing - you got mixed up in a very
> that I will be moving my IF-related correspondence activity over there.
> If you cannot cope with Usenet, you do not *deserve* text adventures.
ugly thing, in a very ugly, public, mud-slinging way. But I would like
you to reconsider Int-Fiction. It's no worse that RAIF, in that Conrad
might just as well have posted his accusations here; and I for one
miss your posts for the entertainment value.
Adam Thornton
Jan 31, 2012, 9:27:29 AM1/31/12
to
In article <9a1baa84-fe8e-4e54...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
That particular comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I understand the
reasons people have fled the newsgroups, and the advantages in interface
that a web forum brings. Really, I do. Nevertheless:
I may start reading intfiction.org, but my heart still belongs to
Usenet.
Adam
reasons people have fled the newsgroups, and the advantages in interface
that a web forum brings. Really, I do. Nevertheless:
I may start reading intfiction.org, but my heart still belongs to
Usenet.
Adam
Andrew Plotkin
Jan 31, 2012, 1:22:43 PM1/31/12
to
In rec.games.int-fiction, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
>
> I may start reading intfiction.org, but my heart still belongs to
> Usenet.
Sadly, the heart of Usenet belongs to whoever is willing to stick
>
> I may start reading intfiction.org, but my heart still belongs to
> Usenet.
around in a newsgroup and keep talking. There's no guarantee this is a
bunch of people you want to hang around and talk to -- or, indeed,
anybody at all.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Nikos Chantziaras
Jan 31, 2012, 3:40:26 PM1/31/12
to
On 01/31/2012 06:35 AM, Adam Thornton wrote:
> If you cannot cope with Usenet, you do not *deserve* text adventures.
Amen!
> If you cannot cope with Usenet, you do not *deserve* text adventures.
Conrad
Jan 31, 2012, 4:07:51 PM1/31/12
to
Now, the reason this is so interesting is that I did *not* blackmail
Adam Thornton. I blackmailed *Jacek Pudlo*.
On Jan 30, 8:35 pm, a...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:
>
> I also wish to apologize to Jacek in that I *did* forward the email
> thread to Conrad Cook, because although I am aware that I hold Jacek and
> his work in much more esteem than the rest of the IF community, I really
> would rather *not* be thought to be him. Although I would have prefered
> to merely scream "publish and be damned," I did not, and am experiencing
> some regret over that.
about?
This one, to Adam Thornton:
> Adam,
>
> It looks to me like you're Jacek Pudlo, and I've posted that to
> intfiction.org
>
> http://www.intfiction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4254
>
> --Now, one thing you can do to effectively deny this claim is to
> forward to me, as quickly as you can, the raw email exchange between
> you and "Jacek" for his interview of you.
>
> Since it's intended for publication, and since it was *your*
> interview, I'm sure there's no privacy issue involved there.
>
> The existence of such an exchange would support the counter-claim that
> you're not him. I'll post the outcome of this exchange to
> intfiction.org either way.
>
> Please respond quickly with the email exchange if it's possible. I
> don't want to cause you trouble if I'm wrong.
Or, this one, to Jacek Pudlo:
> I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to cut you some slack.
>
> I'll wait a full week before I email Emily Short and tell her that
> you're really Thornton. You have that long to write her, as Jacek
> Pudlo, a full apology for your unspeakable ungentlemanly behavior.
> Specifically the insult, but also anything else on your mind. And
> this will be a full apology, to qualify: no putting responsiblity
> back onto her.
>
> You can BCC me a copy of it so I know you've followed through; and
> then, I won't tell her.
>
> I think it's only reasonable that she know her trusted friend is the
> same person who has driven her off r.a.if, and thinks he's right in
> doing that.
--Now *that's* blackmail.
Or, is he angry at this one, later in that correspondence with Pudlo:
> Ah, but I think we've said some interesting things about the IF
> *community*.
>
> I'll wait for a week, and then, since you've insulted my interview,
> I'll prove you wrong and publish this bit of interactive prose myself.
>
> C.
>
> ps - Actually, since you've indicated no intention to accept the
> offer, or even think it over, I'll publish Tuesday.
The relevant terms that Thornton is getting emotional over, blackmail
and publishing, are from my interaction with Pudlo. Not Thornton. If
Thornton were not Pudlo, he wouldn't be expressing himself in these
terms.
--Frankly, if Thornton weren't Pudlo, I don't think we'd be getting
this (put on) rage at all. Thornton wouldn't be so remarkably stupid
about "someone showing up at PRIF and pretending to be him." He
wouldn't be going out of his way to say that Pudlo might be a psycho /
he's not that bad / he's in Europe. He wouldn't be talking about
emailing me a picture of his penis. He'd just say: Well, it's not
true.
Hell, it looks that way to me. It looks very much like that.
Conrad.
Victor Gijsbers
Jan 31, 2012, 4:51:57 PM1/31/12
to
Dear Conrad,
> Now, the reason this is so interesting is that I did *not* blackmail
> Adam Thornton. I blackmailed *Jacek Pudlo*.
Slandering someone by posting on a public forum that he is a notorious
troll, and then sending him an email saying that you will only stop the
slander if he submits certain emails to you is *not* blackmail? You have
a truly warped view of the situation. The only thing your current post
proves is that you are possessed by a remarkable need to interpret any
data at all as supportive of your Jekyll and Hyde theory.
Let me repeat -- although I feel I am insulting Adam by doing this and
thus implying that there is any need for it -- that Adam Thorton is not
Jacek Pudlo. It's not just that you are accusing a valued member of the
community without any proof whatsoever. It is also that the personality
of Adam and the personality of Jacek are so radically different that
they could only coexist in a person with a severe case of dissociative
identity disorder. Which I certainly hope you are not going to attribute
to Adam in an ad hoc attempt to save your wild hypothesis.
Please stop this. You are mistaken, and you are damaging people.
Yours nevertheless sincerely,
Victor
> Now, the reason this is so interesting is that I did *not* blackmail
> Adam Thornton. I blackmailed *Jacek Pudlo*.
troll, and then sending him an email saying that you will only stop the
slander if he submits certain emails to you is *not* blackmail? You have
a truly warped view of the situation. The only thing your current post
proves is that you are possessed by a remarkable need to interpret any
data at all as supportive of your Jekyll and Hyde theory.
Let me repeat -- although I feel I am insulting Adam by doing this and
thus implying that there is any need for it -- that Adam Thorton is not
Jacek Pudlo. It's not just that you are accusing a valued member of the
community without any proof whatsoever. It is also that the personality
of Adam and the personality of Jacek are so radically different that
they could only coexist in a person with a severe case of dissociative
identity disorder. Which I certainly hope you are not going to attribute
to Adam in an ad hoc attempt to save your wild hypothesis.
Please stop this. You are mistaken, and you are damaging people.
Yours nevertheless sincerely,
Victor
Conrad
Jan 31, 2012, 5:12:01 PM1/31/12
to
No, they're not different personalities. One is mean. That's the
only difference.
And the notion that the accusation is prima facie lunatic *and that*
it's too dangerous to air in public is a bit peculiar.
You want to talk personality? Have they demonstrated different areas
of competencies? They have different personal philosophies -- but do
they express them in mutually incommensurable terms? Does it not seem
to you that Thornton on intfic is playing the fool a little too
precisely? -- Rather than challenge a point directly ("What makes you
say anyone drove Emily Short off r.a.if?") he begs ignorance in
exactly the right way to raise the point -- "I haven't been reading
r.a.if" -- so he can't be Pudlo -- "so I didn't know that Emily
claimed Pudlo drove her off usenet."
These are troll strategies.
You tell me, Victor. You live in the Netherlands, or something. Does
"Jacek"'s voice sound more Swedish or American to you?
Does English seem his second language? --Does he write American or
British English?
I can't tell, but I seem to recall that you can. Based on spellings
and such.
Conrad.
Conrad
Jan 31, 2012, 5:45:51 PM1/31/12
to
...I just don't get how everyone is so shocked. Did we imagine that
the troll does not post to the internet under his real name? That he
isn't actually into i.f.? That he does not do real work that he wants
to take real credit for? Or that when he drops the troll mask he is
less intelligent, less clever, less inventive--?
Or was it, we were expecting the member of our community who is the
troll would be mean like "Jacek" is? If he were mean in his normal
self-presentation, why would he need the troll mask?
Well, anyway, I've said what I have to say, and I'm well aware I
didn't make any friends on this one. I encourage people to look at
old posts and draw their own conclusions.
Conrad.
Peter Pears
Jan 31, 2012, 6:18:13 PM1/31/12
to
(If this post shows up doubled, my apologies. Either Google or my
connection is acting up)
Conrad, since you hate Pudlo so much, I think you'll understand it if
I put it in these terms.
Somewhere, Pudlo is having the time of his life. He's the centre of
attention, he's the reason you've publicly accused a member of the
community, he's howling with laughter as you try to rationalise what
you did (basically, you seem to be on an anti-Pudlo crusade, which is
sorta fine if you have nothing better to do, but your methods are so
extreme you don't even seem to realise what you're doing).
And he never had to lift a bloody finger.
I don't think Thornton is Pudlo, though to be fair I'm not a close
member of the community - I'm fairly recent and I've yet to met any of
you face to face (which I'd like to, very much, someday). But whoever
Pudlo is, he's thanking you for doing what he does best - sowing
hatred, re-hashing old issues, and in this case even having a
sacrifical scapegoat: you.
I hate Pudlo with a passion myself. I try to ignore him, and sometimes
I let my emotions get the better of me and I feed the troll, with
probably better intention than grammar.
But I'll be damned if I let him control my life to the point where I'm
going to try tracking him down and making public accusations on the
grounds of "It seems so clear to me".
connection is acting up)
Conrad, since you hate Pudlo so much, I think you'll understand it if
I put it in these terms.
Somewhere, Pudlo is having the time of his life. He's the centre of
attention, he's the reason you've publicly accused a member of the
community, he's howling with laughter as you try to rationalise what
you did (basically, you seem to be on an anti-Pudlo crusade, which is
sorta fine if you have nothing better to do, but your methods are so
extreme you don't even seem to realise what you're doing).
And he never had to lift a bloody finger.
I don't think Thornton is Pudlo, though to be fair I'm not a close
member of the community - I'm fairly recent and I've yet to met any of
you face to face (which I'd like to, very much, someday). But whoever
Pudlo is, he's thanking you for doing what he does best - sowing
hatred, re-hashing old issues, and in this case even having a
sacrifical scapegoat: you.
I hate Pudlo with a passion myself. I try to ignore him, and sometimes
I let my emotions get the better of me and I feed the troll, with
probably better intention than grammar.
But I'll be damned if I let him control my life to the point where I'm
going to try tracking him down and making public accusations on the
grounds of "It seems so clear to me".
Peter Pears
Jan 31, 2012, 6:19:47 PM1/31/12
to
Also, I changed the title of the thread back. Not because I'm calling
you an asshole - but because you were digging yourself even deeper.
Even if you *meant* the asshole to be Pudlo, it really, really sounded
like you were calling Thornton an asshole.
you an asshole - but because you were digging yourself even deeper.
Even if you *meant* the asshole to be Pudlo, it really, really sounded
like you were calling Thornton an asshole.
Peter Pears
Jan 31, 2012, 6:09:06 PM1/31/12
to
Nevermind me, just changing the title's thread back to its original
form. It's not a very nice title, true, but Conrad's "suggestion"
reflects so, so badly on him, on top of everything else, that I think
we'd best agree to sweep it under the carpet.
form. It's not a very nice title, true, but Conrad's "suggestion"
reflects so, so badly on him, on top of everything else, that I think
we'd best agree to sweep it under the carpet.
Adam Thornton
Jan 31, 2012, 8:15:29 PM1/31/12
to
First, as the headliner, I'm going to state, categorically and for the
record, once more:
I am not, and never have been, Jacek Pudlo.
In article <00685134-477f-4e4f...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
other posts here, with no particular regard for the niceties of
message-ids and thread structure.
>"Publish and be damned," huh? Which email of mine is this man angry
>about?
>
>This one, to Adam Thornton:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> It looks to me like you're Jacek Pudlo, and I've posted that to
>> intfiction.org
[...]
>> Please respond quickly with the email exchange if it's possible. I
>> don't want to cause you trouble if I'm wrong.
Yes, that one.
I responded as quickly as possible with the email exchange.
This was wrong, of course.
I should not have given private correspondence to my blackmailer.
Regardless of its content, or the esteem in which I do or do not hold my
correspondent, that was extremely poor form on my part, and is the one
part of this exchange for which *I* feel some regret.
It also utterly failed to satisfy Conrad Cook, who went full steam ahead
with his accusations, and tried somehow to blame me for not responding
quickly enough. Which, to be fair, did take me several hours. I don't
check my mail often when I'm at work, and once I got home from work, I
spent some time with my wife, and cooked dinner, and played some Skyrim,
and only then got around to checking my mail again.
I hate to break it to Conrad and the IF community as a whole, but it's
not actually at the very top of my list of priorities these days.
The whole sordid story, minus the Pudlo/Cook interview, can be found at:
http://www.intfiction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4254
As I put it early on in that thread:
"I have responded to Conrad's blackmail attempt by:
a) calling him an asshole
b) sending the demanded correspondence, for which I apologize to
Mr. Pudlo.
It appears it was a successful blackmail attempt, as, although I hold
Mr. Pudlo and his work in rather more esteem than the rest of the
community, I do not wish to be identified with him.
I am not Jacek Pudlo.
I would cordially invite Conrad Cook to suck my hairy nutsack."
The offer still stands.
Your other letters, to Jacek, which I have excised from this post, since
they were not to me and are not my problem, are *also* blackmail. Which
seems a strange thing to be proud of, unless, of course, you're an
asshole.
[...snip...]
>--Now *that's* blackmail.
Indeed it is. As was your letter to me.
>The relevant terms that Thornton is getting emotional over, blackmail
>and publishing, are from my interaction with Pudlo. Not Thornton. If
>Thornton were not Pudlo, he wouldn't be expressing himself in these
>terms.
I think most halfway-educated humans are familiar with the concept of
blackmail, and many of them are aware of the Duke of Wellington's
response to attempted blackmail: "publish and be damned!"
>--Frankly, if Thornton weren't Pudlo, I don't think we'd be getting
>this (put on) rage at all. Thornton wouldn't be so remarkably stupid
>about "someone showing up at PRIF and pretending to be him." He
>wouldn't be going out of his way to say that Pudlo might be a psycho /
>he's not that bad / he's in Europe. He wouldn't be talking about
>emailing me a picture of his penis. He'd just say: Well, it's not
>true.
Let me assure you, my rage is not a put-on at all.
Now, I will freely grant that it is disproportionate. It is nonlinear.
I am far more outraged than, honestly, an inept blackmail attempt from a
bum--oh, I'm sorry, you prefer "hobo", don't you?--a hobo ought,
rationally, to make me.
An interesting thing about picking fights with total strangers is that
you don't get to act all surprised and victimized when not only do some
of them fight back, they unexpectedly escalate, for reasons of their
own.
Perhaps I have episodes in my past which make the threat of blackmail
particularly irritating to me. Perhaps I'm merely having a bad
day/week/month/year/decade. Perhaps I'm taking all the rage from the
rest of my life which I cannot express in the relevant contexts because
of the consequences I would face there, and delivering it to you
because, hey, you fucking started it, you asshole.
Of course, some of the reason that I'm particularly incensed by Conrad's
blackmail is that it is, in fact, a superficially-plausible
explanation. I am one of the few people in the IF world who openly
admires Pudlo's work, and who, mostly, gets along with him.
That doesn't mean, though, that I don't think Jacek's an asshole--well,
that's too broad a term: Jacek is gratuitously cruel, and gratuitous
cruelty is a quality I do not find admirable, and which makes me very
uncomfortable to be around. He has said many things to me that have
gotten under my skin, although in general, in aesthetic matters, he has
usually been right. I find it valuable to have critics who don't
sugarcoat their criticism, and sweetness is not a quality Pudlo
possesses. At least in his dealings with me; perhaps he's lovely to his
aged mother and small puppies.
In short: telling the world that I'm Jacek Pudlo is a fairly-effective
way to threaten me in this community. I've spent twenty goddamn years
here, after all. Almost everyone in the IF world only knows me through
my games and my Usenet posts. There is a particular persona, a
particular identity embodied in that corpus of work, and I very, very
much resent an attempt to confuse that identity with someone I really
don't want to be thought to be.
In short, you *are* attempting to harm my name and reputation, and since
that's pretty much all I have in the IF world, I am going to object most
strenuously.
To forestall your immediate objection, Conrad: any cruelty I manage to
inflict upon you is *not* gratuitous.
>Hell, it looks that way to me. It looks very much like that.
Your delusions only become my problem when they begin impinging on my
life.
Let's move on to a couple more of Conrad's posts.
> No, they're not different personalities. One is mean. That's the
> only difference.
I, of course, would beg to differ. And being Not Mean At Least To
People Who Haven't Earned It is one of the things I try to be.
> And the notion that the accusation is prima facie lunatic *and that*
> it's too dangerous to air in public is a bit peculiar.
What the *FUCK* are you talking about? I've aired the accusation
everywhere I am able to, you fucktard (apologies if anyone out there has
developmentally-disabled loved ones, and double apologies if they are
employed in the sex-worker trade; I'm using "fucktard" here as a term of
art, with no disrespect implied to either the actual retarded or to
prostitutes, both of which categories, unlike Conrad Cook, have much to
offer society). The only reason I haven't spammed Facebook and Twitter
with it is because I categorically refuse to get accounts on either of
those. I want the *ENTIRE INTERACTIVE FICTION WORLD* to know what a
horrible, horrible person you are.
> You want to talk personality? Have they demonstrated different areas
> of competencies? They have different personal philosophies -- but do
> they express them in mutually incommensurable terms? Does it not seem
> to you that Thornton on intfic is playing the fool a little too
> precisely? -- Rather than challenge a point directly ("What makes you
> say anyone drove Emily Short off r.a.if?") he begs ignorance in
> exactly the right way to raise the point -- "I haven't been reading
> r.a.if" -- so he can't be Pudlo -- "so I didn't know that Emily
> claimed Pudlo drove her off usenet."
I'm pretty sure what I claimed was that I don't read intfiction.org:
"Did she post here that she had been 'driven off' raif? Since I *don't
read this fucking site*, I didn't see that; I figured, like all the rest
of the old guard, she finally gave up on Usenet, which makes me very
sad."
Now, if Emily *did* post to raif, "screw you guys, I can't handle the
trolling, fuck off, I'll be on intfiction.org," then I missed it. I
*also* haven't been tracking the newsgroups all that much, honestly.
Other priorities. But what I was trying to convey was that it seemed
plausible to me that Emily had written a "Why I Left Usenet" post on
intfiction.org, which I hadn't seen because I don't read
intfiction.org. Although I guess I'm going to have to start now. Let
me point out for the record that I *also* resent you having forced a
sufficient reason upon me for me to start caring about Yet One More
Time-Sucking Website.
> These are troll strategies.
Sure, buddy, whatever you say.
And then, finally, there's
> ...I just don't get how everyone is so shocked. Did we imagine that
> the troll does not post to the internet under his real name? That he
> isn't actually into i.f.? That he does not do real work that he wants
> to take real credit for? Or that when he drops the troll mask he is
> less intelligent, less clever, less inventive--?
> Or was it, we were expecting the member of our community who is the
> troll would be mean like "Jacek" is? If he were mean in his normal
> self-presentation, why would he need the troll mask?
Well, I must admit: I probably *am* less intelligent, clever, and
inventive than Jacek. I am also, certainly, less mean.
But as to why I'm shocked? I'm shocked because a perfect stranger
walked up to me and blackmailed me out of the blue. Until yesterday,
all I could have told you about Conrad Cook was that he was some IF
dude. I mean, here's our first email exchange, before I found out what
he was doing to me (and, you know, I probably should apologize to Conrad
for publishing his private correspondence, but instead I'll just invite
him, again, to suck my balls):
"From: Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net>
Subject: Re: Hey, Adam -- you there?
Date: January 30, 2012 7:41:29 PM CST
To: Conrad <conra...@gmail.com>
On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Conrad wrote:
Do you have a minute?
'Sup?
Or were you gtalking me and I'm finding out much later?
Adam"
And, yes, I went completely nonlinear when the followup mail was (I
slightly paraphrase, but the text is somewhere up the post) "YOU'RE
JACEK AND I'M TELLING THE WORLD UNLESS YOU GIVE ME ALL YOUR
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIM."
Please note, by the way, if you ever find yourself in the situation of
being blackmailed by Conrad: your giving him what he wants doesn't stop
him from doing whatever bad thing to you he wanted to do in the first
place.
> Well, anyway, I've said what I have to say, and I'm well aware I
> didn't make any friends on this one. I encourage people to look at
> old posts and draw their own conclusions.
Yeah, please do.
I've been posting here for twenty fucking years. I maintain the Linux
CLI port of Inform 7. I've written what I think is the second-largest
I7 game, ever, with, definitely, more footnotes than any other IF game
ever, as well as a bunch of other games, and a whole shitload of posts
for the last TWO DECADES.
Put this against a legacy that appears to be "LAIR of the Cybercow",
notable mostly for all the machines it didn't run on, apparently, and
baseless accusations.
I hope the conclusion you come to is similar to mine: "Conrad Cook is a
blackmailing asshole."
So, now, we finally come to the part of the post where I put down my own
thoughts, rather than interlinear replies to this lunatic.
Right now, it is my fondest wish that Conrad Cook die horribly of
Ebola-AIDS he contracted from letting a Republican politician buttfuck
him in a park toilet for ten dollars and half a pack of Marlboro Lights.
It is my perhaps slightly-more-realistic hope that he is pepper-sprayed
in the face and savagely beaten at his next Occupy rally, that he is
kept with capiscum in his eyes and his arms painfully cable-tied behind
his back for hours, until he has pissed, vomited upon, and beshat
himself, while Neanderthal cops point, laugh, and kick him in the ribs
with their steel-toed riot boots.
I am aware that I am courting the "retaliation" of Conrad Cook. I don't
think I can put it much better here than I did on intfiction.org:
"I quake in my boots about your retaliation. Perhaps the Hobo Army will
paint 'Mean Old Dickhead Lives Here' in their secret hobo-symbols on my
house. I have already posted notice of your blackmail attempt to
rec.arts.int-fiction and its sister newsgroup [and now Google+]; best of
luck managing the 'social damage.' You have tried to blackmail me; I
think it is preposterous of _you_ to be vowing vengeance."
He wonders why I had to go all personal with my response. Well, it's
very simple, Conrad. It doesn't *get* any more fucking personal than
blackmail. You are a terrible human being. I wish you a miserable and
not particularly short life.
To quote Warren Ellis--whose work, I'm pretty sure, is too lowbrow for
Mr. Pudlo--"choke on my fuck",
Adam
record, once more:
I am not, and never have been, Jacek Pudlo.
In article <00685134-477f-4e4f...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Conrad <conra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Now, the reason this is so interesting is that I did *not* blackmail
>Adam Thornton. I blackmailed *Jacek Pudlo*.
So, let's start here. I'm going to be quoting from some of Conrad's
>
>Now, the reason this is so interesting is that I did *not* blackmail
>Adam Thornton. I blackmailed *Jacek Pudlo*.
other posts here, with no particular regard for the niceties of
message-ids and thread structure.
>"Publish and be damned," huh? Which email of mine is this man angry
>about?
>
>This one, to Adam Thornton:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> It looks to me like you're Jacek Pudlo, and I've posted that to
>> intfiction.org
>> Please respond quickly with the email exchange if it's possible. I
>> don't want to cause you trouble if I'm wrong.
I responded as quickly as possible with the email exchange.
This was wrong, of course.
I should not have given private correspondence to my blackmailer.
Regardless of its content, or the esteem in which I do or do not hold my
correspondent, that was extremely poor form on my part, and is the one
part of this exchange for which *I* feel some regret.
It also utterly failed to satisfy Conrad Cook, who went full steam ahead
with his accusations, and tried somehow to blame me for not responding
quickly enough. Which, to be fair, did take me several hours. I don't
check my mail often when I'm at work, and once I got home from work, I
spent some time with my wife, and cooked dinner, and played some Skyrim,
and only then got around to checking my mail again.
I hate to break it to Conrad and the IF community as a whole, but it's
not actually at the very top of my list of priorities these days.
The whole sordid story, minus the Pudlo/Cook interview, can be found at:
http://www.intfiction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4254
As I put it early on in that thread:
"I have responded to Conrad's blackmail attempt by:
a) calling him an asshole
b) sending the demanded correspondence, for which I apologize to
Mr. Pudlo.
It appears it was a successful blackmail attempt, as, although I hold
Mr. Pudlo and his work in rather more esteem than the rest of the
community, I do not wish to be identified with him.
I am not Jacek Pudlo.
I would cordially invite Conrad Cook to suck my hairy nutsack."
The offer still stands.
Your other letters, to Jacek, which I have excised from this post, since
they were not to me and are not my problem, are *also* blackmail. Which
seems a strange thing to be proud of, unless, of course, you're an
asshole.
[...snip...]
>--Now *that's* blackmail.
Indeed it is. As was your letter to me.
>The relevant terms that Thornton is getting emotional over, blackmail
>and publishing, are from my interaction with Pudlo. Not Thornton. If
>Thornton were not Pudlo, he wouldn't be expressing himself in these
>terms.
blackmail, and many of them are aware of the Duke of Wellington's
response to attempted blackmail: "publish and be damned!"
>--Frankly, if Thornton weren't Pudlo, I don't think we'd be getting
>this (put on) rage at all. Thornton wouldn't be so remarkably stupid
>about "someone showing up at PRIF and pretending to be him." He
>wouldn't be going out of his way to say that Pudlo might be a psycho /
>he's not that bad / he's in Europe. He wouldn't be talking about
>emailing me a picture of his penis. He'd just say: Well, it's not
>true.
Now, I will freely grant that it is disproportionate. It is nonlinear.
I am far more outraged than, honestly, an inept blackmail attempt from a
bum--oh, I'm sorry, you prefer "hobo", don't you?--a hobo ought,
rationally, to make me.
An interesting thing about picking fights with total strangers is that
you don't get to act all surprised and victimized when not only do some
of them fight back, they unexpectedly escalate, for reasons of their
own.
Perhaps I have episodes in my past which make the threat of blackmail
particularly irritating to me. Perhaps I'm merely having a bad
day/week/month/year/decade. Perhaps I'm taking all the rage from the
rest of my life which I cannot express in the relevant contexts because
of the consequences I would face there, and delivering it to you
because, hey, you fucking started it, you asshole.
Of course, some of the reason that I'm particularly incensed by Conrad's
blackmail is that it is, in fact, a superficially-plausible
explanation. I am one of the few people in the IF world who openly
admires Pudlo's work, and who, mostly, gets along with him.
That doesn't mean, though, that I don't think Jacek's an asshole--well,
that's too broad a term: Jacek is gratuitously cruel, and gratuitous
cruelty is a quality I do not find admirable, and which makes me very
uncomfortable to be around. He has said many things to me that have
gotten under my skin, although in general, in aesthetic matters, he has
usually been right. I find it valuable to have critics who don't
sugarcoat their criticism, and sweetness is not a quality Pudlo
possesses. At least in his dealings with me; perhaps he's lovely to his
aged mother and small puppies.
In short: telling the world that I'm Jacek Pudlo is a fairly-effective
way to threaten me in this community. I've spent twenty goddamn years
here, after all. Almost everyone in the IF world only knows me through
my games and my Usenet posts. There is a particular persona, a
particular identity embodied in that corpus of work, and I very, very
much resent an attempt to confuse that identity with someone I really
don't want to be thought to be.
In short, you *are* attempting to harm my name and reputation, and since
that's pretty much all I have in the IF world, I am going to object most
strenuously.
To forestall your immediate objection, Conrad: any cruelty I manage to
inflict upon you is *not* gratuitous.
>Hell, it looks that way to me. It looks very much like that.
life.
Let's move on to a couple more of Conrad's posts.
> No, they're not different personalities. One is mean. That's the
> only difference.
People Who Haven't Earned It is one of the things I try to be.
> And the notion that the accusation is prima facie lunatic *and that*
> it's too dangerous to air in public is a bit peculiar.
everywhere I am able to, you fucktard (apologies if anyone out there has
developmentally-disabled loved ones, and double apologies if they are
employed in the sex-worker trade; I'm using "fucktard" here as a term of
art, with no disrespect implied to either the actual retarded or to
prostitutes, both of which categories, unlike Conrad Cook, have much to
offer society). The only reason I haven't spammed Facebook and Twitter
with it is because I categorically refuse to get accounts on either of
those. I want the *ENTIRE INTERACTIVE FICTION WORLD* to know what a
horrible, horrible person you are.
> You want to talk personality? Have they demonstrated different areas
> of competencies? They have different personal philosophies -- but do
> they express them in mutually incommensurable terms? Does it not seem
> to you that Thornton on intfic is playing the fool a little too
> precisely? -- Rather than challenge a point directly ("What makes you
> say anyone drove Emily Short off r.a.if?") he begs ignorance in
> exactly the right way to raise the point -- "I haven't been reading
> r.a.if" -- so he can't be Pudlo -- "so I didn't know that Emily
> claimed Pudlo drove her off usenet."
"Did she post here that she had been 'driven off' raif? Since I *don't
read this fucking site*, I didn't see that; I figured, like all the rest
of the old guard, she finally gave up on Usenet, which makes me very
sad."
Now, if Emily *did* post to raif, "screw you guys, I can't handle the
trolling, fuck off, I'll be on intfiction.org," then I missed it. I
*also* haven't been tracking the newsgroups all that much, honestly.
Other priorities. But what I was trying to convey was that it seemed
plausible to me that Emily had written a "Why I Left Usenet" post on
intfiction.org, which I hadn't seen because I don't read
intfiction.org. Although I guess I'm going to have to start now. Let
me point out for the record that I *also* resent you having forced a
sufficient reason upon me for me to start caring about Yet One More
Time-Sucking Website.
> These are troll strategies.
Sure, buddy, whatever you say.
And then, finally, there's
> ...I just don't get how everyone is so shocked. Did we imagine that
> the troll does not post to the internet under his real name? That he
> isn't actually into i.f.? That he does not do real work that he wants
> to take real credit for? Or that when he drops the troll mask he is
> less intelligent, less clever, less inventive--?
> Or was it, we were expecting the member of our community who is the
> troll would be mean like "Jacek" is? If he were mean in his normal
> self-presentation, why would he need the troll mask?
inventive than Jacek. I am also, certainly, less mean.
But as to why I'm shocked? I'm shocked because a perfect stranger
walked up to me and blackmailed me out of the blue. Until yesterday,
all I could have told you about Conrad Cook was that he was some IF
dude. I mean, here's our first email exchange, before I found out what
he was doing to me (and, you know, I probably should apologize to Conrad
for publishing his private correspondence, but instead I'll just invite
him, again, to suck my balls):
"From: Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net>
Subject: Re: Hey, Adam -- you there?
Date: January 30, 2012 7:41:29 PM CST
To: Conrad <conra...@gmail.com>
On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Conrad wrote:
Do you have a minute?
'Sup?
Or were you gtalking me and I'm finding out much later?
Adam"
And, yes, I went completely nonlinear when the followup mail was (I
slightly paraphrase, but the text is somewhere up the post) "YOU'RE
JACEK AND I'M TELLING THE WORLD UNLESS YOU GIVE ME ALL YOUR
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIM."
Please note, by the way, if you ever find yourself in the situation of
being blackmailed by Conrad: your giving him what he wants doesn't stop
him from doing whatever bad thing to you he wanted to do in the first
place.
> Well, anyway, I've said what I have to say, and I'm well aware I
> didn't make any friends on this one. I encourage people to look at
> old posts and draw their own conclusions.
I've been posting here for twenty fucking years. I maintain the Linux
CLI port of Inform 7. I've written what I think is the second-largest
I7 game, ever, with, definitely, more footnotes than any other IF game
ever, as well as a bunch of other games, and a whole shitload of posts
for the last TWO DECADES.
Put this against a legacy that appears to be "LAIR of the Cybercow",
notable mostly for all the machines it didn't run on, apparently, and
baseless accusations.
I hope the conclusion you come to is similar to mine: "Conrad Cook is a
blackmailing asshole."
So, now, we finally come to the part of the post where I put down my own
thoughts, rather than interlinear replies to this lunatic.
Right now, it is my fondest wish that Conrad Cook die horribly of
Ebola-AIDS he contracted from letting a Republican politician buttfuck
him in a park toilet for ten dollars and half a pack of Marlboro Lights.
It is my perhaps slightly-more-realistic hope that he is pepper-sprayed
in the face and savagely beaten at his next Occupy rally, that he is
kept with capiscum in his eyes and his arms painfully cable-tied behind
his back for hours, until he has pissed, vomited upon, and beshat
himself, while Neanderthal cops point, laugh, and kick him in the ribs
with their steel-toed riot boots.
I am aware that I am courting the "retaliation" of Conrad Cook. I don't
think I can put it much better here than I did on intfiction.org:
"I quake in my boots about your retaliation. Perhaps the Hobo Army will
paint 'Mean Old Dickhead Lives Here' in their secret hobo-symbols on my
house. I have already posted notice of your blackmail attempt to
rec.arts.int-fiction and its sister newsgroup [and now Google+]; best of
luck managing the 'social damage.' You have tried to blackmail me; I
think it is preposterous of _you_ to be vowing vengeance."
He wonders why I had to go all personal with my response. Well, it's
very simple, Conrad. It doesn't *get* any more fucking personal than
blackmail. You are a terrible human being. I wish you a miserable and
not particularly short life.
To quote Warren Ellis--whose work, I'm pretty sure, is too lowbrow for
Mr. Pudlo--"choke on my fuck",
Adam
Conrad
Jan 31, 2012, 6:27:19 PM1/31/12
to
No, Peter. And no one ever does.
Robb Sherwin
Jan 31, 2012, 11:45:56 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 3:45 pm, Conrad <conradc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I just don't get how everyone is so shocked. Did we imagine that
> the troll does not post to the internet under his real name?
Jacek's real name is Michael Lonc.
> ...I just don't get how everyone is so shocked. Did we imagine that
> the troll does not post to the internet under his real name?
Andy Leighton
Feb 1, 2012, 9:01:22 AM2/1/12
to
care who gets hurt in the crossfire. Which I consider pretty shitty
behaviour. I'm not a fan of Pudlo at all - he was an annoying arse.
However I don't see how resorting to such shitty behaviour would do anyone
any good at all.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 10:46:45 AM2/1/12
to
C.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 11:01:01 AM2/1/12
to
All right... I've just been banned from intfiction.org.
They do have standards, after all.
In fact, I came to my senses after sleeping on it, and after
thoroughly going over the correspondence Adam sent me.
I don't know a better way to do this than to post my email to him
earlier today:
On 2/1/12, Conrad <conra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam, as far as I'm concerned, I offered you a way to effectively
> refute the accusation I made against you.
>
> It was not blackmail because
>
> 1. I did not offer to refrain from giving out information, contingent
> on you doing something; and
>
> 2. What I asked for was the exchange in rough form **of a
> correspondence that was already published and public**.
>
> I did not go over this correspondence thoroughly because there was a
> three hour delay, and what would have disproven the accusation would
> have been an immediate response.
>
> Going over it now -- it looks to me like I'm an asshole.
>
> I deeply apologize for calling you Jacek Pudlo. A name I wouldn't
> inflict on my worst nightmare.
>
> --But it's something of a mystery to me, if you think he's such a bad
> character, why you permitted him to interview you and thereby raise
> his status off contact with you. If you wanted to be interviewed,
> there are any number of people you might have turned to, who do not
> (for example) posts gloating that Paul Allen Panks -- who I never
> crossed paths with -- killed himself, or baiting people into saying
> the man wrote shoddy games.
>
> I simply do not understand this.
>
>
> In any case, I owe you a public apology. I'd say in fact I owe
> something more than that, and, your vulgarisms quite to the side,
> consider me good for some kind of honest favor. -- Tell me to go fuck
> myself if you like. I'll be good for it a couple years down the line
> if you decide to collect.
>
> But now look --
>
> It seems clear that nobody believed me anyway (which in retrospect I'm
> grateful for), and there was no social damage to you.
>
> Meanwhile, I've worked myself into a position here. And I want to use
> that position to disadvantage Pudlo as much as I can.
>
> So I'm going to push the false accusation that you're Pudlo for
> another day, or so. Disingenuously. I feel free to do that, in that
> you've been pretty nasty -- justifiably so, but still -- and because
> no one believes it, but it's gotten everyone's knickers in a twist.
>
> --Which is *trolling*, yes, I know.
>
> I'll post a full public apology and retraction by tomorrow.
>
>
> Conrad.
>
> ps - Honestly, I regret it. And I don't take it lightly.
So, Adam -- you're right on all accounts. Your recent post about me,
going over my emails to you -- was entirely correct.
I admit, this is very shaming to me. And I could quibble about what
"blackmail" means, but in its nature, what I did was wrong -- it was a
kind of a mugging -- and it failed to take into account your well-
earned status in the IF community. And I was thoroughly fucked up on
this one from start to finish.
I just don't like Pudlo. I don't like that he's mean for the sake of
being mean. I don't like the fact that he gloats over a bad IF
writer's suicide. There is to my mind no amount of cleverness or
intelligence that makes this acceptable. R.a.if is a wasteland now,
and I have a hard time thinking this is not directly because of
Pudlo's trolling.
So... I hope you'll grant that I have not had bad intentions during
this thing. I just fucked up.
Conrad.
ps - And it is *very* peculiar to me that Pudlo gets a pass at
intfiction, but the moderators came after me for saying that a guy who
got a pass was you, Adam. --Even with the understanding that I got it
wrong, it's not comprehensible to me that misidentifying you as him is
worth banning, whereas the actions and the behavior I falsely
attributed to you are not worth banning.
Anyway, if the moderators at intfiction are around, I'll ask them
kindly either to delete those two remaining threads, to add this
retraction to them, or otherwise to take steps to ensure that some
newbie searching the archives some months from now does not read my
accusations and become confused.
Sorry for the drama, guys. Believe me, I know I came out of this with
shit on my face.
Peter Pears
Feb 1, 2012, 11:00:48 AM2/1/12
to
Maybe they met there. Maybe he's the reason she thought she should go
back. Maybe he hid in her trunk. Who knows.
Ben Cressey
Feb 1, 2012, 11:19:03 AM2/1/12
to
> ps - And it is *very* peculiar to me that Pudlo gets a pass at
> intfiction, but the moderators came after me for saying that a guy who
> got a pass was you, Adam. --Even with the understanding that I got it
> wrong, it's not comprehensible to me that misidentifying you as him is
> worth banning, whereas the actions and the behavior I falsely
> attributed to you are not worth banning.
The difference is that Pudlo talks about IF, and slams authors in the course of criticizing their work.
> intfiction, but the moderators came after me for saying that a guy who
> got a pass was you, Adam. --Even with the understanding that I got it
> wrong, it's not comprehensible to me that misidentifying you as him is
> worth banning, whereas the actions and the behavior I falsely
> attributed to you are not worth banning.
You went after a respected figure in the community with a completely unprovoked, outrageous slander and refused to back down.
intfiction.org is for discussing interactive fiction. That's something that Pudlo for all his faults manages to do. He does descend into personal insults but only after half a dozen people pile on and do the same to him. His behavior here is as Adam says gratuitously cruel but he is different there.
You don't seem ready to accept that what you did is much, much worse than anything Pudlo has ever done. You have besmirched the reputation of an innocent man. You were so persistent in your efforts that anyone unfamiliar with the two - and intfiction.org has a lot of new faces - might very well think there was something to it.
Fallout from something like that can last for years and you can't simply wave it off and say "oops, my bad."
> Anyway, if the moderators at intfiction are around, I'll ask them
> kindly either to delete those two remaining threads, to add this
> retraction to them, or otherwise to take steps to ensure that some
> newbie searching the archives some months from now does not read my
> accusations and become confused.
I do plan on lifting your ban in the next 72 hours, provided you can drop this and never mention it again.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 11:32:34 AM2/1/12
to
Then please delete those two threads in 72 hours.
C.
C.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 11:47:08 AM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 8:19 am, Ben Cressey <bcres...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You don't seem ready to accept that what you did is much, much
> worse than anything Pudlo has ever done. You have besmirched
> the reputation of an innocent man. You were so persistent in your
> efforts that anyone unfamiliar with the two - and intfiction.org has
> a lot of new faces - might very well think there was something to it.
I think I understand.
>
> You don't seem ready to accept that what you did is much, much
> worse than anything Pudlo has ever done. You have besmirched
> the reputation of an innocent man. You were so persistent in your
> efforts that anyone unfamiliar with the two - and intfiction.org has
> a lot of new faces - might very well think there was something to it.
You're saying that, if Pudlo had mocked Thornton's death (God forbid)
in public, and followed up with subtle allusions to it on your forum,
*then* you'd ban him for up to 72 hours.
And presumably that includes the deaths of other good IF writers, and
important people in the IF community.
Conrad.
Jacek Pudlo
Feb 1, 2012, 12:06:23 PM2/1/12
to
> Then please delete those two threads in 72 hours.
I'd rather you didn't, Ben. Those threads could provide my future
biographers with vital clues to my complex psyche. You would do Pudlology a
great disservice.
I also implore you, O Mighty Olympian, to curb your temper and grand Conrad
leniency.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 12:53:44 PM2/1/12
to
> I also implore you, O Mighty Olympian, to curb your temper and grand Conrad
> leniency.
Yes, grant us *both* leniency. But you will anyway, won't you?
> leniency.
72 hours is remarkable leniency considering that **I knew Thornton
wasn't Pudlo** when I posted that final straw.
But I knew you wouldn't follow through on your threat to ban me.
Simply because I knew you had such a *lenient* policy toward trolling.
Conrad.
ps - Or is the rule more complicated? Leniency toward *important*
trolls, who attack bad, dead writers?
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 12:57:31 PM2/1/12
to
Of course, you CAN'T do anything harsher than ban me for 72 hours, CAN
you?
Because I'm not writing on intfic right now. So I can say anything I
want.
Conrad.
Ben Cressey
Feb 1, 2012, 1:08:25 PM2/1/12
to
> But I knew you wouldn't follow through on your threat to ban me.
> Simply because I knew you had such a *lenient* policy toward trolling.
The unfortunate reality is that as a homeless person with no fixed means of accessing the Internet, you are effectively banproof.
> Simply because I knew you had such a *lenient* policy toward trolling.
As Pudlo could or would be, if he so desired. I count his willingness to restrict posts to a single account on intfiction.org a courtesy, and I respond to that courtesy by not forcing everyone to add new Pudlo accounts to their foes list on a regular basis.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 1:19:02 PM2/1/12
to
So what you mean to say is, really you can't ban anyone and intfic is
in fact an unmoderated forum.
Ben Cressey
Feb 1, 2012, 1:33:08 PM2/1/12
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 10:19:02 AM UTC-8, Conrad wrote:
> So what you mean to say is, really you can't ban anyone and intfic is
> in fact an unmoderated forum.
In fact it is a heavily moderated forum on which dozens of accounts are banned each day for spamming.
> So what you mean to say is, really you can't ban anyone and intfic is
> in fact an unmoderated forum.
It is however an open forum, which means that people can show up and say rude things about other people.
In practice that doesn't happen much because IF folks are a decent, well-mannered sort with one or two notable exceptions.
A closed, invite-only forum would not have the bad apples, but it would also be less welcoming and less useful as a resource.
You can decide for yourself whether you want to abuse that openness, but please don't act like doing so is proving any kind of point.
Joey Jones
Feb 1, 2012, 2:01:44 PM2/1/12
to
> Does English seem his second language? --Does he write American or
> British English?
>
> I can't tell, but I seem to recall that you can. Based on spellings
> and such.
>
> Conrad.
Sorry Conrad, but I did a bit of digging, and it appears as if Jacek
> British English?
>
> I can't tell, but I seem to recall that you can. Based on spellings
> and such.
>
> Conrad.
consistently uses British (or Canadian/Australian etc.) spelling,
while Adam uses American.
Proof
Jacek says 'theorising' instead of theorizing here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.int-fiction/browse_thread/thread/60c43cb5a13ad197/a1b82ba4f76d3bf6?lnk=gst&q=jacek+pudlo+theorising#a1b82ba4f76d3bf6
Adam says 'apologize' rather than 'apologise' in the first post of
this thread.
Joey Jones
Feb 1, 2012, 2:04:09 PM2/1/12
to
Dan Fabulich
Feb 1, 2012, 2:20:20 PM2/1/12
to
A few notable exceptions can turn a forum into an unsafe place. This has obviously happened here on Usenet; I honestly feel that intfiction.org is an unsafe place as well.
IMO, since the IF community already has Usenet as an "open forum," I'd like to request that intfiction.org take a harder line toward "rude behavior." I'd like intfiction.org to be the sort of place where uncivil discourse is deleted, and troll users are secretly banned.
IMO, since the IF community already has Usenet as an "open forum," I'd like to request that intfiction.org take a harder line toward "rude behavior." I'd like intfiction.org to be the sort of place where uncivil discourse is deleted, and troll users are secretly banned.
Andrew Plotkin
Feb 1, 2012, 2:24:53 PM2/1/12
to
Here, Ben Cressey <bcre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Pudlo could or would be, if he so desired. I count his
> willingness to restrict posts to a single account on intfiction.org
> a courtesy.
> As Pudlo could or would be, if he so desired. I count his
> willingness to restrict posts to a single account on intfiction.org
Actually I'm pretty sure he's used sock puppets on intfiction.org.
No, I don't remember specific cases (and I wouldn't drag them up in
hindsight anyhow).
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Andrew Plotkin
Feb 1, 2012, 2:34:01 PM2/1/12
to
Here, Dan Fabulich <danfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, since the IF community already has Usenet as an "open forum,"
> I'd like to request that intfiction.org take a harder line toward
> "rude behavior." I'd like intfiction.org to be the sort of place
> where uncivil discourse is deleted, and troll users are secretly
> banned.
That gets into a larger question of forum moderation practice. I don't
> IMO, since the IF community already has Usenet as an "open forum,"
> I'd like to request that intfiction.org take a harder line toward
> "rude behavior." I'd like intfiction.org to be the sort of place
> where uncivil discourse is deleted, and troll users are secretly
> banned.
think that any kind of publicly-invisible moderation of people (as
opposed to robots) makes a forum more of a safe place. Rather, it
creates a blank slate where the same kind of malspeech can recur
forever.
Freezing threads, rant-tagging posts, deleting *duplicate* posts,
publicly banning people -- these are all effective ways to deal with
these problems without making history disappear.
Mind you, I'm not a forum moderator and have no desire to be one.
(As a separate note, I don't give Jacek credit for wrecking this
newsgroup or even doing much long-term damage to it.)
Jacek Pudlo
Feb 1, 2012, 3:23:00 PM2/1/12
to
Andrew Plotkin
> Actually I'm pretty sure he's used sock puppets on intfiction.org.
>
> No, I don't remember specific cases (and I wouldn't drag them up in
> hindsight anyhow).
I have a question to Ben Cressey. Were Andy to make such a flippant and
unsubstantiated accusation on intfiction.org, would that result in a ban?
(For those of you who, like Andy, are moral imbecilles and have no idea what
I'm talking about, consider the following paraphrase. "Actually, I'm pretty
sure he's a thief, but I won't bother proving it.")
> Actually I'm pretty sure he's used sock puppets on intfiction.org.
>
> No, I don't remember specific cases (and I wouldn't drag them up in
> hindsight anyhow).
unsubstantiated accusation on intfiction.org, would that result in a ban?
(For those of you who, like Andy, are moral imbecilles and have no idea what
I'm talking about, consider the following paraphrase. "Actually, I'm pretty
sure he's a thief, but I won't bother proving it.")
Jim Aikin
Feb 1, 2012, 5:48:16 PM2/1/12
to
Hey, Conrad ... we've had some personal correspondence in the past, and
I don't propose to bring up any of your personal issues in this thread.
I'll say only this:
Remember when you were in Southeast Asia, and you had some thoughts
about things that other people were planning that turned out not to be
true? You might want to consider whether the same underlying dynamic is
at work again.
I could be wrong. Just sayin'.
--JA
I don't propose to bring up any of your personal issues in this thread.
I'll say only this:
Remember when you were in Southeast Asia, and you had some thoughts
about things that other people were planning that turned out not to be
true? You might want to consider whether the same underlying dynamic is
at work again.
I could be wrong. Just sayin'.
--JA
Dan Fabulich
Feb 1, 2012, 5:57:11 PM2/1/12
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 11:34:01 AM UTC-8, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> That gets into a larger question of forum moderation practice. I don't
> think that any kind of publicly-invisible moderation of people (as
> opposed to robots) makes a forum more of a safe place. Rather, it
> creates a blank slate where the same kind of malspeech can recur
> forever.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the "blank slate" metaphor. In my experience, secretly banned posters don't just keep shouting into the void; they get bored and go away. The "malspeech" slows, and even stops.
> That gets into a larger question of forum moderation practice. I don't
> think that any kind of publicly-invisible moderation of people (as
> opposed to robots) makes a forum more of a safe place. Rather, it
> creates a blank slate where the same kind of malspeech can recur
> forever.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 6:32:51 PM2/1/12
to
with impunity, even though I don't post those heavyweight insights
that you attribute to Pudlo.
Whereas I think you phrase it well, in regards to most IF folks being
well mannered. Indeed they are well-mannered with impunity.
Impunity, indeed, seems to be the watchword here.
C.
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 6:41:13 PM2/1/12
to
Adam Thornton
Feb 1, 2012, 6:47:27 PM2/1/12
to
In article <c3c168c5-1da8-484c...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
I would rather you did not, for the following selfish reason.
My replies to the thread will live forever in Google and Usenet. My
future employers, if they are doing any sort of due diligence at all,
will find them.
I consider it a "fair cop" if they read them and think that I am clearly
far too volatile and have too many rage issues to come work for them.
However, I would like the record to continue to show that I was
responding--however disproportionately--to *something*.
Adam
I would rather you did not, for the following selfish reason.
My replies to the thread will live forever in Google and Usenet. My
future employers, if they are doing any sort of due diligence at all,
will find them.
I consider it a "fair cop" if they read them and think that I am clearly
far too volatile and have too many rage issues to come work for them.
However, I would like the record to continue to show that I was
responding--however disproportionately--to *something*.
Adam
Conrad
Feb 1, 2012, 7:12:15 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 3:47 pm, a...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:
>
> I would rather you did not, for the following selfish reason.
>
> My replies to the thread will live forever in Google and Usenet. My
> future employers, if they are doing any sort of due diligence at all,
> will find them.
>
> I consider it a "fair cop" if they read them and think that I am clearly
> far too volatile and have too many rage issues to come work for them.
> However, I would like the record to continue to show that I was
> responding--however disproportionately--to *something*.
Adam,
>
> I would rather you did not, for the following selfish reason.
>
> My replies to the thread will live forever in Google and Usenet. My
> future employers, if they are doing any sort of due diligence at all,
> will find them.
>
> I consider it a "fair cop" if they read them and think that I am clearly
> far too volatile and have too many rage issues to come work for them.
> However, I would like the record to continue to show that I was
> responding--however disproportionately--to *something*.
How would you consider my earlier retraction and apology being
crossposted to those threads?
Or others like them, if that's preferable.
C.
Conrad Cook
Feb 1, 2012, 8:31:09 PM2/1/12
to
As I'm banned from intfiction, I'll point out here:
You guys all realize that the "ignore" feature does not work for the
outside world, right?
That means without an account, you get everybody.
C.
Erik Max Francis
Feb 2, 2012, 4:12:49 AM2/2/12
to
Conrad wrote:
> I don't know a better way to do this than to post my email to him
> earlier today:
>
> On 2/1/12, Conrad <conra...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> I don't know a better way to do this than to post my email to him
> earlier today:
>
> On 2/1/12, Conrad <conra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I deeply apologize for calling you Jacek Pudlo. A name I wouldn't
>> inflict on my worst nightmare.
>>
>> --But ...
>> inflict on my worst nightmare.
>>
Apologies don't mean jack squat if you write a "but" after it.
...
>> Meanwhile, I've worked myself into a position here. And I want to use
>> that position to disadvantage Pudlo as much as I can.
>>
>> So I'm going to push the false accusation that you're Pudlo for
>> another day, or so. Disingenuously. I feel free to do that, in that
>> you've been pretty nasty -- justifiably so, but still -- and because
>> no one believes it, but it's gotten everyone's knickers in a twist.
>>
>> --Which is *trolling*, yes, I know.
>>
>> I'll post a full public apology and retraction by tomorrow.
... and "realizing" you've made a mistake, "apologizing" for it, and
>> that position to disadvantage Pudlo as much as I can.
>>
>> So I'm going to push the false accusation that you're Pudlo for
>> another day, or so. Disingenuously. I feel free to do that, in that
>> you've been pretty nasty -- justifiably so, but still -- and because
>> no one believes it, but it's gotten everyone's knickers in a twist.
>>
>> --Which is *trolling*, yes, I know.
>>
>> I'll post a full public apology and retraction by tomorrow.
then continuing to make the false accusation you know made the target
(rightly) very, very angry for the purposes of _trolling_ certainly
doesn't remotely sound like an apology.
> Sorry for the drama, guys. Believe me, I know I came out of this with
> shit on my face.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Jabber erikmaxfrancis
Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.
-- John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963
David Griffith
Feb 2, 2012, 11:36:32 AM2/2/12
to
anyone I choose. If everyone who's interested in a civil newsgroup
killfiles the bad apples, then the civil win.
--
David Griffith
davidmy...@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
Andrew Plotkin
Feb 2, 2012, 12:50:32 PM2/2/12
to
Here, David Griffith <davidmy...@acm.org> wrote:
> Conrad Cook <conra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I'm banned from intfiction, I'll point out here:
>
> > You guys all realize that the "ignore" feature does not work for the
> > outside world, right?
>
> > That means without an account, you get everybody.
>
> Not so. I can quite easily cause my newsreader to ignore any post from
> anyone I choose.
He's referring to the behavior of the web forum (running phpbb), not
> Conrad Cook <conra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I'm banned from intfiction, I'll point out here:
>
> > You guys all realize that the "ignore" feature does not work for the
> > outside world, right?
>
> > That means without an account, you get everybody.
>
> Not so. I can quite easily cause my newsreader to ignore any post from
> anyone I choose.
Usenet.
Conrad Cook
Feb 2, 2012, 1:54:38 PM2/2/12
to
Someone on that thread confessed in an aside that he likes to watch
the trolling.
That and the subsequent joking around has clarified things to me
greatly.
C.
Peter Pears
Feb 2, 2012, 5:29:33 PM2/2/12
to
throw around as you see fit. Shame on me.
I said that I had a sort of a mean streak (therefore addressing,
before anyone else did, that I know it's not really appropriate
behaviour and therefore I do not indulge in it, i.e., I do not feed
trolls because of it) which found it entertaining to see how trolls
and trollish behaviour - such as yours - can get completely blown up
in their face. In fact, what I enjoy most about trolls is to see them
upset as many people as they can - and then get all the full
retaliatory weight of it.
Call it a knee-jerk anti-bullying reaction I've developed during my
childhood. I love being there when they fall.
Conrad Cook
Feb 2, 2012, 5:56:05 PM2/2/12
to
Honestly, it was more the joking around about raising up trolls that I
was reacting to.
Reminded me of a certain locker room humor about women. That's not
serious, but is. Similar kind of undercurrent.
We've had a few people say, hey, take a stronger position (that is,
any position at all) about trolls. One person went out on a limb to
say they felt intfic felt *unsafe*. Stupid to reveal such a
vulnerability. -- I bet I could get that person off intfic, so they'd
never return: without posting anything your spineless, sniveling
moderators -- how'm I doing, Pudlo? -- would ever find objectionable,
or even anything at all to intfic.
It'd be easy. I'd just look up and post their address here. And none
of you would do anything, apparently because he hasn't written any
games you like.
--In fact, I could just email their address to them for confirmation,
and then post veiled allusions to it. As, "Hey, guys, I'm trying to
describe a house. I want it to look like this..." (Off Google road
pics.) More Pudlo's style, as we saw with the intfic thread about
Panks, following up on his heavier-handed stuff here.
You understand, Pudlo's a sadist. He believes people want to be
hurt. Watching your non-reactions to those have said, Hey, I want
some kind of action against trolls, and the way you joke around about
nurturing trolls and raising them up, it seems to me that in fact you
get some kind of vicarious thrill out of the whole sick thing.
I mean, it's a *lot* like that locker room humor.
--I'm just understanding people better as a consequence of this. It's
illuminating.
Conrad.
Peter Pears
Feb 2, 2012, 6:00:54 PM2/2/12
to
confine it to *watching* trolls (and not feeding them) and to watching
movied like Deathproof, tailor-made for people who want to watch the
bad guy get the living s**t kicked out of him.
So understand this about people. Some of us get kicks out of things we
shouldn't - and we keep them inside, where they don't harm anyone. And
some of use act rashly and publicly insult and blackmail other people.
Incidently, the forum being "unsafe" generated some healthy
discussion. It did not, as you imagine, leave the poster vulnerable
for having dared to suggest it.
Peter Pears
Feb 2, 2012, 5:51:50 PM2/2/12
to
Incidently, for your information, since you read that post, this was
me replying with a). When I talked about the young woman from Sweden,
that was c). And I think I'd be very happy to d) you entirely, since
all the a)s and b)s you've been getting from everyone don't stop you
being a bit of a prick.
Because, frankly, the only post of yours that registers some regret
over this whole thing is your apology. Which is fine. But I don't see
any of it in the subsequent posts, with your "impunities" and your
"I'm surely worse than Pudlo thens".
Eat that bloody humble pie already. I've half a mind to force it down
your throat, because I think you coughed it up the first time.
me replying with a). When I talked about the young woman from Sweden,
that was c). And I think I'd be very happy to d) you entirely, since
all the a)s and b)s you've been getting from everyone don't stop you
being a bit of a prick.
Because, frankly, the only post of yours that registers some regret
over this whole thing is your apology. Which is fine. But I don't see
any of it in the subsequent posts, with your "impunities" and your
"I'm surely worse than Pudlo thens".
Eat that bloody humble pie already. I've half a mind to force it down
your throat, because I think you coughed it up the first time.
Conrad Cook
Feb 2, 2012, 6:10:06 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 3:00 pm, Peter Pears <peter_pe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Incidently, the forum being "unsafe" generated some healthy
> discussion. It did not, as you imagine, leave the poster vulnerable
> for having dared to suggest it.
No. It generated joking about momma-ing trolls. It generated
>
> Incidently, the forum being "unsafe" generated some healthy
> discussion. It did not, as you imagine, leave the poster vulnerable
> for having dared to suggest it.
validating your weak, impotent moderator for being weak and impotent,
and it identified the complainer as someone who is vulnerable to a
psychological attack of the kind that trolls specialize in.
Pudlo thinks he's hot shit, but he's not a hypnotist. He does not in
fact understand human emotionality. He has never, to my knowledge,
successfully blackmailed a core member with a transparently bullshit
threat. I did first time out. I know I could get that person off
intfic if I wanted. You'd all give them to me.
Pudlo's a joke. Pudlo offers to beta-test my game while telling me,
in a nutshell, I'm worthless because I'm a bum, reflect a certain kind
of emotional crippledness that you've allowed to shape the interactive
fiction community. You don't care that people like Emily Short won't
show their faces in public because of Pudlo -- in fact, you get off on
it. You get off on having him around to hate. It's necessary to you.
No wonder you momma trolls.
I don't know. Maybe you need to stop laughing.
Conrad.
Peter Pears
Feb 2, 2012, 6:15:16 PM2/2/12
to
The above post was written before your reply, which is why it probably
looks incongruous. Sorry about that. Another reason I prefer to use
the forum.
But it does give me an excuse to add a final thought. You either
apologise or you complain. You don't get to do both. What you did
pretty much negates you the high moral ground you're aspiring to right
now.
To antecipate a possible response of yours: no, I don't mean that your
one mistake means you should lead a lifetime of grovelling and
inferiority. I just mean that right now, at this moment - while your
72hr ban is still in effect, for heaven's sake - you should stick to
humility if you want to regain people's respect.
God knows you had mine back for a time after that apology (though I
hadn't read the e-mail you sent Adam - that was very off-putting). I
PM'd a moderator at Int-Fiction because I thought anyone who
apologised deserved a second chance.
Now? Now be banned and be damned.
looks incongruous. Sorry about that. Another reason I prefer to use
the forum.
But it does give me an excuse to add a final thought. You either
apologise or you complain. You don't get to do both. What you did
pretty much negates you the high moral ground you're aspiring to right
now.
To antecipate a possible response of yours: no, I don't mean that your
one mistake means you should lead a lifetime of grovelling and
inferiority. I just mean that right now, at this moment - while your
72hr ban is still in effect, for heaven's sake - you should stick to
humility if you want to regain people's respect.
God knows you had mine back for a time after that apology (though I
hadn't read the e-mail you sent Adam - that was very off-putting). I
PM'd a moderator at Int-Fiction because I thought anyone who
apologised deserved a second chance.
Now? Now be banned and be damned.
Conrad Cook
Feb 2, 2012, 6:12:18 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 2:51 pm, Peter Pears <peter_pe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eat that bloody humble pie already. I've half a mind to force it down
> your throat, because I think you coughed it up the first time.
You know something? I don't think you will.
>
> Eat that bloody humble pie already. I've half a mind to force it down
> your throat, because I think you coughed it up the first time.
Conrad.
Conrad Cook
Feb 2, 2012, 6:19:35 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 3:15 pm, Peter Pears <peter_pe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now? Now be banned and be damned.
Yeah, but I won't be banned. Because intfic doesn't do that.
>
> Now? Now be banned and be damned.
Trolls are not only *tolerated*. We're *momma-ed*.
So let's have your tits.
C.
Peter Pears
Feb 2, 2012, 6:26:13 PM2/2/12
to
> No. It generated joking about momma-ing trolls.
I quite liked the joking. Didn't you know? Laughing them off is the
best strategy. It consistently works.
It seems to have worked with Pudlo, along with some open hostility.
His history at IntFic is remarkably clean when compared to his RAIF
history.
> It generated validating your weak, impotent moderator for being weak and impotent
moderators who feel they have to think twice... and when the time
comes to take decisive action, they do it. After all, the weak,
impotent moderator deleted your thread and banned you, didn't he?
> and it identified the complainer as someone who is vulnerable to a
> psychological attack of the kind that trolls specialize in.
Like RealNC said, we don't actually *have* those kinds of trolls,
thank heavens.
> Pudlo thinks he's hot shit, but he's not a hypnotist. He does not in
> fact understand human emotionality. He has never, to my knowledge,
> successfully blackmailed a core member with a transparently bullshit
> threat. I did first time out. I know I could get that person off
> intfic if I wanted. You'd all give them to me.
> Pudlo's a joke. Pudlo offers to beta-test my game while telling me,
> in a nutshell, I'm worthless because I'm a bum, reflect a certain kind
> of emotional crippledness that you've allowed to shape the interactive
> fiction community.
like that.
> You don't care that people like Emily Short won't
> show their faces in public because of Pudlo -- in fact, you get off on
> it. You get off on having him around to hate. It's necessary to you.
I "get off" on Paradise Lost. I enjoy reading "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer season 8". I "got off" on Rome. I enjoy watching Angel.
I get off on having a forum I can visit every day and find good
constructive posts by intelligent people. I enjoy it when someone
tried to undermine it and is told off in a way that asserts the
constructiveness and coherence of the forum.
I don't *need* to hate anyone. Thank heavens. You should try that.
> No wonder you momma trolls.
grasp.
Anyway, the jokes were cute.
Adam Thornton
Feb 2, 2012, 6:45:30 PM2/2/12
to
In article <0a9f9fa5-de27-4e0c...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
My only preference is that the originals *not* disappear down the Memory
Hole.
Adam
Hole.
Adam
Peter Pears
Feb 2, 2012, 6:29:08 PM2/2/12
to
you.
I know saying "I'm ignoring you know" defeats the purpose, but I
thought you deserved at least the civility of knowing why I shan't be
answering anymore.
Conrad Cook
Feb 2, 2012, 6:49:14 PM2/2/12
to
> comes to take decisive action, they do it. After all, the weak,
> impotent moderator deleted your thread and banned you, didn't he?
72 hours, baby! --*that's* cute!
> impotent moderator deleted your thread and banned you, didn't he?
C.
Otto Grimwald
Feb 4, 2012, 5:48:03 PM2/4/12
to
thank you everyone for trying to revive this usenet service...
namekuseijin
Feb 20, 2012, 10:43:05 PM2/20/12
to
On 4 Fev, 20:48, Otto Grimwald <contact_is_on_webs...@anamnese.fr.st>
wrote:
I've seen this kind of thing happening in other small online
communities. All same old faces fighting it out like crazy for no
apparent reason. Show's over, but no one wants to leave the bar...
kinda like these freaks:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/topics
all day long shitting each other with conspiracy theories for years
without end...
it's fun to watch for a while, but mostly depressing...
Conrad, forget this thing and go live. Get a job and a girlfriend...
wrote:
> thank you everyone for trying to revive this usenet service...
Indeed.
I've seen this kind of thing happening in other small online
communities. All same old faces fighting it out like crazy for no
apparent reason. Show's over, but no one wants to leave the bar...
kinda like these freaks:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/topics
all day long shitting each other with conspiracy theories for years
without end...
it's fun to watch for a while, but mostly depressing...
Conrad, forget this thing and go live. Get a job and a girlfriend...
0 new messages