Canon talk:Randy Richards/Archive 1

Text Which Shamara Has Attempted to Delete to Keep an Edit War Going

For this Discussion Page to have any value, the nonsensical Edit War has to stop. Just because one does not like the content of others' posts is no justification for trying to eliminate the entirety of posts with which one disagrees. Have the courtesy and the courage to accept that declarations and opinions other than yours are to be presented here. Inability to refute another's argument is no excuse for trying to erase it. Leave it to the Admins to determine whether this page and its content stays or goes. --Mad Dane 05:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Do Not Remove

This is part of the Article discussion and must be maintained. Please feel free to add to this conversation as you wish. If you remove it I will continue to restore it. I also have it archived off the site so it can’t be destroyed. Shamara 00:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you opted to copy Ken/Quode's text from below, you might try abiding by the same principle. In trying to restore this page, I have managed now to keep your commentaries and that of all other participants as well. Kindly show them the same courtesy. --Mad Dane 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the courage of your convictions, Malakai Joe? You keep deleting all of the Discussion Page content except your most recent exchanges with Shamara. Perhaps it has not occurred to you, but in so doing, YOU become the vandalizer here, and it is YOUR edits which can be deemed "malicious" for attempting to remove all facts, opinions and/or commentary which do not cater to your preferences. --Mad Dane 05:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Et tu, Shamara? For shame. Deleting all those posts about Apotheosis Publishing, the alleged Gulf Coast whereabouts of Spellbinder Books, the CoastCon minutes, etc. If you want the Discussion Page to be left intact, quit vandalizing it to obliterate months of content. Abide by your own request at the top of the page. You know, the request you copied from Quode (below). --Mad Dane 06:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Congratulations to all fans and haters for elevating Randy Richards' popularity to an all time high ranking: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Top/most_visited Malakai Joe 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that the whole edit-war nonsense you've been a party to lately was solely for the benefit of your (or Richards') having bragging rights about traffic volume. --Mad Dane 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats the problem with OCD, no matter how much benefit haters give Randy, their obsession with him will continue unabated. Shamara 19:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. I am always amazed at self-destructive behavior. Its like their learning center is impaired or something. Malakai Joe 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LMAO...! One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result". I'd say those malcontents are on their way. Shamara 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You know Quode its possible to be neutral or like the book without being Randy Richards. Christ sake. Farfel 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in Quode's mind. But you're not fooling anyone Quode/Farfel/MadDane/etc Malakai Joe 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT Quode. I just happen to like dreadmire. I am neither for nor against the author. Farfel 07:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, Malakai Joe, you and Quode are becoming two sides of the same coin. You have become just as obsessed with the notion that all the posters here critical of Randy Richards are Quode as Quode has been insistent that your clique are all Richards. In the end, it is irrelevant to the substance which supports facts presented in this Discussion page. And that you have seen fit to try to delete all those details en masse speaks volumes to how little confidence you have in your own arguments. --Mad Dane 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove, this is part of the Article discussion and must be maintained. Please feel free to add to this conversation as you wish. If you remove it I will continue to restore it. I also have it in archive off the site so it can’t be destroyed. Quode 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Vandalism caused by Randy

I am working to get the history page restored back to this discussion so the history will be maintained. As this discussion is now searchable under Randy Richard name it’s no small wonder it was moved to another name.

I will not relent on my changing of the articles; it’s up to the Wikia management to decide what’s best. Not Randy. I feel that the articles I have been restoring serve the needs of the Wikia D&D site. The hostility shown by the moving of the page serves the point well I believe. Quode 01:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Team

The hard work paid off, Malakai Joe/Randy finally caved to popular opinion and removed all of the biased, hostile and inaccurate information from the Randy article. This shows that all of the team’s hard work to show Randy in the proper light has paid off. Please visit the new article and discussion site here to offer your congratulations.

New article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Rasputin_Richards

Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_17

And Malakia/SHAMARA/Randy. Thank you for at last understanding the need of a good clean edit. You should be proud of this article and your hard work.

I feel vindicated on a personal level. It was worth it to see Randy finally come around to my thinking. Such a brave and noble move. I can breathe again. Quode 00:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And the wonder of it all is that the "team" was not a team per se; i.e., there was no coordination other than on-the-fly as each contributor weighed in. In the end, accuracy trumps all. May it remain so. --Mad Dane 08:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Prove it, both of you. Go there and vote "Keep", and give detailed reasons why. Put your money where you're mouth is, so to speak. Until that happens, your words are a childish attempt to twist a perceived defeat into a win. Malakai Joe 02:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Their is still that pesky notability issue you have with the article. I like that article very much, its up to those people at WIKI to determine your fate. Quode 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would I vote to keep it? We finally got the facts out in the open on this one, and they do not make Richards a notable/noteworthy character. Peurile insults will not lend your challenge weight. --Mad Dane 03:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nailed. Malakai Joe 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear you were. --Mad Dane 05:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Going to have to side with Joe on this one. The whole "congratulations team" thing was a smarmy ploy that backfired. Who are all you nuts anyway? Go outside for a change. 174.34.141.38 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. What's one more drive-by, more or less? There have been several lately since the argument on Richards' behalf seems to have collapsed. This isn't really about "teams" or "sides" anyway, but rather about keeping to demonstrable fact even when one's object is self-promotion and advertising. If one's claims are going to be as empty as a typical politician's promises, what is the point? Under the circumstances, the only "ploy" that backfired was the puff-piece written in the first place. --Mad Dane 06:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation of the "raw data" falls into two opinions. You believe the facts show Mr. Randy is lying. Others believe the facts show something less sinister. What each team believes appears to depend on if you like him or not. He is entitled to say or do whatever he likes as long as he does not break any laws. The USA is a free country with free speech after all. Being a "jerk" is not a crime last time I checked. If it were you'd all be in prison. 94.76.196.60 04:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether one likes Richards or not has nothing to do with the fact that there was no Spellbinder Books in Gulfport/Biloxi/Ocean Springs during the time alleged, that Apotheosis Publishing has never existed at the address given for it (that of an AME Church on Milan St. in New Orleans, etc. Yes, in the USA, one is entitled to free speech, even when the speech turns out to be lies. In the end, however, making unsupportable claims only makes one look a fool. And making gratuitous insults adds nothing to your argument, but suggests you'd end up sharing whatever cell in which you picture the rest of us. Have a nice day. --Mad Dane 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Making unsupportable claims is his right as an American. Looking like a fool is his right as an American too. Whether he "looks like a fool" is none of your concern unless you are an investor is his company. 94.76.213.101 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, any potential customer is "an investor" in his mythical company. But why would they want to be, if nothing he says can be trusted? (BTW, making unsupportable claims is only one's "right as an American" until it ventures into the legal definition of fraud; for example, let us say, if one enters into a written contract on behalf of a business entity which is not what it is represented to be.) More to the point: Of what use is his article in a Wiki or in Wikipedia if none of the information can be considered to have any veracity? Freedom should never be confused with license. --Mad Dane 06:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Logic presumes the partners purchased the company from the original owner, not from each other. If there was any fraud it would have been on the part of the original Spellbinder Games' owner(s) - although I shudder to call it "fraud" when one is given inaccurate information about something so inconsequential (unintentionally or intentionally). Malakai Joe 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the problem here is that there is no evidence that there were any original owners, partners or even any company outside of Randy Richards himself. When one is, for example, negotiating a deal with an author to write a book to be published by a company which does not exist, I would say that lying about the existence of a publisher with the ability to properly market it may well be far from inconsequential. I can't see Randy Richards getting very far with the defense that he didn't know whether Spellbinder Games existed when he bought the company and then contracted with an author to write a novel especially for his new ersatz acquisition. Marshal M 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has use because I am of the belief that Randy Richards is telling the truth, and I disagree with your interpretation of the raw data presented. You may disagree, as is your right as well, but you don't have to read the article, nor maliciously edit it. It is best to put the disagreement in the article, and let others decide for themselves. Just because Randy Richards could have done the things you suggest, doesn't mean he did. License should never be confused with licentiousness. Malakai Joe 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. The "raw data" does not support anything claimed by or for Randy Richards other than he had a game book. Big deal. It was a supplement for somebody else's game. It's out of print now. Spellbindergames.com is just a generic paid-ad billboard page now. The rest of the phony baloney never was real, except Randy's talent for finding a camera to be in front of. Randy Richards is still not noteworthy. Go back to fighting your edit wars with Quode.

Yes, its always comes back to "blah, blah, blah" when your so-called facts don't support your conspiracy theories. And you are right - the raw data does not support anything claimed by or for Randy Richards, and it also does not support any of the various and endless nefarious assumptions claimed by or for Quode. And you are Quode, so don't fool yourself into thinking we believe otherwise. Malakai Joe 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "raw data" as you put it not only does not support anything claimed by or for Randy Richards, it also by implication supports the conclusion that his claims are false. If his claims were true, there would be at least a modicum of evidence to support them. Since there is none, we can conclude the claims are false. The logic is pretty much inescapable. Marshal M 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Occam's razor asks: Does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence? Some choose the former, some choose the latter. Shamara 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Occam's Razor certainly applies, I agree. The explanation that Randy Richards is lying is both simple and explains everything. The alternate explanations presented here are both more complicated and require endless rounds of further explanations and justifications in an attempt to keep them afloat. It is the difference between the Copernican explanation of the solar system and the Ptolemaic model. Mr. Richards is the Sun around which all his lies revolve. The rest of is just a tired attempt to prop up the lies as if they they had their own existence outside of the liar who gave birth to them. Marshal M 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, the only explanation for how Mr. Richards could possibly come to the conclusions that these things were true without knowing otherwise, are convuluted at best and bizarre at the most extreme. Thus, the best answer is that he is knowingly make false claims -- ie. lying. Nothing else is really reasonable. Call it "sinister" or "nefarious" if you want. I guess the answer to whether those apply lies in why he is lying. However, there can be no doubt he is a liar. Marshal M 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we still having these pointless round-and-round political debates? There is nothing BUT doubt. Get real. Shamara 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have nothing but doubt. Your problem, not theirs.

Alas, getting real is what this is about. I do not doubt what I saw with my own eyes. One can play games with people in far away places whose only knowledge of the facts is what you tell them. However, I live here. Marshal M 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Malakai Joe proceeds from an erroneous assumption that we-who-are-all-supposed-to-be-Quode have a "conspiracy theory". "Conspiracy" would imply we thought Richards acted in concert with others. No, it has been Randy alone spinning his fantasies; it has not been a conspiracy on his part, but rather a farce. However, Joe seems to see Quode everywhere, being "nefarious". That probably also accounts for the missing strawberries. --65.1.62.241 06:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Parsing words doesn't make it any less ridiculous -- call it "sophistry" or a "straw man" or a "methodological flawed charges" if you prefer -- but several of your conspiracy theories involve members of Randy's family and/or friends. Unless now you are claiming he made them up too (which would not surprise any of us). That crap about Spellbinder Games allegedly having a phony New Orleans address was cleared up with a simple e-mail. Guess what? The answer was more mundane that I even guessed. Gee, how surprising. Shamara 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I cleared it up with a simple visit to the phony address. It's phony. I cleared up the telephone number with a simply phone call. I haven't seen anything to counter the evidence of my own eyes and ears. Marshal M 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apotheosis Publishing has a phony address. Spellbinder Games is just a name. Make whatever claim you want.

Spellbinder has the same mailing address as Randies home. Before it was a mail drop at a Mail Box etc. There has never been another address for Spellbinder.Now that the web site has expired Randy continues to sell on e-bay as spellbinder. Apotheosis has the same address as his brother. Quode 14:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sour Grapes

I would like to point out to first time readers that my name is Joseph, and that Quode/MadDane/etc. are all online personas for Teri, Randy's paranoid, cyberstalker ex-girlfriend.

Now that's not just untrue, you know it's a lie. I've made it clear who and where I am. Almost anyone active in Gulf Coast fandom, like Randy, has at least heard of me and the organizations I'm involved with. I also think he has a pretty good idea of who Mad Dane is although he may not have pegged Marshal M. I should point out though, that I did move back to New Orleans. I was just in Baton Rouge temporarily after Katrina. Never met Ken/Quode, by the way. I think he lives in California. Rebecca Smith

You force me to call you out as a liar, "Joseph", for claiming that I am "Quode" or this "Teri" character that is always invoked as Richards' personal boojum. Here is my digital identifier: --65.1.63.123 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC) And, as you can see, if you want to check it out for yourself, I am obviously not located either in California with Ken/Quode OR in Baton Rouge with certain other posters here, such as Rebecca. Your paranoia is showing. --Mad Dane 03:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My IP address is also not near Randy Richards. That won't stop Quode from claiming I am him. (Shamara) 174.136.1.146 05:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I sign-in. So by your own words that makes several people here liars. Shamara 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope just you Randy just you. Must be a nice hotel room. Any one can fake an IP so I never take stock in them, And Randy, you cant change a thing boy, you cant change a thing.Quode 06:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As if on cue. So predictable. The upside is that you just refuted your "proof" that you and Mad Dane aren't the same person. Shamara 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

But if you are going to pursue that endless round of argument, you can no more prove that you are not Randy than Ken can prove that he is not Teri. for my own part, having offered my identifier in good faith, I am not going to be so foolish as to start posting further personal data where it might be subject to abuse. It matters not. If you wish to make erroneous assumptions as to my identity, it is of no consequence, as it in no way refutes or alters any of the factual data I have been able to offer here. The "upside," as Pogo once observed, has its downs. --Mad Dane 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I could pretend like you do Randy to be someone else but I have the integrity to remain Quode, or over at NG board Q1000 (Quode was taken). The readers should note that, I stand by Quode as my online name and as a token of my honesty and reliability. Their is no Terri, no Joseph, no Spellbinder for that matter. Just Randy. I have no idea who Maddane or all the others are, but I count them as friends. Hear their thoughts and be glad that people like Randy are not in charge. Quode 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Threats

Now we have me being threatened in my talk page

"Silencing me. Nice. I can smell your fear. Malakai Joe 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)"

KenQuode 06:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, Ken, but it appears that MJ has mistaken himself for Randy Richards with that comment. And "smell your fear"? Cheesy melodramatics that got a horse-laugh back when Tod Slaughter trod the boards. --Mad Dane 04:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Randy

I feel the ENTIRE entry should be removed. It has obviously fallen into some kind of turf war/ genital showing/bragging exercise between Mr. Richards and his puppets and others and their puppets and since his publication and its author are only a very small footnote/vanity publication at best, it is not worth the trouble for anyone involved.

Please do not blank the Randy Richards Talk page. Despite the childishness, meaningless, and useless nature of the debate, it gives people with no life, myself included, something to do. Management of the Wiki have been informed of the turf war issue, and hopefully they will take care of it this century. Thank you. Malakai Joe 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile you waste your time, and ours, with an entry that contains little in the way of facts, impact, and or vital history and much in the way of self-promotion. I thought this Wikia was about Dungeons and Dragons?

It is your choice to be here. As a Dreadmire fan I'm not wasting my time. Mark Williams, chief editor at Spellbinder Games, has stated that every time there was a controversy, Dreadmire book sales went way up. Given that there are eight articles on Randy Richards, Spellbinder Games, and Dreadmire, in various Wiki's online, this one hardly makes a difference. But when loonies come out of the woodwork at Quode's beck and call, it helps propel the article into the limelight, and the viral advertising gets a huge boost, which turns into dollars for Dreadmire. Wackaloons have always been instrumental to the success of Dreadmire over the years, and they will continue to be part of the fabric of the Dreadmire story as it moves forward - mostly thanks to Quode, but also to Necromancer Games and Cynthia Majure, who's negative publicity made the Dreadmire Chronicles possible. The more publicity Randy Richards/Dreadmire gets, good or bad, the more upcoming Dreadmire Chronicles will be sold (and the subsequent movie talks gain more weight too). Which is AWESOME!!! Malakai Joe 15:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Randy, you poor child. Tossed out of Wiki again. Must make you feel so frustrated. And your childish post here shows this. I am not upset if you sell books, please do. I have no minions; your two puppet posters show your desperation. The RPG players in the world largely ignore theses posts. You may have sold some books but there are no signs that Dreadmire is even popular or wide spread as you claim. Youre message board is dead; go look at NG, that’s fan power. I hope the paperback does well for you; I hope you have been honest with Elizabeth from the start. I would hate for her to be hurt and for you to have another Randy hater as well. Time will tell, I see she is choosing paperback covers, good for you. I hope you have money do get this out there; It will be a real test for you. I plan to read the book and perhaps share my opinion as well.

These chats don’t sell books, its you’re poor attempt to make me, what, stop? You think I believe you that your book sells better. You only sell on e-bay but soon WOTC will catch on and you will have no more books to sell. That’s what, a loss of a few thousand or so. You should have had another book or adventure in the wings, published about 2-4 months later. Support sells books, a few adventures, a supplement, a few articles expanding on Dreadmire and so on. You think that with your participation with Grayhawk you would understand this. I know you think that the Dreadmire Chronicles will generate more Dreadmire sales, hardly the act required for such a popular book. And so late in the game to.

The factual lack of support on this board shows it. NG games has fans that had arose to its defense when you attacked it online. Where are your fans here? I do not know the people posting against you. I speak for myself only. You made a choice to attack me online, a bad one. So here I am. I notified the admin BTW at Wiki, just so you know. No hard feelings see you in the movies. Ken M. Quode 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You just keep thinking that. Either way, the good guys win. Malakai Joe 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NONE of this is true. If it where, Randy, you would be singing it from the rafters and providing links for the news reports. There aren't any here so the answer is obvious to even a casual reader such as myself.

As far as I know Richards will never read your message. He stays away from Wikis like the plague. Malakai Joe 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'Malakai Joe & SHAMARA,and we are all sure many, many others, are you, Mr. Richards. As we know from your posts on other Wiki's and Wikia across the internet. And from your constant confusion of tense and pronouns in your posts. A hallmark of your style. Next time, why not just post the truth and let the value of Dreadmire speak for itself. If it can.

Fine sentiments from the party responsible for reposting a clone of this Article to Wikipedia on 3/8/09 [1], after five such entries have been previously deleted by the Admin [2]. This article is merely a vanity piece, but the issue seems to be less one of turf and genitalia than of a lack of verifiable content to the vanity piece itself. --Mad Dane 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Insanity, when you repeat the same action over and over again and expect a different result. Quode 05:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted again.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadmire_Book Quode 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And it will continue to be deleted from now until the end of time, every time someone puts it back. Its all part of the advertising. If no one deleted it, or contested it, the article would be useless. Malakai Joe 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Case in point: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Top/most_visited Malakai Joe 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you weren't supposed to be part of an advertising campaign on behalf of Randy Richards. I'm glad you have finally admitted your reasons for posting this and fighting so vociferously, though. It should make the deletion decision easy.

I want the series to succeed. Its one of the best D&D worlds ever created. I am not here to advertise per se. Its a side effect of Quode's cyberstalking. Who informed you about this article? Who informed you about the Wikipedia article? I just update the articles as needed. Quode is the advertising man. Malakai Joe 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Dreadmire and Randy Richards, though, the negative PR theory you espouse is weak. The vast majority of the people who visit these pages are there either 1) for a laugh at Randy Richards' expense; 2) to try to get an effort at free but dishonest advertising removed or corrected; or 3) part of Randy Richards's self-promotion efforts themselves. All any of it does for anyone else who stumble across them is to make the subject look like an idiot. If this is the effect you are going for, you should know it has worked quite well. Marshal M 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the effect I was going for. Thank you. *blushing* Malakai Joe 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Marshal M 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Quode

So, this again. Please, once was enough. RANDY we know this is you, even before the ink dried you were promoting the site, you and you alone. Quode 21:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, screwed up the edit, many of the so called items are not factual and based on faulty information, i think i killed the page by accident, will not happen again. Quode 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored all of the false information about this person, please research him, see the truth. Its going to be obvious to me that this site has lesser standards than WIKI so this will not be addressed as it was there. Buyer beware, I reviewed his book and Randy lost it after I gave it a C, making false accusations about my wife online trying to discredit my review. All of this is on the Necromancer EZboard for review, as well as in the net histories. Google dreadmire, randy Richards for more info.Quode 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Shamara, seriously, take a chill pill. Quode is never going to listen to reason. Its like a religion to her, same as the UFO-ologists. There will always be enough proof that UFOs are alien spacecraft, and never enough verification they're just optical illusions. In this case, there will never be enough verification for Quode that Randy Richards is exactly what he appears, and always enough proof that he isn't. Its a Catch-22. Malakai Joe 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quode, you really are not helping matters by engaging in a spitting contest with Malakai Joe over how many times the Article content can be erased/reposted. If the page is to be deleted, let the appropriate parties delete it. In the meantime, allowing the details, both in the citations made throughout the Article and the Discussion section, which puncture this vanity piece to remain on display shows it for what it is. Fair enough? --Mad Dane 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Greyhawk

"Richards is also the former editor of the Greyhawk Grimoire, an online publication devoted to the World of Greyhawk campaign setting; and is the founder of the World of Greyhawk Fan Club, which once claimed to be "the largest Greyhawk fan organization in the world." The organization claimed among its members such luminaries as Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Rob Kuntz, Frank Mentzer, Len Lakofka and Jim Ward. In 1998 Randy sponsored the "Celebrity Greyhawk Dinner" and "Greyhawk Celebrity Panel Seminar.""

Not one of the people ever had taken part in this, just ask them yourself, dont trust me on it. Check with the grayhawk community, the cons. never happened. Gary and Dave on the same board, never happened. In both their histories this is never brought up, nor any relationship to Randy. Again, research this yourself, ask them. Quode 06:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Go away. Your credibility went from zero to minus ten with me:

This from Gary Gygax - "Yes, I recall that. I appeared on a panel with Dave Arneson and some other notables, and we had dinner afterwards with some fans. I remember because it was the first year WotC was running Gen Con."

This from Dave Arneson - "Sure did. Gen Con 1998 if memory serves. It was about an hour with Gary, Mentzer, Lisa and a couple others I don't remember offhand. A production company was filming it for inclusion in a documentary, so there is proof we were all there."

Shamara 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

These references need cross checking. Please provide source. 65.213.44.9 15:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is each individial. My incoming e-mail is not available via a link, unfortunately. Always check the source when dealing with a crazy person like Quode. If one does Google search for "Dreadmire Quode" and "Randy Richards Quode" we soon discover this person follows Randy Richards around on the Internet making wacky claims. Might be part of a smear campaign or a personal vendetta. Either way, the user should be blocked. Shamara 00:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For an online reference I offer this interview "http://www.thekyngdoms.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37" Please note the this quote "Not a lot to say here, as it has been over 20 years since Dave and I had much to do with each other." and "As far as I am concerned, one might characterize the relationship between Dave and me as distant but cordial. We are separated by distance and approach to gaming. We have no interaction in gaming or casual communication, but when we meet we enjoy a pleasant exchange." Hardly the thing we would hear from two people who were as Randy states "and is the founder of the World of Greyhawk Fan Club, which once claimed to be "the largest Greyhawk fan organization in the world." The organization claimed among its members such luminaries as Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson"Quode 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides believing Richards at his word, the semantics of the article takes into account that it may be an exaggeration, or even an outright lie. Even if there is the small chance thats its not true, the article is reporting he is "claiming" these facts. I would think even you could concede he is indeed claiming these things. Shamara 20:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that besides Gygax and Arneson both giving me statements that they were at said panel discussion, there is also photographic evidence of said panel discussion, and its listed in the Gen Con program book from that year. You might want to let this one go, because its diminishing your overall credibility. There's lots of proof on this one. Pick the battles you can win, or at least those without proof that you can spin doctor. Shamara 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture was a photo-op. Note Randy and Gary’s badge covers. Gary’s is yellow, he is a speaker, and Randy was there to run an event. Otherwise his should have been yellow as well. Your shown statements from Gary and Dave has no reference, I in turn offer Gary’s own words in the matter. If you knew more about Gary you would have known that after TSR he and Dave have not worked together. This is known throughout the entire industry. Quode 02:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Of course the picture was a photo-op. It was a photo-op with the host and all his panelists. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Few do.)Randy Richards 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got to insert my two cents here. No one ever said Randy Richards was a guest. He's the one that ran the panel. I can offer first hand verification this, because I was there. Thats all I need. There was a long table with every Greyhawk module and supplement ever printed by TSR up to that point piled on top of it. Richards introduced the panel, one by one. One guest was sitting in the audience because the table was full. Richards asked questions both of the panel and the audience, and a few times asked for a show of hands. Then there was a Greyhawk trivia contest. Richards asked questions to several volunteers, and they had to press a button fastest to see who would get to answer. Once answered correctly, the reward was a gold coin. At the end, the winner had the most gold coins, and won a Greyhawk supplement. Lisa Stevens present Gary Gygax with a box that was "hot off the presses", the new Tomb of Horrors rewrite. And Dave Arneson was right, there was a film crew there filming. Tread carefully with your bizarre accusations or evidence might blow one up in your face, like you accusations that Dreadmire was a figment of Richards' imagination. Thought we forget? Nope. Malakai Joe 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(You forgot Erik Mona was also a panelist. The guest in the audience was a staff Greyhawk writer at the time. His name escapes me at the moment. If you don't mind me asking, who are you? If you don't want to reveal it publicaly, you can e-mail me at [email protected]. I'd like to get a copy of that Gen Con program book if possible.) Randy Richards 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, again proof your Randy, yes, the old NG discussion., many years ago. Iv told every one id buy your book, review it. So i bought it from you just after it was released and reviewed it, its all there in archive, i never forget either. And you may well be correct about the picture, but not there membership, i know all about the film, more than you obviusly. Quode 09:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously mental. I hope you get help. Malakai Joe 16:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A quote from tha archive you seemed to have missed "The book has always been real, regardless of how one might feel about Randy. I should have my copy in a few days for my review. Had to go through a local store as they could not fulfill the amazon orders.

The one review I could find is on Amazon from someone who has an AOL e-mail address Q"Quode 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to come here and make edits. I am just learning how to format the text so I apologize in advance for any errors made. The other people on this page are not me (including Quode for you conspiracty buffs). A simple IP address check should confirm this (except the conspiracy buffs, of course). The article looks good to me, and I trust Rhadigast to clean up the text if needed. After that, it should be secured to prevent mischievous alterations. Randy Richards 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding Controversy Section

Please do not add a "Controversy" section without first reading these guidelines on the subject of neutrality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

Revamp the section with a neutral tone and I won't have a problem with it. What does Spellbinder Games say about the controversy? What does Randy Richards say? There are two sides to every story. Post them both to maintain a neutral tone. Shamara 07:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is a Wikia site, not Wiki. But here is the result of the same page review on Wiki "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_Richards"

Neither individual has ever made the comment, please reference a verifiable source or point to an online article or interview of the principles. This group and his involvement were 10 years ago, and its quite obvious today that no organization has ever existed. The better question then is this. If it was so big, where did it go? And how come all of the supposed members can’t seem to remember there involvement in a national organization with thousands of members? Quode 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is my own experience. In example I attended a "World of Greyhawk Fan Club" meeting at Dragon Con in the late 90's. Randy Richards was there and at least 40 other people. It was SRO. No, it doesn't prove there are/were thousands. But on the internet that seems plausible. The last statement I remember reading about the fan club is that they went back offline to avoid drama - like this. Shamara 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, missed the big Gen Con meet and greet. Would like to have seen Gygax and Arneson together on a panel. If there was an award for "amazing game industry coup of the century" well, you know who I would give it to. That alone is a lifetime accomplishment. Shamara 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Necromancer Games

Per Necromamcer Games, the book dreadmire was terminated due to IP violations in regards to Grayhawk material. There was no legal action by either party. Randy was just released. Randy then founded Spellbinder Games to publish the book and had edited the IP material out. Quode 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But "suspected IP violations" are not necessarily IP violations. Don't assume Necromancer Games got it right. I know you want them to be right, but that doesn't make them right. Same goes for Randy Richards. He might have had IP violations in his manuscript and remove them later, or maybe he didn't. I don't assume Randy Richards got it right, even though I might want him to be. Basically, its two people with a difference of opinion thats unproveable. We note there was an issue in the article, then let them duke it out by placing links to their official statements, avoiding libel on our part. This maintains the neutral tone of the article, and helps you reach your goal of harassing Richards. Its a win win compromise. Shamara 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The part about Spellbinder Games being founded by Randy Richards is certainly possible, but I can find no proof. Otherwise its just speculation. Find me some proof and I will happily change the article to reflect this new information. Shamara 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof

Randy, you offer no proof to your claims. You see, for this article to be valid you need some level of proof. You must prove your claims. This is why you fail so often getting this information in to WIKI. You tell me to offer proof, I do, then you make claims of harassment, intimidation, stalking. But you can’t offer a shred of proof to any claim.

• As to spellbinder, I leave that to the IRS
• As to NG, there a well established company in the RPG field. Spellbinder has but one book. Dreadmire.
• As to your so called fame, look to your boards, empty of people. You’re alone there.
• As to sales. You need to sell it on e-bay at a great loss.
• So many people will know the truth about you by there own works. Grayhawk has rejected you long ago.Quode 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My responses in order:

• Allegedly, Spellbinder Games is a DBA. The IRS wouldn't keep records of a DBA. Those are registered on the community level, if at all. But if they can come up with something, I'd be happy to make the change.
• Yes, because no well established companies ever lie. You've got to be kidding!
• Many publishing message boards are empty of activity, including some WotC boards. What does that mean?
• Poor sales - high sales - neither are relevant to this article. Shamara 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It takes a lot to establish a message board. Even on the Necro boards some of the topics don't get any traffic to speak of. A simple check the stats on the Spellbinder Games message board (lower left corner of the home page) and this is what we find: 27 average visits per day; 59 average views per day; 29,112 total visits; and 3,992 total views. Doesn't appear to be a dead board to me. ::shrugs:: Malakai Joe 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So many people will know the truth about Randy Richards by there own works. Greyhawk has rejected him long ago. Quode 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation. Show us FACTS. Shamara 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what this means. Randy Richards was in charge. Did he reject himself? Shamara 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove my comments or edit my statements. Its one thing to disagree and other to vandalize. Quode 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats the pot calling the kettle black. Good luck with the whole O.C. stalking thing. I hope it works out for you. Malakai Joe 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I have been leaving the article alone, I did retract my changes and have left the article be. One of the uses for the talk page is to analyze with out harm to the source article. This article is too important to you. Your rude actions and comments here are proof. Take a breather, see what happens. You may be surprised. I’m no stalker, Randy only knows me as he sold me the book dread mire on Amazon via the marketplace there. Everything happened after the review. These links will help illustrate some of the issues involved.

• http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/3639
• http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/3634
• http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/3637

Quode 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

O.C. = ??? Shamara 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What does "everything happened after the review" mean? Shamara 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted. After reading page after page of conversation, all I can determine is that you and some Necromancer Games fans hate Randy Richards. You all have wonderfully creative theories about Randy Richards, but so far you can't prove a single one. Even the alleged IP violations were "suspected" by Necromancer's own admission. Point us to a specific IP violation and I will personally blast Randy Richards in a scathing op-ed piece for my local newspaper, and you can point to it from now until the end of time as proof of his malevolence. You need to learn the difference between "proof" and "speculation". For example, do you still believe the Dreadmire book doesn't exist? Shamara 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Not trying to prove, offering the view point. You yourself cant prove the validity of the article, as witnessed with the same article at WIKI "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_Richards" Quode 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. But you use the word "proof", not "viewpoint" in most of your posts. Start using the latter instead of the former, and we'll likely have more debates, rather than heated arguments. I'll change the topic header to see if you're serious about this. And thank you for leaving the article alone. It is appreciated. Shamara 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your request is reasonable, iwas in the process of returning it already.

My apologies. We must be having editing conflicts because we're all three on here at the same time. But since we're all three the same person, who cares? Shamara 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

She changed it back. I think you just got your answer. The words of Quode are always hollow spin. Malakai Joe 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see it. Then I take back my offer of detante. Shamara 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Returned it, amazing how quick you both posted, like your the same person. Your offer of detante has no value here, there is no edit war. Just prove the article with independent, sourced material.Quode 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean because you and I posted so quickly right after each other that we are the same person? We're all Randy? Thats amazing. Thanks Randy. Shamara 16:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, "proof" to Quode is subjective. Virtually everything is seen as evidence of Richards' vast right-wing conspiracy. As a friend once said, "Quode is neck deep in shadow conspiracies, illegal activities, controversial removal from ancient societies, and seemingly infinite amounts of Internet drama. Quode isn't a conspiracy theorist, but rather a 'dramacrat'." Pegged it! Malakai Joe 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

rofl! Dramacrat. I like. Any doofus would know its more likely we all receive e-mails from the Wikia notifying us of a change to the page. If we're all online when the notification goes out, then we all show up around the same time. But thats not near as exciting as us all being Randy. I wonder what its like to be that detached from reality? Shamara 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Spellbinder Books

Please, as you both seem so well versed in Randy Lore. What is the last address for Spellbinder Books before Katrina wiped it out. It would help out very much to identify its old location. No arguments, just the address please? Quode 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a novel idea: I'll send Richards an e-mail and ask him. Shamara 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail received. I've given this information to Quode before. It was in Gulfport, Mississippi, along 30th Ave. I don't recall the exact address, so I've sent an e-mail to the previous owners asking them for it. Will you leave these poor people alone now to work in peace? Your stalking sells books so I have allowed it to continue for now, but if you start hurting other people I will br forced to take more legal action against you. And spare us the denails. We know who you are because of things you've said that give your true identity away. Stalking is illegal, and they've recently passed a law that makes it a federal crime to pretend to be another person online. Having said that - I wish you much light and love in your life. Good luck. Randy Richards 10:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

The only gaming/hobby related businesses located on 30th Avenue in Gulfport, Mississippi, were "Zocchi Distributors/Gamescience" and "Palewood Games & Gifts". The former was located at 1512 -30th Ave. from Fall of 1985 until the owner, Louis J. Zocchi, sold the distributorship in December 1996. He continued to warehouse the Gamescience publishing operation there for another 14 months. Prior to September 1985, Zocchi Dist./Gamescience had been located at 01956 Pass Road in Gulfport. "Palewood" opened its doors as a retailer at 1528 - 30th Ave., from February 1997 until March 2000. No other game or book store, game or book publisher or distributor operated on 30th Avenue in Gulfport, Mississippi prior to October 1985 or after March 2000. --Mad Dane 09:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoints

Quode, seriously, please do not remove my comments or edit my statements. Its one thing to disagree and other to vandalize. My original statement about "Facts" was a mis-paste on my part. Correcting this, by removing it, does not affect the conversation. Shamara 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

She is Obsessive Compulsive so its best to just let it go. Is it really worth all the fighting? Randy Richards 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive Deletions

While poster Shamara may have had grievance with certain edits that had been made to the page in question prior to my own, I must take issue with using the removal of those allegedly "false" statements as cover to excuse also removing my own edits which did in fact include citations. Such overzealous editing is sloppy at best, or, at worst, deliberately dishonest. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to claim "vandalism" of the text while repeatedly editing out statements of fact that are accompanied by verification, particularly when so much of Randy Richards' own biographical data and claims made on behalf of the existence and history of Spellbinder Games offer nothing more than Mr. Richards' say-so and are absent any independent verification. --Mad Dane 00:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that re-edits are now trying to parse the substance of statements so finely as to reduce them to gruel. For example, the details pertaining to Randy Richards' departure from CoastCon are clearly stated without requiring the addition of quoting slurs against then-Chair Cynthia Majure attributed to Richards. One is advised to tread softly here, as slurs and spurious allegations made against both the then-current Governing Committee of CoastCon Inc. and in particular Ms. Majure were contributing factors to the eventual removal of of both Richards' articles and he himself from Wikipedia. --Mad Dane 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed changes

Quode, please discuss such changes before making them. Shamara, please do not revert edits before looking closer at them. Everyone, please reach the consensus here on a talk page, instead of creating an edit war. Below is the list of proposed changes, with my comments in bold. --Radaghast 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Shamara 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Replace

   In 2002 there was a dispute between Necromancer Games, who was scheduled to publish Dreadmire, and the author Randy Richards . When the book was published several years later, no IP violations (the reason for project termination) were ever announced discovered.

   with

   In 2002 Necromancer Games, released Randy Richards over IP violations. Randy self published the book a few years later after an extensive re-write, removing all of the Grayhawk IP.

   The former version seems more neutral and gives more info. I left the original text with all three references, because they all seem relevant.

   Because Randy has tried to discredit NG games over what happened. I provided the correct link for starters. He needed the time to create a company to publish the game and two, to edit the book as WOTC also new of the IP issues. Necromancer Games has ties to the industry, Randy does not, and regardless of his claims he has an 8 year gap where he did not serve the RPG community in any fashion. Dreadmire was born from his work with Grayhawk, in fact one adventure was written for the Grayhawk community itself, showing some of its origins. There was no "dispute", he was shown the door, this per the founders of NG games, who have published many other books. Randy had this chance and failed, so in comes Spellbinder games, out of the blue, having no ties to gamming, D&D and the hobby in general.Quode 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with Radaghast. Quode, this is your spin on what happened. No one without an ulterior motive is buying into it. Your theory seems to be that if you create enough fantasy information online, that you can reference back to it, thus "proving" your original rhetoric. The result is obfuscation. Is that your ultimate goal? Shamara 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Our point in this article is not to support any of the sides in this conflict, but to describe the situation. If both sides have said something, it makes sense to quote them both, no matter what side do you personally support. --Radaghast 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Change reference to http://spellbindergames.yuku.com/topic/398 with http://www.gloomwing.com/issue01/ - I fail to see how the direct link to GloomWing can help, there is no text one can read, there is no mentioning Richards. Left the original one for the time being, tell me here why am I wrong otherwise.

   Thus I contest the existence of the interview itself. Independent verification is needed, not just a link to a site that Randy owns and edits. The one publication has no reference to him and there is no evidence of the actual interview itself.Quode 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with Radaghast. As to the Gloomwing interview, it existed when the magazine was published. Now that the company has gone out of business, the online version no longer exists. The good news is the Gloomwing video company appears to be owned by the same people. I suggest you e-mail the owner for a hardcopy of the magazine that has the interview, if you are really looking for "evidence". If you are just trying to prove some point, then you won't bother. Shamara 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Good point, I agree now that the link to the Gloomwing should be there for people who doubt it exists at all. By following that link, it is possible to buy the contents so that one can see for him/herself. However, the reference should be to Richards' website since that's the place where we got the information about the interview. --Radaghast 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

3. "bought into" vs "created". Richards looked at this article when it said "bought into", and he said it was correct - I don't know who can possibly have more information about that than him. In fact, the article about SG states that SG's history goes back to the 80s, which makes it simply impossible to "create" it in 2005 anyway.

   Randy created this article 2 years ago and tried to push it at WIKI, and it was rejected. Now Randy has spammed smaller WIKI sites with the same, and all with the same info. And just after being removed from WIKI for the 5th time. There is no SG, anywhere; it appeared after the storm, when it was allegedly destroyed. He has failed to produce an address of the site in any public forum. And he has never given me the address privately, as he claims. I checked all businesses in the area; there never has been a book store or company named Spellbinder Games. All of the web sites belong to Randy. All of the e-mail addresses belong to him. No company officer has ever been seen anywhere, at anytime in 2 years. Spellbinder as a publisher, as a game store has no presence in the real world. No organization has ever heard of them. Of course Randy has given the article the OK. He made it all up, and has failed to prove any of his statements. This is the heart of it. Yes there is a book; yes it was booted by NG games, which has a greater credibility than Randy will ever hope to have. I created a review, I bought a book from Randy in good faith, gave him my review, and for years he has lied about me to create the idea that I’m not a credible source, that I’m just out to get him. But he can’t prove his lies, thus the lies stand. Look to Coast Con, Necromancer Games, to see who he is. Look what he did to your board in a fit of childish behavior. Look and decide.Quode 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with Radaghast. To Quode - Randy Richards posted the address on the article Talk page, but you erased it when you engaged in one of your undo's. I suggest you go back through it his Contribs to find it. And if you want to look at someone blowing facts way out of proportion, look inward. NG and CC have moved on, and I suggest you do. Obsession is dangerous. Shamara 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Vigilance has its rewards. You erased the talk page on your rampage. The page I found was the best one I could retrieve at the time, and no, Randy did not provide an address, just another vague statement and a promise to find out.Quode 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Presumption of innocence, Quode, presumption of innocence. The company is being advertised, it publishes books, it has web presence. Yes, the website is awful, all books are long forgotten except for Dreadmire, and not sending anyone to any gaming conventions is certainly a bad advertisement politics. So what? Maybe it's just a lousy company. If you want to prove that the whole company is a fraud and it never existed, send an official request to the governmental organisation that registers publishing companies and book stores (I'm not familiar with the American system, so I don't know how exactly it is called, but there surely must be one, and its database will not be so easy to lose in the flood), get an official response, scan it and post it, case closed, point proven. Just saying you don't believe the book shop existed is not enough to prove it didn't.

   And as for the history of creation of this article and your relationship with Richards, I simply do not care, sorry. I have said it before, and I will repeat: even if the article is created and edited only by Richards and his mighty army of sockpuppets, as long as the content is good, I'm glad. --Radaghast 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Replace

   Randy Richards has been a paid guest at gaming and fantasy conventions across the U.S.

   with

   Randy Richards has been a guest at local gaming and fantasy (conventions) (typo by me)Quode 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   The changed sentence is grammatically incorrect. Since I think it is irrelevant whether Richards has been paid for it, I edited it to be "Randy Richards has been a guest at gaming and fantasy conventions across the U.S".

   The posted conventions are local for him; there are no cons, say in California or any other state outside his range. There are hundreds of conventions. Also, no Gencon, for the Dreadmire release, or a continued presence in any con for the last 10 years. He has shopped around his Dreadmire book, but that’s all.Quode 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with Radaghast. Shamara 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, if they all really are local, let's remove the "across the US" part. --Radaghast 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Adding Dreadmire Adventures to the list of works - good point, it should be there.

   Agree with Radaghast. Shamara 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

DandD wiki has the best compromise to all of this, they just list the book, as this is all that’s needed after all.Quode 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

DanDwiki deleted the article altogether last time I checked. Having articles related to people and not to products is against their policy. --Radaghast 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on last change

The Randy Richards mentioned in the last change was not the Randy Richards this article is about. That Randy Richards lives in New York city, and works for some place called "Camera City", according to the comments made after the referenced articles.

Sure it is. It’s a phone support line. It never states that this Randy lives in New York, all transactions are phone based. The personal attitude shown is Randy’s MO. Lies and misdirection, just like here. So of course it’s Not Randy, it’s always some other guy, per Randy whenever we find his misdeeds. If Randy had tried to be a better person the net would not bare witness to his more unpleasant nature.

Removed the line, Oddly I agree with the removal. And its about Randy in the game industry, congrats on the business award. Quode 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

4,000 Randy Richards

The weird family reference in that last modification was to some random guy named "Randy Richards", but not THE Randy Richards this article is about. Besides the history in the story not matching this Randy's history, the British spelling used by the poster suggests he lives in England. Based on the last two modifications, it would be helpful to verify the identity of any random Internet references to "Randy Richards" before making changes - the name is not unique. Google your own name and you'll see what I mean.Shamara 06:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that Randy Richards, whoever he might be, talks about dollars, and this is the currency only used "in the colonies" ;) So I really doubt he is British, for he would be talking about pounds or quids. Anyway, the information about how much Richards might be paying to his children is absolutely irrelevant for his D&D contribution in every imaginable way, so you were right to cut that part. --Radaghast 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the currency references! He must have moved to the U.S. I had a friend that was educated in England, but lives in the U.S., and she spells all her words English-style.Shamara 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one solution would be to add his middle name, "Randy Rasputin Richards" to the title of the page. Thats pretty unique.Shamara 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should you also include the book link here for the novalisation of Dreadmire?Quode 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF Randy Richards =

We have this from his EZ Biard site dated 5/24/08

"We are proud to announce that our inventory of Dreadmire, both first and second printings, is sold out."

http://spellbindergames.yuku.com/topic/485/t/Dreadmire-Sold-Out.html?page=-1

But, on e-bay he is still selling the books, all first ed. to. So WTF Randy?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Dreadmire-beautifully-illustrated-HUGE-d20-D-D-book_W0QQitemZ220252925832QQihZ012QQcategoryZ44112QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Dreadmire-beautifully-illustrated-HUGE-d20-D-D-book_W0QQitemZ220355770977QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item220355770977&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220372593228&category=44112&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D15%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54 http://cgi.ebay.com/Dreadmire-beautifully-illustrated-HUGE-d20-D-D-book_W0QQitemZ220372593045QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item220372593045&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50 http://cgi.ebay.com/Dreadmire-beautifully-illustrated-HUGE-d20-D-D-book_W0QQitemZ220372593228QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item220372593228&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

71.139.4.8 03:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's Richards selling books on eBay, it has nothing to do with Spellbinder Games inventory. Shamara 20:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He is Spellbinder Games http://www.dancebackwards.com/sitebuilder/images/TheContacts.html-0.png this is home address, his pay pal account, his inventory. Heck he even buys personal things with this account, like the doctor who scarf as an example. 71.139.4.8 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're guess is as good as mine. Despite the name on the account, I don't think that eBay sale has anything to do with Spellbinder Games' inventory, even if Randy is a partner in the company. If their new author, Elizabeth Donald, sells some Dreadmire Chronicles books on eBay 2 years after Spellbinder Games sells out, I don't know what the big mystery would be. Here is an idea... send him an e-mail and ask him! Shamara 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And more, and all those going to Babelcon, look for the spellbinder booth, seeling more copies of the sold out book. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=220256773004&Category=44112&_trksid=p3907.m29 71.139.4.8 15:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Who cares whether they are sold out or not? Claiming to be sold out and not being sold out would be kind of self-destructive, don't you think? If you hate Randy, I should think you'd be happy at the poor management. Was there a Spellbinder booth at BabelCon 3? I didn't see one on the video of the convention, and it scanned the entire vendor room...Shamara 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Dreadmire was being sold from Randy's booth in the gaming room at Babelcon, not in the dealers' room. If a book is not sold out and you state that it is then it's a lie, pure and simple. If it is only "sold out" because the author bought all of the copies from the publisher, then it's not technically a lie, but it is intentionally misleading. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it makes sense for someone to lie about this. If they did, then they did, sensible or not. Just last week, Randy was at a Starfleet International chapter meeting in Baton Rouge, giving away free copies of his sold out book. Rebecca Smith (PS. Why did someone remove this remark before? Is there doubt as to whether or not I'm really Rebecca AC Smith-Correll of New Orleans, LA? Am I supposed to hide behind an alter ego? There is no online citation for the incident I mentioned because my source is the people who were there in person 2 months ago some of whom I know very well. I know who was selling the Dreadmire books at Babelcon because I was there. Not everything of import is online.) http://www.dancebackwards.com/sitebuilder/images/BabelCon2008-GameRoom2-601x290.jpg 2 of Hearts 05:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC) http://www.dancebackwards.com/BabelGameClub.html2 of Hearts 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure he did. He knew the paper was doing a story so he had showed up, his book in tow so the paper would have pictures of the crowd holding his book for both free and false publicity, it’s the same stunt he pulled at Babelcon during the meet and greet, he handed out free books than made sure the pictures showed people holding them while they talked, a major cheese move to be sure. He must have 6000 of those things left in his inventory and desperate to move now that the D20 license has been revoked. 71.139.46.200 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like Randy Richards at all, but then again you don't know him personally, do you? Richards was an official guest at the Meet-n-Greet and was asked to sell his book and sign autographs at the event. And how exactly did he know the newspaper was showing up at the Trek meeting? It was never announced. Oh yeah, Richards is omniscient. Rebecca, you do realize you're one of the bad guys, right? Shamara 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Randy Richards is one of the 4 members of the Babelcon committee. I guess he asked himself to appear as a guest and sell copies of his book at the event. How did he know that the newspaper would be at that SFI meeting? Because the members of that club's chapter knew in advance, as always in these instances, and a friend of his is a member. I knew about two weeks in advance that the Advocate would be at that meeting. I was invited to attend by the chapter president, but declined due to the distance involved. R Smith

This last is a very strange post. How do you you know whether the reporter's attendance was announced or not and by whom? Also, please define "one of the bad guys." What exactly are you accusing her of? Also, please clarify how it is you know whether this person who wrote this knows Randy Richards or not. Do you know this poster personally yourself? Marshal M 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That last comment would seem to undercut your arguments on behalf of "neutrality" made elsewhere in this discussion. However, so many people have been labelled as "haters" and "enemies" by Randy Richards and alleged surrogates, that the list would a comfortable attendance figure for a convention of some sort. The jury is still out on whether he is in fact important enough to actually have as many enemies as that. --Mad Dane 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As Randy is the sole officer of Spellbinder Games and Spellbinder Games has had no con presence other than Randy then it’s hard to believe their a separate organization. Does not matter. Randy has lost the D20 license as of the new year and is required to destroy all copies of Dreadmire in storage if they display the D20 logo so any more sales of the book is illegal under the agreement of the D20 contract. If any one sees him selling or distributing these books please notify WOTC.

11.3 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, Licensee will immediately cease all use of the Licensed Materials and will destroy all inventory and marketing materials in Licensee’s possession bearing the Compatibility Logo. Licensee will remove the Compatibility Logo from all advertising, web sites, and other materials. Licensee will solely bear all costs related to carrying out this provision (in addition to any other provision) of the License. Wizards may, in its sole discretion and upon written agreement between Wizards and Licensee, extend this License for those Licensed Products that otherwise comply with the terms of this License.

• Per the Dreadmire history page we get two interesting edits.

First, Malakai Joe tells us this. “Dreadmire was distributed worldwide through Alliance Games but is now out of print. Some copies are available through the author's website.”

Now per Randy all of these books are supposed to be sold out. Yet he still continues to sell them at cons and on his e-bay account as well.

OK, now Malakai Joe makes this change. “Dreadmire was distributed in the U.S. through Alliance Games and in Europe via Esdevium Games Ltd., but is now out of print. Copies are sometimes available on eBay and Amazon.com.”

Of course we are directed to e-bay as that’s where Randy has been selling the book for close to two years with what looks like an endless supply. The D20 license is dead; a publisher may no longer sell any books marked with d20 and the D&D compatibility statement. Quode 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

d20 System Trademark License

The d20 STL was published at the same time as the OGL, and was used to license WotC trademarked "d20 logo" in order to signify compatibility with other d20 System products, most notably D&D 3rd Edition. The license was revoked on June 6th 2008 upon the launch of the D&D 4th Edition Game System License (GSL), although publishers using the license were permitted a 6-month sell-off period for products in channel still bearing the logo.

The d20 System Trademark License (D20STL) required publishers to exclude character creation and advancement rules, apply certain notices and adhere to an acceptable content policy. Games that only use the OGL are not bound by these restrictions, and several have included character creation and advancement rules, allowing them to be used as standalone products. D20STL products require a core book from Wizards of the Coast and must clearly state this.71.139.46.200 01:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Extensive Rewrite

The last change, made several times by an anonymous poster, claiming that there was an "extensive rewrite," has been debunked by Randy Richards himself. Unless the poster has a verifiable source for this information, it should not be included in the article. If there are any remaining copies of the original manuscript, they would be illegal copies, so be cautious.Shamara 02:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Coastcon Meeting May 6

http://www.coastcon.org/minutes/2006/050506

COASTCON, INC. Special Governing Committee Meeting May 6, 2006

TIME AND PLACE: Friday; May 6, 2006, 5:00pm Majure’s home, Ocean Springs, MS

PRESIDING: Cynthia Majure, Chairman

MEMBERS PRESENT: Cynthia Majure, Carmen Tempone, Kristina Hanck, Mike White, Mark Tempone, Lana White

MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Majure, William Murphy, Garland Young

OTHERS PRESENT: Tex Albritton, Derrek Baudoin, Tony Kimsey, Randy Richards, Carol Richards SPECIAL

ANNOUNCEMENT: It was announced by a neighbor of C. Majure that MAL Michael Bledsoe, one of the founders of CoastCon and a friend to many, had died of a heart attack May 5th. He was at home with his family, and did not suffer long. C. Majure delayed the start of the meeting to post the announcement and send condolences to the family and friends. CC Board members agreed to personally send flowers.

CALL TO ORDER: Meeting is called to order at 6:58 pm.

MINUTES: MOTION: C. Majure SECOND: C. Tempone

“To waive the reading of and accept the April 22nd Minutes with changes.”

OLD BUSINESS: None

NEW BUSINESS: I. CC 29

A. Transition Reports – the Chairman called for these to be sent electronically to her and printed copies to be brought to the Transition Meeting to be held on Friday, May 26, 2006 at the Ocean Springs Library.

B. Randy Richards proposed that Coast Con could partner with a Renaissance Fair. A general discussion of this topic was held.

II. REVENGE OF THE LARPS

A. LARP director, K. Hanck is progressing with her initial planning. K. Hanck and C. Tempone are going to work on a budget. Fliers will be distributed at Mobicon.

Kristina Hanck and Derrek Baudoin left the meeting at 7:50 PM. Meeting was adjourned for a break at 7:54 PM Meeting reconvened at 8:15 PM

III. CC INC

A. A list of grievances involving MAL Elect Randy Richards was addressed by the Chairman, who counseled Randy regarding the following issues:

• Misquoting the Chairman on the forum

• Overstating his authority on the forum and in emails

• Contacting individuals and groups on behalf of CoastCon without permission

• Lying to the Chairman about contacting individuals and groups on behalf of CoastCon without permission

• Alienating local groups with a history of involvement with CoastCon

• Losing productivity by wasting his and others’ time and energy on moot pursuits by posting and arguing unreasonable and even ludicrous suggestions on the forum

• Backing the Governing Committee into a corner by saying that we would “be stupid” not to act on certain suggestions, when those suggestions are not feasible or practical

• Telling members that the Governing Committee is giving him no information (which is not true), making the Committee appear disorganized and divided

• Posting personal and corporate confidential information given to him by Board members on the forum

• Sharing confidential information given to him by former Board members with outside groups

• Continuously angering members with his condescending posts on the forum

• Expressing anti-Governing Committee sentiments on the forum

• Acting without information, then using his ignorance of necessary information as a shield against censure

• Directly disobeying both orders and advice from the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman

B. Due to the loss of Michael Bledsoe, a Member at Large position will have to be filled after the Transition Meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: EPIC BOWL AT MOBICON- the Chairman announced that Coast Con team members were needed to volunteer to participate in this event. REN FAIR – The weekend of May 6th & 7th a Renaissance Fair will be held at the 19th Hole Golf Driving Range in Ocean Springs.

ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:55pm

APPROVED: ______________________ ADOPTED:______________________ Chairman Date Minutes recorded by Lana White, Secretary

As we can see Randy was warned and they tried to work with him. He had more than a chance. Ken Quode 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Coastcon Meeting May 26

From "http://www.coastcon.org/minutes/2006/052606_SGCM.pdf" 2 of Hearts 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

COASTCON, INC.

Special Governing Committee Meeting: May 26, 2006 TIME AND PLACE: Friday; May 26, 2006, 8:30pm Ocean Springs Library Meeting Room, Ocean Springs, MS

PRESIDING: Cynthia Majure, Chairman

MEMBERS PRESENT: Cynthia Majure, Carmen Tempone, Kristina Hanck, Mike White, Mark Tempone, Lana White, Derrek Baudoin, Randy Richards

MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Majure

OTHERS PRESENT: Tex Albritton, Tony Kimsey, Mary Gruenberg, Jeff Dubuisson, Lon Jerome, Lynn Jerome, Jennifer Parker, Ricardo Cruz, Janel Cruz, Jason Fisher

CALL TO ORDER: Meeting is called to order at 8:44 pm.

AGENDA: Agenda distributed to those in attendance.

MINUTES: MOTION: C. Majure SECOND: C. Tempone “To waive the reading of and accept the May 26h Minutes with corrections.” Motion passes unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: CC Inc. I. Old Business/ Call for Other Old Business None

NEW BUSINESS: I. Coast Con Inc.

A. Personnel Issues

1. MAL 1

MOTION: C. Tempone SECOND: M. Tempone

“To table discussion of filling the vacant MAL positon until the next Governing Committee Meeting on June 10th.” Motion carries.

2. MAL 2

Chairman requests the following statement be read into the minutes: “As Chairman, I monitor the CoastCon forum and email accounts carefully, responding as necessary to problems that arise in those venues. Recently Randy Richards angered forum members, many of whom are former CoastCon Board members and staff, which I learned through the forum and numerous private emails. I counseled Randy during the May 6th GC meeting, hoping to curtail his enthusiasm to best serve CoastCon. However, facts presented to me both before and since that meeting have led me to believe that he is unsuitable to hold the position of Member at Large with CoastCon. His transgressions include, but are not limited to:

• Breaking personal and corporate confidentiality

• Overstepping his authority

• Disobeying direct orders from the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman

• Misrepresenting CoastCon to outside groups

• Alienating outside groups as well as members of CoastCon

• Publicly expressing anti-Governing Committee sentiments

• Directly lying to Board Members

Given the facts and proof of the above that I have been presented, I believe that Randy’s continued association with CoastCon would be destructive to the corporation, and I therefore recommend that the Governing Committee remove Randy Richards from his Member at Large position.

I chose to include this statement in the minutes because I feel that Randy’s track record of misrepresentation of facts to suit his own needs warrants full disclosure of his actions to the general membership.”

MOTION: R. Richards SECOND: D. Baudoin

“To open a general group discussion regarding the Chairman’s statement.”

Motion carries.

Discussion begins with Board Members asking the Chairman to present the proof of each allegation; Chairman goes through each bulleted item, presenting proof and commentary, offering Randy a chance for rebuttal. Jason Fisher joined the meeting at 9:26 pm. Derrek Baudoin offers a recommendation that Randy not be removed from his MAL position, but rather be put on a 90-day probation period. Discussion continues.

Derrek Baudoin rescinds his recommendation for putting Randy on probation in favor of moving directly to dismissal proceedings. Carmen Tempone left the meeting at 9:43 pm. Mary Gruenberg and Jeff Dubuisson left the meeting at 9:50 pm.

MOTION : M. White SECOND: M. Tempone

“To remove Randy Richards from his position as Member at Large on the CoastCon Governing Board.”

(discussion continues before this motion is brought to a vote) Randy Richards left the meeting at 10:20 pm saying “I resign”. His verbal resignation is not recognized by the Chairman because written resignation is required by the CoastCon bylaws. MOTION: L. Jerome SECOND: C. Majure

“ To close the floor to discussion.” Motion passes.

Mike White reminds board of his motion still on the floor. (RESTATEMENT OF MOTION)

MOTION : M. White SECOND: M. Tempone “To remove Randy Richards from his position as Member at Large on the CoastCon Governing Board.” Motion passes.

MOTION: C. Majure SECOND: L. White “That all remaining agenda matters be tabled due to the late hour.” Motion passes.

ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:23pm

Looks like Randy had his day in court71.139.46.200 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a kangaroo court no doubt. I used to manage a few hundred employees. I know how these things work. Anyway thanks for formatting the redundant information so it wasn't a bunch of random letters. Your efforts are appreciated. Shamara 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If this was a true "kangaroo court" then from what I read here and on their forums they did not force you to "Hop Out" fast enough.

If you "know how these things work", then you should know better than to call the proceedings a "kangaroo court." It was, after all, conducted by the officers of the corporation (i.e., CoastCon Inc.) in accordance with the procedures stipulated by the Corporation By-Laws. Any suggestion of conspiracy against Richards is laughable. CoastCon committees are not known for being "all of one mind" on very many issues. It seems a common characteristic of committees. --Mad Dane 04:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume by "officer of the committee" you are referring to the fans elected by other fans. Anyway those are not the characteristics of the committees I've worked on. I've worked on six or seven committees over the years, both for corporations and two conventions, and only once did we have a major disagreement (which lasted about 30 minutes and was then solved through discussion). Its a side-effect of working with reasonable people (who can compromise without much effort). Based on what I read on the CoastCon message board interaction with Richards, the people that answered his posts were pathological malcontents. If those people are on staff I can see why you would believe otherwise. Shamara 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If by "pathological malcontents" you mean Mr. Richards, you might be correct. From the above it would seem that he is the only "pathological malcontents" in question and I pray for ANY other convention that would have him on staff.

"I presume by "officer of the committee" you are referring to the fans elected by other fans." Evidently, this is meant to denigrate said officers by implication that "fans" cannot be experienced business and professional people. A specious argument, easily dismissed. As these are "not the characteristics of the committees [you've]I've worked on", one can then safely suppose you've never been in politics. Claims for your personal experience may be taken with the same large grain of salt which applies to anonymous claims in general. While it may be true of your good fortune, it is not universal; one need only examine Congress. The slur against the entire board is unwarranted and contemptible, and lends no weight to your argument. --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats not the way I took it. Malcontents due tend to see a glass half empty. I think what Shamara meant is that you don't ALWAYS get experienced business or professional people. Its hit or miss, in other words. But I could be wrong. I tend to see the glass as half full. However - you have to admit the CC message board shows everyone BUT Randy Richards (Janus) in a bad light. Every time we send a friend over there to read the archives, they come back with something akin to "those people attacking Randy for making suggestions are detached from reality" and then we invariably respond "thats why they call it DramaCon". And it also explains why your committees never agree on anything! Malakai Joe 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to low farce again, I see. You will have it that "everyone BUT Randy" appears in a bad light, and defend such Lewis Carroll logic on behalf of a nameless "we". But it is always thus in the world of Randy Richards, that people who disagree with him or dispute his claims are "malcontents," "haters," "liars," "pathological," or "psychotic" (as in certain of his diatribes against CoastCon in general, and Cynthia Majure in particular), ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Curiously, his defenders all eventually end up parroting the same arguments when running short of facts. And in support of Richards, facts are always in short supply. --Mad Dane 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As a point of clarification concerning Randy Richards' tenure on the Governing Committee of CoastCon, the CoastCon Inc. By-Laws (http://coastcon.org/corporate.htm#4) stipulate under Article IV, Section E, that "The Member-At-Large [sic] serve terms of office from the transition meeting after the Annual Convention at which they are elected until the end of the following transition meeting." In the case of Randy Richards, he was elected to the Governing Committee at the General Membership Meeting held at CoastCon XXIX, on Sunday, March 26, 2006. The official transition meeting was not scheduled until May 26th of that year (see minutes posted above). Thus, Randy Richards, while elected, had not offically taken over from his predecessor as a Member-at-Large until the meeting. It was his activities during the two-month interval between his election and the transition meeting that occasioned the Governing Committee's action in removing him from office.

Article IV, Section F of those same By-Laws stipulate the manner of resignation from or removal from the Governing Committee. Again, as noted in the minutes, Richards had not tendered his resignation in writing, and thus did not resign per his oft-stated claim. (http://spellbindergames.yuku.com/topic/364/t/Clearing-Up-quot-CoastCon-quot-Confusion.html). --Mad Dane 04:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... you are saying Randy Richards was removed because of activities in his personal life?!?!? I am stunned by this revelation. I honestly thought it had to do with his job as member-at-large (whatever that is). Shamara 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, by his activites in his support of Coastcon. This you well know randy as you were warned plenty of times to conform to policy amd you did not. Quode 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you certainly did not get it straight. That much is obvious. (And as someone who served on "six or seven committees" should have at least some notion what a member-at-large is. --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize you were there, Teri. Please list the specific details of your ex-boyfriend's transgressions, rather than those vague transgressions listed in the meeting minutes. Bulleted form would be best. Can't wait. Malakai Joe 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It’s funny if you think that juvenile baiting can work on me Randy. I am a 47 year old man, lol. And not gay to boot so thinking you can upset me with this is funny. And I was on the message board Randy, remember. No one believed you and a few laughed, you hate being laughed at don’t you randyboy. ken Quode 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Same old routine is trotted out every time Randy Richards' claims are called into question, going back at least as far as the discussions on the Necromancer Games boards. It is really pathetic, as it serves notice that no more cogent, substantive argument is left in his defense. --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The resignation issue is a mere technicality, neither is it of any consequence. You can tell from the wording that you have animosity towards Mr. Richards, even though you may not realize it. I tried to eliminate that tone by paraphrasing your text. I tried really hard to keep all your changes in place and maintain a neutral tone, using words such as "alleges" rather than stating them as facts. Randy has a different viewpoint, and so I quoted him as well, and used "alleges" for his counter-statements. I hope this will be acceptable to both sides of this issue. Malakai Joe 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let us stick to facts. There is a straightforward procedure for resignation spelled out in the CoastCon By-Laws. Mr. Richards did not follow it; therefore, he did not in fact make a valid resignation before being removed by the Governing Committee. That is simple fact. It is of consequence only insofar as Richards has made an issue of it in his own postings to the CoastCon and other message boards, alleging other circumstances. As recently as 11/25/08 he felt obliged to update his "viewpoint" posted on his own message board. He may wish to dispute the reality, but can only do so by distorting it. --Mad Dane 04:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me these minutes speak for themselves. They are the official minutes of CoastCon, Inc. as posted by the Governing Committee on the CoastCon website. The effort by Malakai Joe to repeat Mr. Richards' "you can't fire me, I quit" defense is redundant since the minutes themselves reflect his attempt to assert this at the meeting. I would be interested in seeing any online documentation backing up an interpretation of these events contrary to what the minutes reflect, other than his own assertions on his own message forum. Unless he has some way to back this up, it seems these statements are not only redundant, but irrelevant. Marshal M 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Its already been determined that the meeting minutes were fabricated by the group of people at the meeting. [Determined by whom, pray tell? --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)] But I think you both misunderstood what Malakai Joe was saying. Randy resigned, but the bylaws did not recognize his method of resignation so he had to be voted off. So both statements are correct... Saying that "Richards resigned" is a fact. Even the meeting minutes backs this up by saying, "His verbal resignation is not recognized". So there was in fact, a resignation, it was just not recognized. By saying Randy "did not resign", you are parsing words and playing with semantics. Shamara 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine use of the passive voice. Determined by whom? These are the minutes of an official meeting of a corporation which has been in existence for at least 32 years. If you examine the bylaws, which will discover that the meetings are conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order and that they must be approved by a vote of the Governing Committee. I think it is incumbent on you that to present any evidence that you have that the Governing Committee fabricated anything. Otherwise we have the word of you and "Malakai Joe," neither of whom claim to have been there, versus the entire elected Governing Committee plus everyone else present, none of whom has stepped forward to back this version of the story. And, of course, we have the word of Mr. Richards himself which can hardly be accepted as disinterested and -- most importantly can never be considered "a neutral source" about his own article.

Moreover, as I wrote earlier, Mr. Richard's "theory" under which he resigned as opposed to being kicked off the board is adequately laid in the very minutes you seem to believe were fabricated. In all fairness, I should suggest that it is Mr. Richards who is playing at semantics. A meeting was called to consider his removal. He had ample time to resign according the bylaws prior to that meeting. He didn't. It was only after he had been offered a chance for rebuttal and a motion that he be suspended only was withdrawn did he attempt to resign. Because of the bylaws, this attempt failed and he was removed. The parsing is clearly on Mr. Richards' part as an attempt to save face. Marshal M 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do make up your mind, Shamara! If you are going to argue that the minutes of the Governing Committee meeting were fabricated, it will hardly do for you to then base your argument on their being valid for a specific element that suits you. The minutes are a legitimate record of the proceedings, and record the fact that Richards did not submit a valid resignation in accordance with CoastCon Inc. By-Laws. (One would have thought, given two months to prepare for the transition meeting and Richards' apparent "enthusiasm" for his new position, that he had plenty of time to familiarize himself with the By-Laws. They are readily available on the CoastCon website.) --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even more disturbing about the meeting minutes is the fact that more was added later by Cynthia herself. Besides suggesting the minutes contain fabricated elements, I was under the impression altering meeting minutes after the fact was illegal. Shamara 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The minutes are approved at the next meeting of the Governing Committee. Do you have any evidence that these minutes were altered after that approval? You state this here as a fact. Before risking libel here, you should document your sources. In this regard, I would suggest that Randy Richards' own accusations do not count as a source, merely another allegation. Marshal M 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is disturbing is that an allegation of that sort would be made without any substance to justify it. Implying criminal conduct without evidence to support it is libelous. It is also the sort of nonsense that caused the editors at Wikipedia to remove Randy Richards postings in October 2006 and again in January 2007. --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the answer to this one. It is my understanding from the "Drama Con" panel discussion that Mr. Richards has hosted at various conventions, that the meeting minutes had been modified several months after the meeting itself (I am assuming section I.A.2). It is also his assertion that two former officers came forward later and apologized to him for their part in the incident, blaming their vote on "groupthink" as Richards put it. This is hearsay, and there is no way I can prove it, I just wanted to explain why I believe what I believe. True or not, I doubt any former officers would ever go public given the unbelievable harassment they would receive. Malakai Joe 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, Randy Richards' own accusations do not count as a source. You must admit, since it's his behavior that is at issue, anything he says, or even that he says someone else says, cannot be regarded as neutral or unbiased. We are left we started, with the minutes of a meeting of a ten-person board with numerous spectators, none of whom have come forward and publicly claimed that the minutes do not relate what actually happened, versus the interested statements of Mr. Richards that something nefarious went on. Since the interested statements do no reflect a non-neutral viewpoint, they do not belong in the article. Marshal M 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That "hearsay" is only admissible when it supports one's argument says little for the substance of one's argument. Richards' assertion carries no weight absent verification, nor does the assumption that said "former officers" (if any) would be either harrassed or cowed by said harrassment. --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The non-neutral viewpoints of Randy Richards belong in the article because the article is about Randy Richards. If it was about virtually anything else, I would agree with you. Malakai Joe 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong about that. They do not belong in the article because they are from Randy Richards. He cannot be expected to be neutral about himself. This is why it is inappropriate for someone to write or edit their wiki entries. I would imagine you would know that, given the amount of time and effort you have expended both here and elsewhere trying to fend off the assertion that you are the subject of this article himself. Of course, whether you are or aren't actually Mr. Richards, you have to admit the principle is valid regardless. Marshal M 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I agree with Marshal. Truth be told Randy Richards refuses to be involved with Wiki of any kind and has stated publicly that he would prefer if the articles were deleted. Shamara 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why hasn't this been deleted? Mr. Richards is not particularly notable within the RPG community, except perhaps for these very controversies we are discussing -- none of which reflect well on him. Dreadmire has not been updated for the latest edition of D&D and and his license has expired. Perhaps it would be better if we just drew a curtain over it all if that is what he would prefer. Marshal M 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, if Randy Richards would prefer the Wiki articles were deleted, then, out of respect for those wishes, they should be. That would render arguments about content moot. --Mad Dane 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And it makes it all the more curious that Malakai Joe has once again added the Randy (Rasputin) Richards entry to Wikipedia itself: [3] --Mad Dane 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IP/Greyhawk/Necromancer Issue

Use of the word "plagiarism" is obviously an attempt by the smear merchants to spin the Necromancer Games issue to the extreme left. Necromancer Games said they had "intellectual property concerns" and although Randy Richards says differently, Necromancer Games never said anything about plagiarism involving Randy Richards, Greyhawk, or themselves (if you have something different, cite it). I have placed in the article BOTH SIDES of this issue ALREADY, and I have CITED quotes on both sides of the issue (using links to the quotes). That way readers can make up their own minds. The article, like all articles, needs to maintain a neutral viewpoint, regardless of our feelings about the subject matter. Shamara 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The goal is to be factual as well as neutral. The fact is he was released from NG due to plagiarizing material from Grayhawk in his book. I suggest you go to the NG board and raise your concerns with them and note their responses hear. Randy, you can spin this as you wish but the facts remain. Quode 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/3639?page=5

1. 48 "Anyway, whoever it was (ahem..cough...Randy...cough) asked why we werent working with Randy. I think it was Bill who said "because he is a liar and an IP thief" or "a liar and a plagarist" or something like that (which is clearly true). They then demanded that we detail the violations. We refused and said that was between us and Randy and TSR/WotC and that they should ask Randy. We refused to provide any details." Quoted from Clark on NG board Quode 18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Teri, you cannot use heresay as "facts". "I think it was Bill who said" is hardly a credible reference, especially when the "Randy" could be anyone named Randy. I know that reality is tough for you, since you hate Mr. Richards so much, but one of these days you've going to have to face it - Richards is a good guy and you're one of the bad guys. Shamara

You have a link Randy? and who the hell is Teri? BTW idiot its the (which is clearly true)statment that gives the truth to the quote. Its Clark confirming the plagerism, go bust his chops, o thats right hes a lawyer and all. 71.139.46.200 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I've read the Dreadmire book myself and I saw no Greyhawk material in it. Did you? Reality check. Shamara 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He had over year to correct that little problem before the book was released, if Clark says its Plagerised, you know the lawyer Clark. THEN IT IS, DEAL with that Randy. Reality check and mate71.139.46.200 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the following is a straightforward enough statement: "Contrary to Randy's assertions and attempts to rewrite my posts and history, Dreadmire was terminated when we discovered significant and problematic IP violations in his manuscript. We terminated him immediately."The statement is by Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games. Source: http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/3639/t/Randy-Richards-strikes-again-unfortunately.html?page=1 Intellectual property violation is simply a more polite term for plagiarism. --Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is a huge legal difference. Plagiarism is the wholesale copying of text and wording, whereas intellectual property are the proper names belonging to a copyrighted body of work. In any case, Richards has agreed on several occasions that Necromancer discovered what they believed were significant and problematic IP violations in his manuscript, which later turned out to be archetypes that were not specific to the Greyhawk setting (which they thought were, at the time). Malakai Joe 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it is obvious you have little or no legal background. Plagiarism is indeed a form of IP theft, as also are thefts of technological data, music piracy and a variety of other crimes. And, in any case, Richards' version of events does not jibe with Clark Peterson's recollections at Necromancer Games. --Mad Dane 05:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My cousin's wife is a copyright lawyer, and she would absolutely disagree with you. We've had many discussions along similar lines. Of course, lawyers disagree on interpretations of the law all the time (in fact, its their job), as do judges, so thats no suprise. Plagiarism is a form of IP theft, but IP theft is not always plagiarism. If I use the name of your movie's hero as my movie's hero, thats hardly plagiarism, but it is IP infringement. And now you're going to argue my cousin's wife is wrong, and on we go back and forth ad nauseum. Let's just agree that lawyers differ in their intepretations, and be done with it. Malakai Joe 06:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stepping past all of the smoke and mirrors, the form of IP violation cited by Necromancer Games was plagiarism. --Mad Dane 06:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Randy Richards. If Randy Richards says "I visited the moon last week," that quote, no matter how ridiculous, can be in the article, whether you believe the quote or not. It doesn't have to be factual at all -- if Richards said it, then it can go in the article as a quote. A disbeliever can then add wording about this "claim" being "unverifiable", and it can be called an "alleged" trip to the moon. Thats a neutral tone, containing both sides of the issue. Thats all we are asking. Why is this so hard for some people? Shamara 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I should think the answer to that last question is obvious. Of what use would this, or any other, article on the Wiki be if it did not deal in facts? If a statement is inaccurate, correcting it is neither biased nor misleading, and certainly does not constitute vandalism. An unsubstantiated statement should not be taken on faith. If Mr. Richards should wish to claim he travelled to the Moon, he should be prepared to prove it. Facts are neutral. Truth does not have "sides". Unsupported statements serve no useful purpose. --Mad Dane 04:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was nothing but neutral facts before the vandlism started. The unsupported statements have been recently added. For example, Cynthia Majure's claim that Randy did this that and the other is exactly that - an unverified assertion by Cynthia Majure. Randy says she is a liar. Given that Cynthia wrote the meeting notes, which is now being used as socalled "evidence" of Randy's misconduct, the core of the issue is a "he said, she said". There is nothing verifiable about her statements in the document. Same goes for the Necromancer Games issue. Its a "he said, he said" issue, with Randy claiming one story and Necromancer claiming another version. Even big companies make mistakes. The company Spellbinder Games is an issue whereas Randy says "this is the history is the company as I know it" and Quode says "I can't prove what you are saying". Well I can't prove the Pegasus Galaxy exists, nor can you prove its not there. I choose to believe the astronomers. Same in all these cases, it just depends on who you believe. So we publish both sides of the claims and alleged facts, as both sides have presented them, and let the reader decide which are the real facts. I am not wise enough to tell which set of facts that have been presented are the real facts for certain, although I know Randy wouldn't lie so I tend to believe his version of the story. You may have a differing viewpoint. And THATS the point. Malakai Joe 04:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really that good a point, though, you must admit. How do you know he wouldn't lie? What is your relationship to Mr. Richards? If you aren't close, you must admit he could be a conman who just made this up to make it easier to cover up his theft of other people's material and make it easier to sell his book. Maybe he's just using you as an online sales tool. For goodness sakes, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time writing about this man on the internet; a man who can only point to one writing credit as his justification as a creator. Marshal M 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a VERY good point, and so we again disagree. Again, thats the point of showing BOTH sides of a viewpoint. The reason it appears to you that I spend an inordinate amount of time writing about this man on the internet, is because people like you and Quode spend an inordinate amount of time doing the same thing. If I wrote an article about the Bill Clinton and everywhere I went Quode or you made changes I disagree with, we'd be having similar debates about Bill Clinton. This Randy Richards article we're discussing has been established and finished for over a year. I have written nothing about him during the in-between time, except an occasional minor update, like I do all my dated articles. What is your inordinate interest, might be a better question. All I did was add an update of his latest accomplishments and Quode went nuts (again), then you and the Coast Con zealots appeared to do his stalking for him. Malakai Joe 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while there are often two sides to an issue, the truth is that one side often makes no sense whatsoever. Some things are simply facts and some things are obviously not true. If you insist on retreating to sophistry, by definition I can't stop you. You shouldn't be surprised, however, if you insist their are two sides to something that by mere common sense is obvious, that people either 1) treat you like an idiot or or 2) conclude you think they are the idiots. Either way, they are unlikely to view you in a kind light.

The "accomplishment" you updated this article with was Mr. Richards getting his picture taken in a Star Trek costume and put in the newspaper next to an unrelated article. It is strange to me that someone would be roaming the internet looking for pictures of Randy Richards, find one, admire Mr. Richards' achievement at getting someone to take his photograph and put it in the Advocate, then feel it necessary to report this event to the world on a roleplaying wiki. Aside from the debatable achievement value of this occurance, (do you think he lists it on his resume?) its relevance to this article in of itself is close to nil. At least in my opinion. However, I thought it worthwhile, if this sort of thing really was considered relevant, to put it in context so the magnitude of what he really did achieve was understood by the reader.

As for CoastCon, your issues there are archived on the forum for anyone to see. If you want to continue to attack the institution, and in doing so deny the obvious, you will continue to get people who have personal knowledge challenging you. I know that you insist that you are not Randy Richards, despite your tendency to use phrases like "Coast Con zealots" that he has used in the past. Assuming that this is true, it doesn't make much sense to me that you would argue so vociferously against people with first-hand knowledge of an issue when you personally have none. Marshal M 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Denying the obvious" is a way of life for you people. I doubt if you will change anytime soon. You live in Bizarro world. Shamara 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We use his phrases because we are Randy Richards zealots, lol. I've attended his "DramaCon" panel discussion, have you? It was very enlightening about your "dying organization", and the "self-destructive, delusional inanity" he witnessed while part of it (quote are his words). Shamara 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No I haven't attended any such panel. I was unaware of any cons hosting programming events which consist entirely of Mr. Richards condeming CoastCon from the dizzying heights of his rightousness. Like all his foaming at the mouth about his numerous enemies, I'm sure it is very amusing. However, as is often the case with such things, any enlightenment gained on the part of the audience is usually about the person ranting. Marshal M 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If I tell you my real name you won't believe me anyway, so, as my son would say, "Whats the point mom?" Shamara 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what your name is. I will say, though, if you aren't Randy Richards, your dedication to his cause and comprehensive knowledge of the minutest details of his life is probably something he should know about. If he does, does Carol know too? Marshal M 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dramacon event, good, where and when please. If this was hosted by another con link the information here. I know babelcon did not nor will not host such an event. Nor will Babelcon allow itself to be draged in to a fight with Coastcon for any reason. Thats why Randy has to use puppets, he has no friends willing to lie for him on line. Quode 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I haven't been to such a panel or even, as far as I can tell, a convention as which such a panel was held. I would also be interested in knowing what con hosted a panel on savaging Coastcon. ConCarolinas? Dragoncon? It certainly wasn't Mobicon or Babelcon. (Mechacon is right out) R Smith

This is the sort of argument that ultimately backfired over on Wikipedia, isn't it, Malakai? Let's take it in order:

There were several statements without verification at the outset of this article. Edits that add clarification, verification and/or correction are not "vandalism". Cynthia Majure made no statements in this article. Her statements regarding Randy Richards were made at the CoastCon Governing Committee meeting and made part of the public record. You say she made an "unverified assertion". The contents of the CoastCon message board for the two months in question provide some verification, including Richards' own statements in some postings, should you care to spend time reading them. [Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 is interrupted]

I have spent time reading the entire coastcon message board you reference. I saw nothing that would indicate that Mr. Richards did anything wrong other than throw out ideas. That lunatic! We call it DramaCon because the pattern is this: Randy posts an idea, eight people go beserk, Randy says chill out, same eight people go beserk, Randy throws out another idea, same eight people go beserk, and on it goes ad nauseum. BabelCon does not appear to have people that go beserk over new ideas, which is why I guess he's been so successful over there. Shamara 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BabelCon does not appear to have any other active people, since virtually all of message board posts there are by Randy Richards. --Mad Dane 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 continues:] If Randy felt that he had a case for slander, libel and/or defamation, he could certainly have taken legal action by now. "Randy says she is a liar." Randy has also called her a psychotic. I believe Mr. Richards is a photographer and game designer, not a psychologist. She did not write the meeting notes, as you say; the minutes are clearly state "Minutes recorded by Lana White, Secretary." Absent any proof, your statement will not stand. The Governing Committee went over the points raised and Richards was offered the opportunity for rebuttal. Evidently, he failed to convince the Committee, as he was voted out. [Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 is interrupted]

So you are saying Lana White is the liar? Or that she wrote down Lana White wrote down Cynthia's lies? Either way, its a fine point at best. Shamara 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "fine point" is no point at all. I call neither Lana White nor Cynthia Majure a liar. I support the validity and accuracy of the minutes as reported. Spurious and scurrilous allegations against these people are without merit. --Mad Dane 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 continues:] As for verification from Necromancer Games: One of their editors (Erica) is specifically credited with raising the question concerning certain portions of Richards' manuscript. It is not merely "he said, he said": The powers that be at Necromancer Games considered it a serious enough issue to terminate the contract. If Randy felt that he had been the victim of a breach of contract, he could again have resorted to legal action. (Conversely, once Necromancer had terminated his business relationship with them, no further action was necessary on their part.) Yes, such companies may make mistakes, but they tend to be inordinately careful when it comes to questions which could result in legal action against them. [Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 is interrupted]

I do not disagree with this. There were also some politics involved, since it is known and verified with Necromancer that Richards was trying to get out of his contract. I am sure that played into the events too. Shamara 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is neither "known" nor "verified" beyond statements by Richards that he was (on advice of a lawyer, supposedly) trying to get out of his contract. --Mad Dane 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 continues:] Now Spellbinder Games is a fascinating story. Randy Richards has claimed they came to him to publish his book. He has also claimed in various statements that they started out as a business called "Spellbinder Books" in Mississippi; that they published children's books in the 1980s; that they had a physical location "on the beach near Ocean Springs" which was utterly wiped away by Katrina -- and yet their location was also claimed as being "on 30th Avenue" in Gulfport, MS, some 25 miles away from Ocean Springs. Spellbinder Games has also been identified as "New Orleans, Louisiana based publishing company" and as belonging to "Apotheosis Publishing" also claimed to be in New Orleans. The problem is not that Quode must prove what Richards says, but that Richards must. There has never been a Spellbinder Books on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, particularly not on 30th Avenue in Gulfport. No record of any alleged book titles from the 1980s has been turned up via the US Copyright Office, Library of Congress, WorldCat or ISBN directories, none of which were wiped out by Katrina. No phone listing on the Gulf Coast or in New Orleans for either Spellbinder Games or Apotheosis Publishing whether pre- or post-Katrina. The business address given for the latter is a residential address. The most recent address provided for Spellbinder Games (on its website) is in Baton Rouge. There is a corresponding lack of any business registration with the State of Louisiana. But perhaps most damning of all is the question of how, in a business such as the hobby gaming industry, which represents only a portion of every hobby dollar spent in this country, a minute company with only a single publication not only survives, but maintains any employee base whatsoever, or generates sufficient revenue from a single publication which is no more than a supplement to someone else's game system for the author of same to then take the proceeds to buy controlling interest in the company. There are only "real" facts. A "fact" which is not real is called a falsehood. So far, the facts do not favor Richards' statements. --Mad Dane 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have all the answers you seek about Spellbinder Books. Have you contacted Mr. Richards or Mark Williams directly to ask him these questions? A betting woman says no. Are you afraid he will provide answers that prove it existed prior to 2001? All of this sounds like paranoia run amock. May I suggest you e-mail Richards for the info? If I get the info myself, you won't accept it. Shamara 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The only questions regarded how a business such as Spellbinder Games is purported to be operates under the conditions described. In my association with the hobby gaming industry, since 1979, there has not been seen a single company that had evolved beyond the mimeograph machine in the garage that maintained that sort of operation solely on the output of a single published title. I have enumerated the holes in the rest of Richards' fiction, and already have sufficient quantities of information in that regard. --Mad Dane 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is quite annoying that one of my jobs as Coastcon Chairman seems to be maintaining vigilance against Randy's lies about the convention online. Cynthia Majeur was not the only person present at that meeting. Many people were there, most of whom I know personally. This is not just her word. As to the issues that brought about his remmoval, I remember watching them unfold in real time on the CC forum although I was not on the committee myself at the time. It does not all come down to Cynthia Majeur, this is not hearsay or "he said, she said." You are debating this with people who know what was said and done because they were there. Please, give up this nonsense about there being no such thing as truth, only viewpoints and allegations. Save it for a debate on epistemology. R Smith

Just because the people at the referenced meeting agreed to vote with their friend Cynthia doesn't make the lie any more factual, it just makes it a better lie. If you wouldn't support the lie so much, you wouldn't have to defend against it. However! We have a unique opportunity here. Since you were there, why don't you lay out the supporting evidence for the bulleted accusations made in the meeting minutes. Shamara 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly, Shamara. A groupthink lie is still a lie. But let's hear the evidence if you were there, R Smith. We're all agog. Malakai Joe 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you should reread what she wrote. She never claimed to have been at the meeting. It's odd that you should both make that mistake. It seemed pretty clear to me. Marshal M 21:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you insist that the entire committee were lying and part of a conspiracy against Randy Richards, it is fairly obvious where the paranoia in this discussion is. --Mad Dane 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote by R Smith, "As to the issues that brought about his remmoval, I remember watching them unfold in real time on the CC forum..." She was there. Waiting for that list of issues, in detail. Also hoping for proof, but that seems unlikely given the vagueness of all Cynthia's accusations. This enigmatic proof was allegedly presented at the meeting, so it must exist. Oh don't tell me - it was lost a few months later. Shamara 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Randy to tell you what it was? He was there, and was given a chance to refute each accusation. Of course, he doesn't seem to have managed too well doing so. --Mad Dane 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite. As I said already, I wasn't on the Governing Board at the time or present at that particular meeting. Board Membership changes from year to year. Cynthia Majeur hasn't been on the Board for 2 years now. Some of the issues relevant to his remmoval can be found in threads and messages archived from the Coastcon forum online. There is far too much for me to attempt to lay out here. If all that you can say is that all the witnesses against Randy are lying and the documentation is fabricated and only Randy himself is telling the truth and all that you know is what Randy told you then you have no justification for including any accusations against Coastcon or any of it's officers in this article for for disparaging the corporate records as lies. R Smith

Gencon 1998

Guest speaker activities from the on-site handbook 1998 Gen Con Game Fair

Gary Gygax Why the Greyhawk campaign has lasting appeal; New RPG Designing Dichotomies; Campaign Designing Techniques; Gygax answers all your questions;

Dave Arneson History of roleplaying; The Crusades; Castles in your campaign;

Randy Richards World of Grayhawk fan club Grayhawk AD&D cruise

Quode 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A question

The article is about Spellbinder Games. If one of the owners of the company says "We visited the moon last week," that quote, no matter how ridiculous, can be in the article, whether you believe the quote or not. It doesn't have to be factual at all -- if a Spellbinder employee said it, then it can go in the article as a quote. A disbeliever can then add wording about this "claim" being "unverifiable", and it can be called an "alleged" trip to the moon. Thats a neutral tone, containing both sides of the issue. Thats all we are asking. Why is this so hard for some people? Shamara 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki concept is about verifiable fact. What Randy says or claims is not fact. By creating cross checks with factual, supporting information we can see his statements are true. Just making statements does not make it true and proving the negative is impossible if the “fact” is not true or real. Take Spellbinder Games. It has no record anywhere before Randy himself announces its existence. As it serves to provide Randy a source of validation against the event at NG then we have to look at it. How is it the NG is rock solid and Spellbinder is not. There is no evidence anywhere from an independent, verifiable source that shows the existence of Spellbinder separate from Randy. This is the problem. The goal is not to then prove that Randy is wrong, it’s to prove him right. As an independent source I can’t do this, I honestly tried. Too many of his issues are like this. Take my review, same issue, now he claims I am Terri and in some way incapable of writing a review because of it. If I am Terri or not is not the point, if I can be subjective is. But again, the Terri person serves a purpose for Randy and again does not exist as a separate entity by herself, she only exists because Randy says she does and this claim again requires verification from a defined, verifiable source. This is why it’s so hard for me. Ken Quode 03:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And, again adding two cents, what purpose would be served by freighting an article about either the author, the book or the publishing entity with moonwash? Once that article becomes unreliable in terms of factual content, it has no value other than as a vanity peace for the subject thereof. --Mad Dane 04:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was nothing but neutral facts before the vandlism started. The unsupported statements have been recently added. For example, Cynthia Majure's claim that Randy did this that and the other is exactly that - an unverified assertion by Cynthia Majure. Randy says she is a liar. Given that Cynthia wrote the meeting notes, which is now being used as socalled "evidence" of Randy's misconduct, the core of the issue is a "he said, she said". There is nothing verifiable about her statements in the document. Same goes for the Necromancer Games issue. Its a "he said, he said" issue, with Randy claiming one story and Necromancer claiming another version. Even big companies make mistakes. The company Spellbinder Games is an issue whereas Randy says "this is the history is the company as I know it" and Quode says "I can't prove what you are saying". Well I can't prove the Pegasus Galaxy exists, nor can you prove its not there. I choose to believe the astronomers. Same in all these cases, it just depends on who you believe. So we publish both sides of the claims and alleged facts, as both sides have presented them, and let the reader decide which are the real facts. I am not wise enough to tell which set of facts that have been presented are the real facts for certain, although I know Randy wouldn't lie so I tend to believe his version of the story. You may have a differing viewpoint. And THATS the point. Its like when some people said George Bush hates black people because of what happened after hurricane Katrina. To these people, its a verifiable fact. People on the other side of the issue believe the facts speak to the opposite, that he loves black people. Which is the "truth"? Which is a "fact"? Malakai Joe 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary to post the same argument twice in the same discussion. One might think it was spam. --Mad Dane 09:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this last, as with much of this argument, is it ignores the actual existence of the facts in question. It is simply not the case that because people have positions on both sides of an issue as to whether some statement is true, in all likelihood at least one side is wrong. If I say, "there is a piano falling from that window you are standing under, so you had better get out of the way" and you say, "no there isn't, I'm standing right here," our disagreement will not save you from the consequences if I am right. Marshal M 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another example is the quote by president Clinton, "I did not have sex with that woman." The quote was in a Wiki article about Bill Clinton. Later Bill admitted he lied, and yet that quote is still in articles about Bill Clinton. We know the quote is not factual. Why include it? Its because the article is about Bill Clinton, and what happened to him, and the things he said along the way. Its the history of Bill Clinton. This article is the history of Randy Richards, whether his quoted statements turn out to be true or not is not relevant to including the quote. Malakai Joe 04:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Joe. Now you are resorting to the sort of argumentative tactics that ultimately got you booted from Wikipedia. If, however, Randy Richards wishes to go on record as making nonsensical quotes, such that no one can then take his "facts" seriously, he is certainly free to undermine his believability. --Mad Dane 09:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the case. As long as Randy Richards' statements are included solely for the purposes of establishing that he made them, that's fine. For example, if the article reads, "Randy says that he was approached by Spellbinder Games to publish Dreadmire," that is one thing. On the other hand, Randy Richards' claims that Spellbinder Games actually exists outside of his own person are something else entirely. No one posting here, including Shamara and Malakai Joe, have been able to offer any independent proof of this other than a website owned by Mr. Richards himself which is no longer active. Marshal M 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So now you can barely even prove Spellbinder Games exists, when we all know it does. Same problem in proving Spellbinder Books existed. When the ephemeral evidence is gone, only memory survives. Shamara 13:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again the silly "we" business. Spellbinder Games thusfar exists only as the publishing imprint on one book, with a website (currently defunct), an address-of-record in New Orleans which turns out to be a residential address, and a more recently publicized Baton Rouge address given on the now-defunct website which also serves as Randy's residential address and the business listing for Camera Krewe. The rest is demonstrable fabrication. As has already been stated earlier on this Discussion page, there is a complete lack of record for alleged previous publications. And Spellbinder Books simply did not exist, either "on the beach near Ocean Springs" or "on 30th Avenue" in Gulfport, which are mutually contradictory descriptions in any event. No need to rely on alleged "memories". Not every telephone directory on the Gulf Coast was destroyed by Katrina; indeed, I still have the one for 2005 on my reference shelf -- and Spellbinder Books, supposedly destroyed by Katrina, is nowhere to be found in a listing which predates August 2005. Not surprising, since the sales staff at Zocchi Distributors made a continuing and comprehensive effort to locate bookstores, game shops, hobby shops and comics shops across the Gulf Coast that might be added to Zocchi's client list. And Spellbinder Books was never there. --Mad Dane 17:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The New Orleans address in question, 2008 Milan St, has never been the location address for any business registered in Louisiana. It's been purely a residential address. No one named Mark Williams has ever claimed it as their address. The current occupant, residing there since 2003, is Rick Richards. Doesn't Randy have a brother named Rick? R Smith

That is correct. He was a business partner before the split. Now Randy offers the same service his brother used to, that is video. The whole thing is interesting I think as Randy has stated they had to many clients and split the partnership. Quode 17:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

According to page 1 of my Dreadmire book, under the "Copyrights and Credits" section, the address is 2800 not 2008. I recall one of his blog entries stating something about having to "find a place quickly" to which Spellbinder could continue operations for Dreadmire publication, which was due out a few months later. If it turns out to be a friend of Richards, I would hazard a guess it had something to do with Spellbinder Books being destroyed in Katrina. I realize many of you people are paranoid, but understanding context is important too, not just trying to dig up dirt Enquirer-style. Wipe the froth off your mouths and go see a psychiatrist. This is like a meeting of Stalkers Unite! Malakai Joe 20:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Apotheosis Publishing has this address, 2800 Milan st, suite A. New Orleans, LA 70115 before the flood. Another company that does not exist. Nice rant by the way. Ken Quode 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2800 Milan St? You mean the location of Petty African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church? It's been there for over a decade at least, but has been shuttered since Katrina. There's no Suite A there. R Smith This is interesting. Why does this comment of mine keep disappearing and who is doing it? Stop removing this, whoever you are, this is demonstrable fact, not slander or speculation.

Exactly. I knew we would all find common ground. Who was booted from Wikipedia and why??? Shamara 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Randy was, five times. Quode 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean when the article was removed by his enemies. Gotcha. Malakai Joe 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a funny way to describe the editors at Wikipedia, with whom such decisions rest. --Mad Dane 08:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The "editors" are normal people like we have here today, who like to edit Wikipedia. Malakai Joe 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The term I should have used was "the Adminstrators", as they are in fact the guiding force behind keeping Wikipedia from being nothing more that a useless mire where anything goes. It seems you consider the administrators to be on the ever-expanding Richards Enemies List. --Mad Dane 05:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Randys only enemy is the truth.Quode 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, we say the same thing about you. Malakai Joe 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "we," who do you mean exactly? Marshal M 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My gaming group. Malakai Joe 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Randy as Janus at CoastCon Boards

http://www.coastcon.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=207

Thanks for the buggy ride. I spent the better part of a week reading all the Janus threads and all I discovered is that some people there don't like Randy Richards. The reasons were unclear. Farfel 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For being a jerk dear, thats why. And he created the coastal foundation as well to watch dog them..and raised a 1000 dollers he never gave them. I see why he was thrown out, he is like a spoiled baby who cries if he does not have his way. He should be ashamed of himself. hes lucky they tolerated him so long, their such nice people to, suffering through that storm and still getting the con out. 2 of Hearts 07:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That may very well be true. It was not obvious from the forum posts. Farfel 04:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It was to a great many others. But so it goes. --Mad Dane 05:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The jerks all seemed to be on the CC side from what I read. Still an epic Geek Tragedy with no winners. 174.34.141.38 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they will all be broken-hearted to know you thought so. Have a nice day. --Mad Dane 06:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides. It looks like a standard flame war (much like this page). Basically much ado about nothing (much like this page). Farfel 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

There are so many conspiracy theories about Randy Richards that have been posted on this Talk page that I've lost track of them all. I don't have an explanation for every shadow-government accusation or concocted plot that casts Mr. Richards as Doctor No. If all the paranoid people that have posted here put their fantasy-creating talents to use, they could make some serious money writing one hell of an action/adventure story. Malakai Joe 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a conspiracy so much as a question about fact checking. There seems to be this elaborate and false history about this person. And for what? At least one researcher here is actually speaking about facts. Thanks Marshal M, Quode and the others who make my profession safe and keep the posters like Malakai Joe to the facts. His status on the Wikia reflects his intent and methods completely. As well as his complete lact of respect for the facts and this site.

Actually I haven't seen any conspiracy theories here. A conspiracy by definition requires more than one person, and the chief disagreements here involve the actions of one person, Randy Richards. The word theory, on the other hand, implies informed speculation. While there has been a certain amount of speculation here, there are more than enough easily verifiable facts to provide a reliable basis.

To begin, you are correct that Dreadmire has a "2800 Milan" address listed. At least the copy I was given does. It states that this is for "Apotheois Publishing" as opposed to Spellbinder Games. And, yes, Ms. Smith is correct that this not the address of a publisher, but the Petty A.M.E. Church, which is just off Claiborne. You can see it here:

http://tinyurl.com/bqru8c

Far from being "ephemera" that has disappeared or "theory," this building is still there -- boarded up and padlocked -- but still there. I know this because I had a few minutes after work and so took a moment to drive by. As you can see from the Google photo, there is clearly no "Suite A."

However, if you look up the registration for Spellbinder Games's website, the ubiquitous "Mark Williams" is listed as the administrator and 2008 Milan "Suite A" is listed as the address, not 2800. You can find this info here:

http://tinyurl.com/bw6ndt

Sometimes the link can take a couple of refreshes to reach its target, but if you get 500 error, keep trying. You'll notice that that there's a toll-free phone number included, (866) 254-3705. This is exchange is normally used by telemarketers. It also the same number provided in alphanumeric form in Dreadmire as belonging to Apotheosis. Not willing to pass up an opportunity to actually speak to Mr. Williams, I decided to call. Unfortunately, the person who answered the phone told me I had reached a company called "Capable Electrical Devices." Capable Electrical Devices in located in Largo, Florida:

http://tinyurl.com/bjynws

As you might imagine, they do electrical work. Spellbinder Games is listed in neither of the Baton Rouge nor the New Orleans phone books, so we have no other number for them. Of course, the most logical conclusion is that this is because the company never existed, but that might just be me. Marshal M 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here is questioning the raw data you just listed. What is being questioned is its interpretation as something nefarious. Don't forget you're referring to a time period right after a major catastrophe. Two years after Katrina my sister changed addresses a total of 9 times, 2 of which were mail drops while she was in transition elsewhere, and she had half as many phone numbers. Are you saying she was up to something? Shamara 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The data given was before the emergency, not after. And Randy, you can't seem to explain things very clearly. I find it interesting that one address is for your brother. It might be prudent to ask him why his address is shown as the publisher. Is he a silent partner? I do know that when it was noted above you had gone in to a rant. Interesting response. So, we have no store, no publisher. Anyone know the name of a good reporter, this reads like a good news story now. BTW, Randy is searching for more fame, perhaps one on this subject might do. Ken Quode 02:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm speculating, but its possible Spellbinder Games operated out of a residence right after the storm. If the brother's residence or a temporary FEMA trailer in the church parking was available, it would make sense that they briefly operated from there. Or they could have used it as a mail drop. I have no idea. Again, talk to Richards about it. You seem reluctant to contact him. Malakai Joe 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We are Randy and you see every word. Quode 09:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Time did not start over after Katrina, nor were all memories erased by the storm. This is not Paradigm City, after all. Naturally, some individuals and businesses have had to relocate post-Katrina. But records still remain for those that had real, no foolin' addresses, phone numbers, business licenses, etc., pre-Katrina. Apotheosis Publishing is obviously not one of them. Neither is Spellbinder Books nor Spellbinder Games. --Mad Dane 04:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's you're point, Mad Dane? I still can't prove Spellbinder Games exists, and we know the company is real (unless Dreadmire is a figment of all our imaginations). In 2007 I also tried to prove Dance Partners Photography existed, and I couldn't do that either. And we all know they are a "real, no foolin' addresses, phone numbers, business licenses" business allegedly since 2000, and yet I can find nothing on them pre-2008 (no printed phone book entry exists until 2008). We know for sure they at least existed in 2005 which is when I first learned about Randy Richards. I tried, in January 2009, to prove Camera Krewe exists, but again, no physical proof, and it was created over a year ago. They are not in the phone book (I am not counting online phone books because entries can be added by anyone, and therefore easily faked). Malakai Joe 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really. Someone tell me how to you prove (beyond the shadow of a doubt) that a legal "Doing Business As" company existed (the ones that aren't required to have licenses). Especially when the company is/was a home-based business. When the phone number was in someone's personal name. When the business is not in the printed phone book. When all the paperwork of that business was washed out to sea by a massive storm. Shoot, for all we know Randy Richards was lied to by the previous owner and he's just repeating bad information. Or he made an honest mistake and can't check his info now that its all gone. Or got his info from an employee that didn't know the whole story. Ot the previous owner got it wrong from the owner before that. You're filling in the gaps with nefarious interpretations when a mundane answer is just as, if not more, likely. Shamara 05:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So you finally gave up on deleting this whole entry after several tries and decided to hazard some smoke and mirrors? I too lived through Katrina and currently live not far from that area of Milan St. I don't need to speculate about the situation in New Orleans. There was never any FEMA trailer lot on the property of Petty AME. Business registrations in the area were not washed out into the Gulf. They're kept on computers, not in filing cabinets. We lost not a single bit of information about who owned what business and where it was located. "The previous owner got it wrong from the owner before that"? An employee gave him bad information? That doesn't even make sense. How does a business owner and/or everyone who works for him not know where they're located? Couldn't they just go outside and look at the address on their building if they were in doubt? Katrina didn't cause amnesia. I find it doubtful that the supposed employees of this alleged business would after a few months suddenly forget where they'd been going to work all those years. Books are subject to sales tax in Louisiana so publishers and booksellers do have to be registered with the state(as do photographers), home-based or not, and Apotheosis isn't. Being home-based doesn't mean that a business doesn't have to be registered and licensed. It just means that it may be easier for them to skirt the law without being caught. Are you implying that Randy and his publisher and partners have been evading taxes for years in that way? Maybe the Department of Revenue should know about this. R Smith

I didn't delete anything that I am aware of. I worked at a Blockbuster for 5 years and I never knew its address. I had no need to. I knew where it was. I don't even remember what street it was on, let alone the number. But thats NOT the point. The point is there are at least a few dozen mundane reasons for the few pieces of info you have that are more plausible than the nefarious suppositions behind every move he makes. And you did it again in your last paragraph, jumping straight to the extreme causation of "tax evasion" rather than a more mundane and plausible explanation. Just off the top of my head... maybe another company owned by Randy owns the DBA, and they pay the taxes and license fees. This guess may not be likely, but I am sure there are legal ways of explaining the raw data. What is unlikely, is your ability to persume any mundane or legal reasons (rather than assume the cloak & dagger explanations). Shamara 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The point should be obvious to anyone by now, "Joe" and "Sham". That you can still ignore it comes as no surprise. That Dreadmire exists proves nothing else beyond the book having been printed. The "Spellbinder Games" imprint is as fictional as any of the fanciful swamp critters in the book. (Go to any print-on-demand publisher -- for example, LuluPress.com -- and you can, if you wish, create your own imprint for your published work. It does not magically create either a company or employees thereof.) Certainly, by providing a physical address for "Apotheosis Publishing," Dreadmire actually helped disprove the existence of that entity, since the given address in New Orleans has been occupied for years by the Petty Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church. Or did that publisher give Richards bad information too? What tripe.

Again with the nefarious explanations! As was said, it could have been a mail drop (maybe for fan mail?), a temporary location to set up a post-storm camp, or without a residence after the storm it could simply have been a dummy address that was used until they could obtain a new location, or a typo. It could have been any number of mundane things. There was a lot of chaos after the storm. And the best question is - who cares? Its just the normal part of doing business in the real world. Shamara 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, people operating legal DBAs do have to concern themselves with tax permits, relevant city, county/parish, and state requirements and other legal niceties. If they don't, that's between them and the appropriate state and federal agencies. But, that's not my problem.) --Mad Dane 08:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you suggest a nefarious activity when mundane and perfectly legal loopholes are everywhere in the business world. For example, even though newspaper delivery people appear to be employees of their newspaper company, they are not. In most states, no taxes are collected from their paychecks. Its a legal trick -- the newspaper company reports to the IRS that they "sell" the newspapers to the delivery person, who in turn "resells" these newspapers to the homeowners and businesses. At the end of the month, the newspaper company "buys back" any unsold copies from the delivery people. I could give a few hundred examples like this, but you see my point -- a very legal, mundane loophole. Shamara 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Shamara/Malakai Joe proposes an interesting idea: Randy Richards submitted his work to a publisher which had no other properties to publish, taking the word of one employee who may have lied to him or not known the address or phone number of his or her employer. He put this information in Dreadmire inviting people to contact Apotheosis Publishing. The editors at Apotheois never noticed this incorrect information or if they did, decided they didn't care that completely incorrect information about their company was going out in the only book they published.

At no time in this process did the author ever visit Apotheosis/Spellbinder, never called them, never sent them mail and never received any mail -- not even a check. Subsequently, he took his profits from the sale of Dreadmire and bought the company "with a consortium of fantasy authors," even though he still had never been to Spellbinder's office.

I suppose that, considering all kinds of strange things and bizarre things do occur in this world, this might have happened. That being said, I think this idea is, well let's call it implausible to say the least. Instead, the "mundane answer" is the easiest. Randy Richards invented Spellbinder Games and Apotheosis as a cover for the fact that he was self-publishing Dreadmire after Necromancer rejected it. I would note, that one of the advantages to this explanation is that it does not presuppose that Mr. Richards is a complete moron -- just dishonest. The Shamara/Malakai Joe scenario requires this presupposition, which is probably going to far.

Presupposition, yes. I believe EVERY POST on this ENTIRE PAGE oozes with presupposition, mine and yours included. Shamara 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, some of these posts offer substance and fact, little of which has been offered in Richards' defense. --Mad Dane 03:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that this theory also concedes that Mr. Richards is not a reliable source for any information about Apotheosis or Spellbinder at all. Even though he was published by them and claims to have bought the alleged company, if what you write is true, he has no idea who was published by or what he purchased. Marshal M 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. At least we're thinking outside the nefarious box now. It could be that the name of the company was the only thing that was purchased. That wouldn't require knowing (or caring) much about the history of the company, or at least detailed minutia of its history. We're not talking about national mega-corporations here, we're talking about podunk home-based companies owned by inexperienced business people in small towns. But again, that may be too mundane for the plot-twisters. Shamara 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

However, setting aside the nonsensical puffery about "nefarious" boxes, the argument you now espouse actually underscores and reinforces the assessment at which adminstrators originally arrived on Wikipedia proper; i.e., that Randy Richards, his book and alleged company all were less than noteworthy for inclusion. --Mad Dane 03:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would note that, the way I read them, the observations here about "Spellbinder's" failure to comply with the laws relating to business licensing, taxes and so on were offered as evidence that the company does not exist because there are no records -- not to be busybody per se. However, if you are Randy Richards and you are reading this talk page, you would probably be well advised to consider these facts for your own professional benefit.

Which is another of my points. Busybodies abound here. Shamara 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of course. However, it is thanks to "busybodies" -- contributors, editors, administrators, et al -- who contribute to pages such as these that the Wikis do not collectively descend into useless fantasy role-playing by individuals who would be better engaged playing "the Sims". --Mad Dane 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, since Mr. Richards has gone to great lengths to put the minutest details of his business and social affairs on the internet as part of exercise in self-promotion, he has probably conceded any claim to privacy in these things. He obviously passionately desires to be a public figure. In this sense he has succeeded -- for better and certainly for worse. However, he can hardly complain about it. Marshal M 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this before. I am guessing thats the work of his publicist, because it sells books. Richards has stated at lectures that he detests being a public figure. Its the nature of the business he's in, so he's going to have to live with it, like it or not. Shamara 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

a LIE IS A lIE as my folks would say. Another piece in the puzzle. Randy has a publicist, dont make me laugh, he can barly afford to eat let alone maintain a publicist. Quode 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"His publicist"? So that is the individual who uses Randy Richards' screen name and accounts on numerous message boards to call attention to him? If Richards so despises the limelight with whichever business vexes him so, he would be better served to focus his promotions more upon his book and less upon himself or the byzantine mythology of a one-note-wonder publisher; or upon the club to which he belongs and its convention moreso than self-aggrandizing photo-ops that mention neither club nor event; or upon his photography/video studio without making himself the most photographed model on his website. To borrow from the bard, the man in the spotlight "doth protest too much, methinks." --Mad Dane 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Barely Afford to Eat

Where are you getting this 'can barely afford to eat' crap from? Do you have any evidence of it? Or is this another branch of your elaborate nefarious plot threads? Shamara 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For a man who can "barely afford to eat" he sure is doing a lot of TV advertising for his photography business. I've been seeing them for over a month now. Sometimes its a girl's voiceover, sometimes its a man's voiceover, but its otherwise the same commercial. TV ads aren't for people that can barely afford to eat, I assure you. Malakai Joe 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Shamara 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So Randy is having money issues due to spending 50K per comercial to purchase air time on major newtworks? And all this to earn 2000 for a wedding shoot. To funny.

Local network stations (abc/cbs/nbc) can do what's called ad insertions. A local biz could get away with a few thousand dollars a month for those. Jacobi 04:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what is so good about advertising with one's local cable provider. One can target one's market more effectively (for example, Lifetime is a good market for bridal photography promotion; Sci-Fi is a good channel to target for a genre-related club or convention), and do so on a very modest advertising budget. If one does one's own in-house videography, the savings will stretch even a small budget further. One could even "comp" some production time for air time, and both the cable provider's advertising department and the advertiser benefit. Worked nicely for an associate of mine dabbling in freelance production work on a shoestring. --Mad Dane 08:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the tv commercials a few times on Lifetime & TLC. Both versions are available on his video site http://www.youtube.com/user/CameraKrewe Jacobi 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen them way too many times during General Hospital, Dr. Phil and Oprah. I wish they would spread them out over time rather than blast you all at once, like Verizon sometimes does. :There are orders of magnitude differences in "shoestring budget" vs. "barely afford to eat". And Randy hardly looks like a man on a low calorie diet. Shamara 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether Richards overindulges or simply subsists on a low-budget, high-calorie junk diet is of no consequence to me. Quode thinks he's impoverished. I merely point out that he can do all this ballyhooed advertising on a far more modest budget than some people seem to grasp. By participating as a local advertiser with his cable provider, he can judiciously acquire ad slots either geared only toward selected target-markets (e.g., Lifetime Channel) or go for insertion in available "local" slots on the network channels carried by the cable. It is neither a measure of some phenomenal business success nor is it germane to the question of credibility for his claims concerning Spellbinder Games, etc. It is more in keeping with one of Richards' favorite overworked words, "obfuscation", something we see rather a lot of when Randy or his surrogates are confounded by facts. --Mad Dane 04:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you can't buy off-air network commercials on cable because their contracts with the local tv stations forbid it. Ad insertions can only be done on purely cable channels. I worked for a network station once upon a time. Jacobi 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's where our information disagrees, as one who also has such experience. --Mad Dane 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats like the pot calling the kettle black. Except that Quode and his surrogates are often confounded by reality. What confounds me are the tangled webs of conspiracy theories he and his surrogates weave. Malakai Joe 10:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's that obfuscation. Q. E. D. --65.1.32.156 11:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BOTH SIDES of this political war are spouting off "obfuscation". Where I come from its called BS. Everyone on this page is shoveling it like like there's no tomorrow. I came here because I saw the "Randy Richards" article had bumped into the top 5. Well Dreadmire arrived today and I still have no idea what the fuss is all about. The author can take a flying leap off a bridge for all I care. So can his fans and their oppononents. What does it change? Nothing. Jacobi 17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was probably a mistake. I'll get attacked by both sides now. I'm outta here. Jacobi 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you simply expressed yourself. Somewhat vehemently. I don't see the "political" angle in trying to keep the Article honest, but your mileage may vary. --Mad Dane 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the delusionary malcontents you have to watch out for. They attack us on a regular basis. Malakai Joe 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacked? No. Just fact-checked. However, the reaction was predictable. --Mad Dane 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that Quode never answered the "barely afford to eat" question. Wonder who could have intimate knowledge of a man's household? Let's see -- a family member, sure. A close friend, of course. An ex-girlfriend? Naw, thats ridiculous. Her information would be out of date. Wait a second... Malakai Joe 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Freudian slip, Quode? Oops. Shamara 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was gathering cans of food for Randy so he will not starve, what was the question again?Quode 19:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyberstalker Quode

Well Quode, ex-girlfriend or not, a number of key cyberstalking factors have been identified:

• False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.

For example, when I completed the review at NG games Randy decided to damage my reputation by claiming I was his ex-girlfriend. He has posted this info on many sites whenever I ask any questions in regards to his claims. As he has no answers he falls back to victimizing his questioners, as he has no way to refute legitimate complaints.Quode 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.

Randy made use of my credit card information he gained when I purchased Dreadmire from him. Using my home address he states that Terri lives here, if she is an X-girl friend how did she get all they way out here. How is it he is still tracking her, does his wife know of this Terri, it seems Randy still has his eye on her. Perhaps she is why he was forced to divorce. Quode 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.

Again, we have Randy claiming at other sites I am his stalker so I will be either blocked or disregarded. He is so afraid of what I have to say he even warns sites of my imminent attacks, lol. Quode 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases. Shamara 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I really dont care what Randy claims. The on line record speaks for me not him. Sorry, but this Terri game is childish,you cant make me angry Randy as I pity you to much. And please, friends, send him a can of corn, he really needs it. Quode 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When the weight of all the substantive argument gets too much for Richards, we can always count on this tiresome tripe to try to start the routine all over again, recycling the bilge we already waded through. BTW, if Richards wants to claim a guy is his "ex-girlfriend", that might just be more information about Richards than anyone needs. It still doesn't pull Spellbinder Games out of a hat or put Apotheosis Publishing in the Petty Memorial AME Church on Milan Street or change the "nefarious" facts. --Mad Dane 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Articles

I have an idea. Why don't you vandalize other Randy Richards & Spellbinder Games articles for a while, since you seem to love doing it so much. I received an e-mail notice that one I've been watching has been updated today: http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Spellbinder_Games Shamara 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another idea, Shamara. How about you not link to my wiki with an overt recommendation that someone vandalize it? Thanks. -- Thekohser 01:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thekohser, if you could remove the attack pages that Juggernaut/Randy has left by creating a false user page then accusing me of being a vandal I would appreciate it. BTW very nice site, you may wish to look at the business article for spellbinder, it seems to have become an ego piece for Randy and not a legitimate business listing. The older version is better. Regards Quode 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Juggernaut/Randy", LOL. That dude is everywhere to you, isn't he? He's your boogeyman. Everyone on the Internet can't be Randy Richards. Or can he...? (cue mysterious Flamusic) Malakai Joe 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem very poor form to suggest that refuting unsubstatiated claims somehow equates with "vandalism" -- to say nothing of how wrongheaded it is to suggest that someone actually commit vandalism of a site! One might even call it "nefarious". --Mad Dane 04:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, one of the founding tenets of MyWikiBiz.com is that in Directory space, we kick NPOV to the curb. In its place, we've established APOV -- advocate point-of-view. If someone wants to create an "ego piece" about themselves on my wiki, that's sort of the whole point of my wiki. One thing I won't do is get all immersed in the wiki-drama that Jimmy Wales and the Wikia crowd seem to depend on for revenue. So, if you want to join MyWikiBiz and make your own counter-page or whatever, knock yourself out. I don't tolerate libel, and I don't tolerate vandalism. Oh, and if you embed Google AdSense ads on your Directory page(s) at MyWikiBiz, I do something a little different than Jimmy Wales and Wikia: you keep 100% of the revenues your page(s) generate, for the rest of your life. Here on Wikia, Jimbo and his investors keep all the money to themselves, and you slave away, contributing free content to that process. Each to his own, I guess. -- Thekohser 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Save Randy from Starvation

Please friends, as you shop please pick up a can or two of food for Randy and give it to him when you see him. He attends events for Babelcon and other groups. As an act of charity feel free to give him a bag or two of food. We can’t let him starve, please I pray out of all human compassion save Randy Richards. Quode 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Inane Screed

There is no proof on either side of this retarded argument that would sway me - or any unbiased, reasonable person - to have an opinion one way or the other. The Janus/Coastcon thread shows nothing but this same stupid crap, with all the same assumptions, speculations, alleged claims, and hatred on both sides of this fence, none of which will ever be solved by endless ranting and raving. Both camps are too close to the issues to be able to make rational judgments, and all voices are talking but no one is listening. If you take satisfaction from hammering down your enemies with words then I suppose this flame war stuff is fun for you. Its nothing but mindless drivel to everyone else, and makes both sides look like morons. Over what? An esoteric, self-aggrandizing author who may have lied, who is also found annoying by some people, and wants fame through promotions? Gosh, thats unique. I believe that describes most every author in the entire world. So Quode, you stop cyberstalking (dude, not taking sides here, but you seriously need some help) and spend time with your family, Randy Richards fans go back to your games and ignore future dustups, Randy Richards please don't lie to get ahead, Coastcon people run your conventions and stop the hate. If you don't? Hey, guess what - no one outside either of your inner circles cares one iota about this ridiculous drivel. So its the same either way. You're simply preaching to the choir. May the farce be with you. Donnagy 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was lots of heat for little light. --65.1.63.123 01:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes me laugh, for all the fun Randy is having calling us names and such, he cant face the real issues. It makes me laugh, really. For 5 years now he has hid behind a mask of lies. I truly pity him. I do. Such a poor and broken man. Quode 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank god I reached the bottom. You know, Q-man, paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. 174.34.141.38 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was always told that the most dangerous thing on earth was "a second-lieutenant with a clipboard." I may have to revise that in favor of "drive-thru psychiatrists." --Mad Dane 06:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Silly Game Portion of Discussion

Congratulations to all fans and haters for elevating Randy Richards' popularity to an all time high ranking: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Top/most_visited Malakai Joe 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that the whole edit-war nonsense you've been a party to lately was solely for the benefit of your (or Richards') having bragging rights about traffic volume. --Mad Dane 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats the problem with OCD, no matter how much benefit haters give Randy, their obsession with him will continue unabated. Shamara 19:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. I am always amazed at self-destructive behavior. Its like their learning center is impaired or something. Malakai Joe 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LMAO...! One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result". I'd say those malcontents are on their way. Shamara 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're all mental in my book. 85.25.152.185 21:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You know Quode its possible to be neutral or like the book without being Randy Richards. Christ sake. Farfel 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in Quode's mind. But you're not fooling anyone Quode/Farfel/MadDane/etc Malakai Joe 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, Malakai Joe, you and Quode are becoming two sides of the same coin. You have become just as obsessed with the notion that all the posters here critical of Randy Richards are Quode as Quode has been insistent that your clique are all Richards. In the end, it is irrelevant to the substance which supports facts presented in this Discussion page. And that you have seen fit to try to delete all those details en masse speaks volumes to how little confidence you have in your own arguments. --Mad Dane 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No argument here. Its one of the reasons I buy into the disgruntled stalker girlfriend allegations. It fits the pattern on both sides. Shamara 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Word. 85.25.152.185 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Like they say, "Your mileage may vary." --74.241.204.19 07:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/3639/t/Randy-Richards-strikes-again-unfortunately.html

http://spellbindergames.yuku.com/topic/365

http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/867

Fighting Cyberstalking

An exploration of predatory behavior in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers by Leroy McFarlane and Paul Bocij

Bocij, Paul. Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family. Praeger, 2004, pp. 12-13.