Talk:Conrad Hubbard

Untitled

I just want to point out that the majority of the edits have been made by 24.98.24.17, which resolves to Atlanta, Georgia--the location of Conrad's employer, WWGS. Additionally, most edits by this person have been regarding Conrad Hubbard, White Wolf games, and the names "Conrad" and "Hubbard". I suspect very strongly that Conrad Hubbard himself is making these edits--and, if not, it is someone who has a close business or personal relationship with him. This is a conflict of interest. I also question Mr. Hubbard's notability for inclusion; as stated below, he is a web designer and writer for a small genre publisher. I am hereby nominating this page for deletion. 66.31.27.94 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this guy meets the notability requirements just by contributing to several different roleplaying books than I know 20 or 30 more people that I can add biographies on wiki. Anyone can be a webdesigner, its not that hard to do. And there are tons of freelancers out there. I'll give the guys the go-ahead and tell them to start submitting biographies. (I'm always not sure I'm signing this correctly, so my name's Jirel).

Can someone tell me the definition of "notability "? I mean, I admin and control the website for a gaming company. I have several online articles about TCGs out there on a different company's website as well as a couple in magazines for a totally different (3rd) gaming company. Should I therefore consider myself notabil enough that if a friend of mine wrote up my biography it could go out on wikipedia? Its not like it would be difficult for me to create an online webpage of poetry so that I could include a entry in that area as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.20.49 (talk • contribs)

You can find it at WP:N. A webpage of your own poetry that you put up probably wouldn't be enough to establish your notablity as a poet. The sources required need to be third-party. janejellyroll 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Conrad Hubbard page was defaced by someone using the following IP:

• (cur) (last) 04:29, 20 March 2006 70.112.130.200
• (cur) (last) 07:18, 13 March 2006 70.112.130.200
• (cur) (last) 05:24, 13 March 2006 70.112.130.200 (→Web Design)

The original defacement happened on March 13th, and then the person returned a week later to do more defacement (and presumably check to see that their defacement remained). Thankfully the moderators seem to have fixed it. It seems worth recording the defacement's IP source, though, in case of future repeats of this.

The defacement was the insertion of multiple paragraphs of personal insults and potential libel/slander.

A new round of personal insults and libel/slander happened:

(cur) (last) 18:16, 8 April 2006 64.131.4.248

And another round of personal insults and misinformation:

• (cur) (last) 05:42, 18 April 2006 70.112.130.200
• (cur) (last) 06:09, 18 April 2006 Sally.winnfield (→Controversial subjects restored.)
• (cur) (last) 05:56, 18 April 2006 Sally.winnfield (→Controversial subjects restored.)
• (cur) (last) 05:49, 18 April 2006 Sally.winnfield (→Controversial subjects restored.)
• (cur) (last) 05:48, 18 April 2006 Sally.winnfield (Controversial subjects restored.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

"copied and expanded upon"

I added this phrase because I feel it is accurate to note that, while the WW site did pioneer the DigiChat-database RPG interface, there have been many fan sites that have gone above and beyond what WW currently offers, including:

- bots

- better forum-chat integration (WW digichat players still rely largely on YahooGroups, after all)

- more pertinent information (e.g. current weather in the in character venue, phase of moon, etc.)

That being said, an analytic and constructive critique of what the WW chats could do to match their "competition" probably does not have any place on the main article. —Aprogressivist 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another defacement: 21:00, 8 November 2006 24.178.253.181 (Talk) (→Author Credits)

Another defacement: (cur) (last) 01:17, 15 March 2007 Daerim (Talk | contribs) (Changed "usually" to "sometimes" in the first paragraph of the criticism section so as to be more accurate statement.) (cur) (last) 00:44, 15 March 2007 Daerim (Talk | contribs) (Added common criticism of Conrad Hubbard.)

Another personal attack added by (cur) (last) 16:48, 16 March 2007 207.166.7.209 (Talk)

Noting non-Neutral Point of View personal attack reinserted by (cur) (last) 21:42, 16 March 2007 LeSquide.

The criticism section isn't non-NPoV. The article isn't being defaced, and there's no reason to remove the edits, considering that they contribute to a more complete view of the subject. LeSquide 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)LeSquide

On the inclusion of criticism of Mr. Hubbard

It is the position of this editor that the inclusion of popular points of criticism of Mr. Hubbards activities are in the best interest of a neutral point of view in that they provide a more balanced and realistic view of his activities. All effort has been taken to avoid an accusatory tone and merely state examples of those points of contention between Mr. Hubbard and his detractors. While the intent of this editor is to place and maintain this second point of view on Mr. Hubbard's activities, that by no means should be taken to indicate a lack of desire to see that this point of view is well represented as accurately and impartially as is possible. It is not the intent of this editor to defame Mr. Hubbard

To further this goal, and in the face of obvious disagreement over the content in question, this editor requests that any further editing of the included content conform to the proceedures for resolving disputes.

This editor looks forward with cooperating with user 24.98.24.17 in the future to provide balanced, comprehensive content that includes the views of all legitimate parties involved with the topic of discussion at hand, namely Mr. Hubbard.

Daerim 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An invitation to debate the issue of criticism of Mr. Hubbard

I would once again request that those that disagree with the inclusion of criticism of Mr. Hubbard in the text of this page engage in a discussion with those of us that do. In accordance with the rules of resolving disputes, I will cease to reinstate the material in question so that we can discuss the issue without engaging in a repeated editing conflict that will do nothing but inflame the issue. I would request that in return for this offer of good faith, those that disagree with the material act in a similar manner, including ceasing to simply delete material with which they disagree and cease the editing of other's statements on the subject.

Again, I state that the inclusion of criticism of Mr. Hubbard is in no way intented to defame him and is included merely to provide a more comprehensive impression of Mr. Hubbard's activities. It is my assertion that this criticism exists and reputable members of the gaming industry have made public statements to that effect as well as more anecdotal evidence given to me verbally by people that I trust and my own experience. I have not provided a link to this material as a great deal of it is exactly what I am attempting to avoid in the wording of my edits, namely personal attacks on Mr. Hubbard. I would link here, away from the article itself, to substantiate my claims however I am not currently at my home computer and do not have access to my links. When I return home in a few hours, I will edit this post to do so.

Daerim 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Daerim" and Personal Attacks

The "criticism" displayed thus far has been clear defamation and libel. If "Daerim" is a disgruntled user of White Wolf, Inc.'s website ( http://www.white-wolf.com ), as his posts make him appear to be, then his intent here is abundantly clear: personal attack. There is nothing remotely "Neutral Point of View" about personal attacks. Chances are that any outside "sources" this person links will be similarly unsubstantiated instances of libel and defamation. Linking to a lie does not make something true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.24.17 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Searching the White Wolf forums ( http://forums.white-wolf.com ) readily finds a forum user whose handle is "Daerim2." That would seem to suggest that this might be the same individual.

Substantiation, explaination and rebuttal

The following is a link providing credible industry personalities voicing their criticism of Mr. Hubbard's actions on a range of topics from moderation to his actions and administration of the New Bremen chat sessions. This link was, as was stated above, not used as citation in the main article because a great deal the posts include blatant personal attacks on Mr. Hubbard as well as their core content. As it was never intended to defame or attack Mr. Hubbard and merely to provide an accurate representation of the criticism that Mr. Hubbard faces, I felt that direct citation would be counter productive.

http://forum.rpg.net/printthread.php?t=54815&pp=200

The posters 'Funksaw', 'Darrin Kelly' and 'Cyanide Breathmint' all relate their criticisms of Mr. Hubbard and those under his supervision. 'Caleb' (also posting as NPC), 'Mage Booster Revised', 'Psyke' and 'Bestopheles' all contribute either validation of other poster's criticism or anecdotal evidence of their own. 'Justin Achilli' states that some are treated badly out of hand by Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Achilli and Bruce Baugh, as well as several other posters, share positive experiences with Mr. Hubbard and/or compliment him on his work and skills.

The opinions expressed in this thread are far from overwhelmingly negative or positive and many valid criticisms of Mr. Hubbard's own actions as well as the actions of those serving under him in capacities of moderator and storyteller of the New Bremen chat are discussed.

In addition to this example of public statements made by members of the gaming community and industry, I have heard many statements by those that claim to have worked with Mr. Hubbard or had negative experiences with him in the past. These include one example in which a person who worked for Mr. Hubbard as part of the New Bremen chat sessions related to me that he was once warned strongly against taking action against a character concept proposed by Mr. Hubbard's wife due to possible sanctions taken against him in retaliation by Mr. Hubbard. I have heard multiple first hand accounts of experiences with Mr. Hubbard on the official White Wolf forums that mimic my own experience, which I will detail below.

First, let me state that I in no way, shape or form seek to hide my online identity and freely admit that I was indeed known as Daerim2 on the official White Wolf forums prior to my second encounter with Mr. Hubbard in the capacity of moderator, after which I was banned. I have seen direct evidence of Mr. Hubbard inappropriately editing, deleting or moving posts and/or threads that disagree with his point of view but otherwise violate no other portion of the official White Wolf forum's terms of use agreement that I can identify. These instances include moving a legitimate thread topic in which multiple posters disagreed with Mr. Hubbard to a forum labeled the "Bitch, Whine and Moan" forum. Several other threads on the same or very similar topics that Mr. Hubbard had not personally engaged in were not moved at the time, nor have more recent threads covering the same topic been moved in the time since. Mr. Hubbard once personally edited a post of mine to change and reverse the intent of my statement in the same thread just mentioned. In this same thread, he claimed to have sent me a private message via the forum's faux e-mail system that I never received, as evidenced by the screenshots of an empty inbox I provided Mr. Hubbard publicly (these posts were subsequently deleted). More recently, I was banned from the forums without warning or accessible comment for stating that because Mr. Hubbard's views were obviously biased in favor of his employers, his judgment on the topic at hand was questionable. In the same post, I requested contact information for Mr. Hubbard's superiors so that I could lodge a complaint against his deleting of three prior posts, one of which was the previously mentioned statement of bias (the editing of which was the reason for the request to recourse to Mr. Hubbard's superiors) while the other two were completely unrelated and contained no offensive content what-so-ever. It has since come to my attention that Mr. Hubbard admitted privately to another poster on the forums that he deleted not only those of my posts that he found to be offensive (as per the terms of use agreement) but also those (the two just mentioned) that were not.

In this way, my own experiences assert that Mr. Hubbard inappropriately edits and deletes posts for personal reasons as a forum moderator, bans posters for minor infractions and/or strongly disagreeing with his opinions and requesting recourse to his superiors over his moderation. After this incident, I became aware of the degree to which Mr. Hubbard's actions are criticized and in my research of the topic came across this Wiki page and the archived thread linked above. In the interests of representing those that feel that Mr. Hubbard engages in unfair practices as a result of the power given to him over the official White Wolf forums and the New Bremen and similar chat sessions, I felt it appropriate to edit in a fair, non-sensational statement of common lines of criticism.

Drawing from my own experiences, those found in my research and those related by others I have spoken with on the topic of Mr. Hubbard, I composed the original two paragraph addition to this page. Since then I have attempted in good faith to alter initial language that implied an undue degree of wrong-doing on Mr. Hubbard's account as well as engage those that disagree with my statements and choice of addition to this page. As I previously stated, I in no way intend defamation on Mr. Hubbard and seek the assistance of both those that agree with my own personal criticism of Mr. Hubbard and those that disagree in order to present this information in a fair and accurate manner.

As those that disagree with this assertion have repeatedly declared inclusion of acknowledgement of criticism in this Wiki page as libelous, I would like to state that the truth defies all libel and should Mr. Hubbard never have been subjected to such criticism and for all of it to be falsehoods and defamation, this should be quite easily dispelled by the application of truth on the part of his erstwhile defenders. As a partial counter to this accusation I would like to once again state that I intend for this information neither to defame Mr. Hubbard nor to expose him to undue public contempt. However, as Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, the accuracy of which is dependent on informed, involved people posting information for others to review and digest, I believe that it is in the best interests of all those involved that any and all applicable viewpoints and information be included. I believe that this leads invariably to the most neutral possible treatment as each editor improves upon the information provided and enriches the value of the article as a whole. Because of these beliefs, I feel that it is appropriate for an acknowledgement of Mr. Hubbard critics and their statements on the subject of his actions should be included along with a listing of his accomplishments.

Daerim 09:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While I can't speak to Daerim's position on the White Wolf forums, simply mentioning criticism (along with providing references for that criticism) certainly doesn't qualify as a personal attack. LeSquide 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Forum posts aren't reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On reliable sources

It is my assertion that public posts by respected and known industry personalities clearly and consistently stating their positions equates to evidence of criticism. It is unfortunate that no known study has been performed on the opinions people hold on Mr. Hubbard and his work, or I would cite them instead. In the absence of such evidence, I will present what does exist. Plainly put, there is no doubt that Mr. Hubbard faces criticism. Any unrestricted discussion about Mr. Hubbard will generate exactly this. It is my assertion and that of many others that this criticism is at times based purely in fact and completely justified.

This very article stands as evidence that Mr. Hubbard faces considerable criticism from people that disagree with his perceived actions. A search of the edit history finds these very same subjects raised multiple times in past years. It is unfortunate that the vast majority of Mr. Hubbard's detractors cannot refrain from personally attacking Mr. Hubbard in their manner of delivery; however their complaints and criticism of Mr. Hubbard remain consistent and persistent. It is my intent to phrase these complaints in a manner that does not attack or defame Mr. Hubbard, but to accurately and appropriately acknowledge and represent the alternate point of view represented by these examples. It is with great regret that I believe this is necessary, however it is also with great conviction that I believe that it is so. Daerim 08:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out and encourage that posters to this talk page remember to both sign and preferably title their additions. This makes discussion and navigation of this page much easier.

Daerim 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An edited and revised version of the material in question

As ZimZalaBim noted in his edit summary, my initial text was full of weasel words, leaving the interpretation of its meaning in doubt and offering few solid statements. I have attempted to solve this by writing the following variation. I welcome any and all assistance in making this as balanced and accurate an assessment of the criticism of Mr. Hubbard as is possible, as well as offering the rebuttals of his supporters.

Conrad Hubbard has been criticized in the past for his activities as a forum moderator on the official White Wolf forums. Accusations center on inappropriately editing and/or deleting user posts for personal reasons. Supporters of Mr. Hubbard attribute these accusations to those persons legitimately sanctioned as part of his duties.

Former Storytellers under Mr. Hubbard's direction or participants in the moderated chat sessions of New Bremen have also claimed he is very harsh in his methods. Accusations in the past have included inappropriate e-mail communication, favoritism and abusive policies of administration.

Daerim 06:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, then provide a reliable source for it. Wikipedia is not a place for discussing gossip, or for slandering people. If there has been any criticism of Mr. Hubbard, then it needs to documented before it can be posted (for the record, message board discussion treads are not generally considered acceptable sources.) Avador 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not understanding Wikipedia's citation requirements but short of a professional study on the subject I cannot think of anything more conclusive than several well known (and even professional) people engaging in the very thing I state is happening in a semi-public forum. I will also point out that the strongest defenses so far mustered against my statements are claims that it is libel and pointing out weaknesses in its wording (which I am now attempting to resolve). Should any of these claims be outright falsehoods then Mr. Hubbard and others that I have privately requested join in this discussion should be able to disprove them to the satisfaction of all. Unfortunately these people seem reluctant to do so.

At worst, the above link as proof is a self-published primary source: people close to the issue stating their experiences. Several of them are well known members of the gaming community, co-workers of Mr. Hubbard or relate first person experiences with him. I do not even believe that this is original research, as I can cite a respected, well connected, primary source in the form of Justin Achilli, who states that some people are treated poorly out of hand by Mr. Hubbard.

As for the claim above that implies that I am merely a disgruntled forum poster out for revenge against Mr. Hubbard, I will state that my official contention of his actions in my regard has been resolved, albeit to my detriment. I have accepted that resolution and will not be persuing it in the future. While I admit personal involvement in the situation, I am not doing this for revenge or to pettily attack Mr. Hubbard. I firmly believe that this is a serious and widespread aspect of Mr. Hubbard's reputation and certainly as significant to an article discussing him as high school poetry awards. - Daerim 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows self-published material to be cited when it's a previously published professional writing in their own field - somebody like Justin Achilli commenting on Conrad's running of a White Wolf themed game would certainly qualify. Comments about Conrad's manners or interpersonal skills probably wouldn't. Could you post the specific comments you're thinking of using as a source? - Ehheh 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of inappropriately quoting from a website, I'll do just that. The specific statement by Mr. Achilli was "Perhaps you're one of the ones who was treated poorly out of hand by Conrad." in reference to someone speaking of how a friend worked with Mr. Hubbard and hated every moment of it. Mr. Achilli then goes on to relate how Mr. Hubbard must deal with particularly unrully netizens and is very good at his job. In the same vein, Bruce Baugh stated in that thread that he has suggested replacing Mr. Hubbard to those that run White Wolf: "The people who actually own and run the company are happy with him. Every year or two I do my part by suggesting the merits of designating a net-rep or two, tapping into the skill base of our fans who do professional web design, work at hosting companies, and like that."

I don't believe there were any other professionals in White Wolf's employ posting on that thread. The rest of the criticism there would be from players and forum goers. - Daerim 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I have improved my Wiki-Fu a bit, I think.

Conrad Hubbard has been criticized in the past for his activities as a forum moderator on the official White Wolf forums, an administrator for the New Bremen online chat and in conjunction with criticism of White Wolf’s more controversial products (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-05-24_170).

While criticism of Mr. Hubbard’s moderator activities is primarily anecdotal, several industry personalities have acknowledged its existence or advocated Conrad being replaced. These include Justin Achilli (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=1011436&postcount=35) and Bruce Baugh (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=1011323&postcount=32). This type of criticism centers on inappropriately editing and/or deleting user posts and banning users. Supporters of Mr. Hubbard attribute these accusations to those persons legitimately sanctioned as part of his duties.

Former Storytellers under Mr. Hubbard's direction or participants in the moderated chat sessions of New Bremen have also levied criticism against Mr. Hubbard. Accusations in the past have included favoritism (http://pissedoffgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7646&highlight=conrad#7646), mass de-sanctioning/deleting of characters and inappropriate e-mail communication.

Daerim 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Except those posters don't say what you claim they say and they are not proper sources

First of all, those forum posts you link don't provide incontrovertible evidence that the person claiming to be "Justin Achilli" is actually Justin Achilli, and the same goes for the person claiming to be Bruce Baugh. Even if they were the words of the people they purport to be, though, the posts don't say what you claim they say. The person claiming to be Justin says, "perhaps" which is very much not the same as "so and so definitely did such and such." Then that poster claiming to be Justin goes on to claim that he illegally slipped drugs into Mr. Hubbard's food or drink and tried to stab him. The person claiming to be Bruce doesn't say "replace" but rather suggests recruiting fans for help. http://pissedoffgamers.com directly states "hate of Conrad Hubbard" on its home page (at the time of this posting but even if they remove it there are plenty of web archives out there), which certainly falls under the personal attacks domain. There is nothing Neutral Point of View or non-personal attack about these posts you keep linking, and you misrepresent what they actually say. You are merely using the good services of the Wikipedia as an excuse to link the article's talk page to a bunch of libel. Indeed one of the very posts you link to says it is probably libel. You haven't added any substance or value to the Wikipedia. At this time all of your posts seem to be confined to this one article. You are merely using the Wikipedia as a vehicle for personal attacks. Hopefully the Wikipedia moderators will remove all of your libel so that people don't have to read your defamation of the article's subject in order to engage in the intended, constructive use of the Talk Page. You demean the Wikipedia with your personal crusade to defame the article's subject.

A couple of things though. First, the exact use of the word 'perhaps' has nothing to do with the statement that some are treated poorly out of hand, only casting doubt as to the quoted poster's inclusion in that group. Second, Mr. Baugh's statement was in reference to another poster questioning why Mr. Hubbard is retained as a public figure at White Wolf, implying a strong degree of agreement when he stated that he 'does his part'. What, precisely, else would he be refering to? Next, pissedoffgamers.com has an administrator that dislikes Mr. Hubbard. The website itself makes no mission statement or anything similar to that effect.

And again, if your position is that my statements are libel, then provide the proof that they are so. Show that none of these claims are grounded in truth or that they are in some way falsified. I'll also point out that the post I linked to quoted a post that stated that its content was possibly libelous but I was not citing that information.

Finally, I once again reject and deny all claims that my actions here are in any way attacks on Mr. Hubbard's person or reputation. My intent is and has been to represent a point of view of Mr. Hubbard that was not given voice in the original text.

Daerim 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You already admitted personal involvement above

You already admitted personal involvement, directly, in your posts here, so any claim that you are not acting for personal reasons is belied by your own words. Further, the contents of your posts are clearly negative in intent and clearly comprise an effort to create negative public opinion of Mr. Hubbard. Thus "personal attacks" seems like the most honest assessment of your defamation of Mr. Hubbard. You are attacking Mr. Hubbard's real world reputation by his real world name and real world place of employment while concealing your real world identity and real world place of employment. Your posts seem designed to cause him problems in his real world place of employment, as well, which is against Wikipedia terms. Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks clearly forbids posts which are: "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.24.17 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I am quite open about the fact that I happen to be one of those that levies criticism against Mr. Hubbard. It is not unreasonable for someone to wish their own, and many other's, point of view to be represented. Personal involvement is not a bar against participation.

I have no interest in causing Mr. Hubbard trouble at his place of work. I have gone through proper channels to officially (and partially) contend his actions in my regard and it has been resolved, though honestly not to my convenience. In the process of resolving the issue, Mr. Hubbard was quite professional, though I disagree with some of his statements and positions expressed to me.

As for me concealing my identity, you will forgive me if I choose to not release personal information here. Also, do trust me when I say that my current occupation is of no significance or importance. However, I will freely release my online identity, as I feel no need to hide it. As I've stated before, I posted under Daerim2 (just Daerim before the forum switch) on the White Wolf forums. I can also be found going by Daerim_ on the Shadowbane forums, where I've served as a volunteer Advocate (sort of an assistant community mananger and feedback gatherer) since mid 2004 and a Moderator since mid 2005. Unfortunately those are the only two websites of particular note that I have participated in to any serious extent.

Oh, and you'll note that the quote you used specifies Wikipedia editors.

Daerim 06:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty (and occasional ugliness) of the Wikipedia. Everyone's an editor.Conradhubbard 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as may be, I have said nothing about you, the editor. My statements have been purely confined to the subject matter of this article and I have been attempting to improve them as people have brought up criticism of their execution. Since I assume you claim to be Mr. Hubbard by the user name you have selected, then I invite you to disprove any and all statements I have made and provide evidence for the claims that they are nothing but empty libel. Should this evidence be forthcoming, however much I doubt it will, then I will gladly retract my statements as groundless.

Daerim 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

outside view

I think it obvious that this subject is possibly notable, and have therefore removed the tag. If anyone disagrees, the next step is to take it to AfD. (I have no involvement whatsoever with any of the preceding parties, an make no observations of my own upon their comments. ) I do advise the author of the article that he would do very well to get some third party references to his work, from published sources, web or print--but not personal websites or blogs. If the work is Notable, someone will have written about it. DGG 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Suggest that "Conrad Hubbard" be folded into a "Roleplaying Game Designers" entry where information is limited to a list of books he has contributed to. I do not think he is notable enough to warrant an entire entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.77.85 (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Personal Statment of an outsider,

Actualy I personly feel that people are being unfair, the books he helped produce and the ones he co wrote actualy have his name on the in acnolagements on the books.

I have found the conrad has helped me greatly during the time I've known him ((well over 8 years)) and while I only know him from the website and the fact that he helped create Exalted as well as the fact that he has always been helpful to me. I feel that saying that Conrad does not deserve to have his own web page is like saying that Gary Gygax doesnt deserve a place in wikipedia.

I mean after all Gygax only Co-Created D&D and 'only' wrote roleplaying games, should we stick him in the "Roleplaying Game Designers" entry?

I feel as will most Exalted players ((Which by the way is a hugely successful game,)) that Conrad Does indeed deserve his own page. if you disagree why not choise to not read it? people who complaine about things like that remind me of the old lady who 'must' watch that 'dusgusting' programme to the end so she can complaine. there meny more articales out there. if you have a valid reason for not likeing this page try NOT READING it

--Dreamspawn (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Literacy

I think if we're going to speak for or against someone, we should make a point to be literate enough that our points and views are readily understandable and coherent. Juvenile comments like "you should try NOT READING IT" are probably okay not being posted here, Dreamspeak. And after admittedly being an associate / friend for nearly a decade, there becomes a conflict of interest with your opinion.

~An actual third party observer