# Edition wars, cross-gender threads, what's next?



## der_kluge (Mar 25, 2005)

So, apparently we can't have a civil discussion about cross-gender role-playing. That's a shame, I was having a good discussion.

And I admit I get pretty passionate about edition wars.

So, what's left?

What's going to be the next big flamewar?  Do we need to have a "which race is the best" thread?  I can't think of anything else that might make people as fired up as these other topics.

I am a bit curious to know what the rationale is behind closing threads. I mean, it's like taking away the ball and saying, "now no one can play".  Are we being too hasty when that's done?  Wouldn't a better solution be to simply ask the offending parties to not post in the thread anymore?  Or even ban them for a week if they attempt to. Closing the thread punishes everyone.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 25, 2005)

Those conversations went on pretty long before eruptingf.  The cross gende rdiscussion had three threads going on itand I feel that a lot of good discussion happened before those got closed.  

Edition wars I feel the same way, they have been discussed a lot and I'm not sure if there are any good points to be made on them.  So, I don't feel really cheated about either of these topics going flame thrower on us.


----------



## hong (Mar 25, 2005)

Alignment wars, bay-bee!


----------



## LeifVignirsson (Mar 25, 2005)

Dice vs. Dice programs?

Character generators vs. Pen and Paper?

Breathing vs. Undead?

I am sure there is more, I just can't think of anything at the moment... When it comes down to it, people will argue and fight about everything and anything... Thus the reason why I don't have access to signature stuff any longer... But I won't go into that because no one wants to here me flame out... Wait... isn't that the point of the thread?


----------



## Crothian (Mar 25, 2005)

dice verse point buy


----------



## Turjan (Mar 25, 2005)

I find it funny in comparison to rpg.net, where you are allowed to make political and religious remarks. There, the language often suffers on the grandma-friendly side, but they somehow manage to get along. Here, the discussions are most of the time much more serious. What really surprises me is that also the flame wars get much more serious, with real casualties . And this with a topic like cross gender PCs, where I don't really see the potential for deep personal involvement. Somehow, I don't get it.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Mar 25, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Those conversations went on pretty long before eruptingf.  The cross gende rdiscussion had three threads going on itand I feel that a lot of good discussion happened before those got closed.
> 
> Edition wars I feel the same way, they have been discussed a lot and I'm not sure if there are any good points to be made on them.  So, I don't feel really cheated about either of these topics going flame thrower on us.




I think alot of the "gender crossing" thread got to the point of becoming way too personal. Especially when people were talking about RL issues they'd been through rather than pertaining to their characters.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Mar 25, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I find it funny in comparison to rpg.net, where you are allowed to make political and religious remarks. There, the language often suffers on the grandma-friendly side, but they somehow manage to get along. Here, the discussions are most of the time much more serious. What really surprises me is that also the flame wars get much more serious, with real casualties . And this with a topic like cross gender PCs, where I don't really see the potential for deep personal involvement. Somehow, I don't get it.




There's more stuff that can be talked about here than there is over on the WOTC boards. They forbid jack chick there, which I can understand as that topic becomes flamey real quick! And the gender-crossing thread would've been reported and shut down long ago. They also ban religion and politics. I've seen a tidbit of both here but not so bad as to start a flame war over it. :whew!:


----------



## Turjan (Mar 25, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> There's more stuff that can be talked about here than there is over on the WOTC boards. They forbid jack chick there, which I can understand as that topic becomes flamey real quick! And the gender-crossing thread would've been reported and shut down long ago. They also ban religion and politics. I've seen a tidbit of both here but not so bad as to start a flame war over it. :whew!:



Oh, this was not my point. I was not really complaining that this board is too restrictive. I was just wondering why these topics develop into such serious fights despite the relatively restrictive atmosphere here. Maybe, it's just because I can't take insults like you'll get them on rpg.net too seriously *shrug*.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 25, 2005)

LeifVignirsson said:
			
		

> ... I don't have access to signature stuff any longer...



 Really? That must be a bug or a misunderstanding. 'cause that'd be way more than intended. I'll PM you - we'll find the problem, if any.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> I am a bit curious to know what the rationale is behind closing threads. I mean, it's like taking away the ball and saying, "now no one can play". Are we being too hasty when that's done? Wouldn't a better solution be to simply ask the offending parties to not post in the thread anymore? Or even ban them for a week if they attempt to. Closing the thread punishes everyone.




It's not a punishment; it's an attempt to keep things civil.

It's because the moderator in question would then need to sit up all night watching the thread - which he (understandably) can't and/or won't do.  If the topic shows itself to be a flammable one (for want of a better word) and has already erupted, removing those who have flamed so far won't necessarily solve the problem; the topic itself will likely cause others to do so.  In those cases, it's usually best to give the topic a rest and let everyone calm down.


----------



## Gez (Mar 25, 2005)

Hitler is not the only reason to close a thread, despite what Godwin would want you to believe.

When people start talking about their RL issues and blaming them on other board users (!), nothing good can come by keeping them in the discussion.

I think that, if I were one of the programmers at Jelsoft or another messageboard software company, I'd work on a feature allowing to ban users from a thread. It could be a nice alternative to closing the thread. That way, the serious conversation could continue.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Mar 25, 2005)

I was really dissappointed to see the cross-gender threads closed down (and after I'd convinced Harmon that things weren't as bleak and hostile as he believed - allow me to wipe this egg off my face!  :\  ).  Some really great conversation spoiled in the end by just a few users.

Oh well the thread had just about run its course anyway.  Maybe in a few weeks/months the topic can be revisited.

die_kludge - I disagree about not being able to have civil discussion about cross-gender PCs.  Those threads were very civil and it really was the actions of a few that spoiled it for all.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 25, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I find it funny in comparison to rpg.net, where you are allowed to make political and religious remarks. There, the language often suffers on the grandma-friendly side, but they somehow manage to get along. Here, the discussions are most of the time much more serious. What really surprises me is that also the flame wars get much more serious, with real casualties . And this with a topic like cross gender PCs, where I don't really see the potential for deep personal involvement. Somehow, I don't get it.




i find it funny you think that way.

there is real hate over at rpg.net b/c of their policy.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 25, 2005)

hong said:
			
		

> Alignment wars, bay-bee!



my mechanic, Ray, does alright by me. my truck is running smoothly.


i think lawful st00pid pallys are the next big thing.


----------



## hong (Mar 25, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> my mechanic, Ray, does alright by me. my truck is running smoothly.




What is this "truck" of which you speak? I'm talking about 32-bit alignment vs 64-bit alignment in compilers. It's just unholy, I tell you.




> i think lawful st00pid pallys are the next big thing.




For best results, combine with chaotic greedy theives and rouges.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> dice verse point buy




Doritos vs Cheeze Curlz.


----------



## hong (Mar 25, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Doritos vs Cheeze Curlz.



 Ford vs Holden.


Hong "only Austrians will get this joke" Ooi


----------



## der_kluge (Mar 25, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> I think that, if I were one of the programmers at Jelsoft or another messageboard software company, I'd work on a feature allowing to ban users from a thread. It could be a nice alternative to closing the thread. That way, the serious conversation could continue.




That's the solution I'd like to see. I wouldn't think that that would be terribly hard to implement.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 25, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> That's the solution I'd like to see. I wouldn't think that that would be terribly hard to implement.




Personally, I walk away from threads and post that 'I perceive' as flames for a day and then see how things are.  I would like to see a 'time out period', where a thread is closed for a day or two and then re-opened to continue dicussions, allowing the posters to relax a bit and think about the topic. 

Just because I don't like the things a posters puts in a post, does not mean I don't respect the poster.


----------



## JimAde (Mar 25, 2005)

Bigendian vs. Littleendian

Jim "only computer geeks will get this one" Ade.


----------



## devilish (Mar 25, 2005)

Hong v. Diaglo  !!!!


----------



## Darkness (Mar 25, 2005)

devilish said:
			
		

> Hong v. Diaglo  !!!!



 I.e., irresistible force vs. immovable object.


----------



## Mark (Mar 25, 2005)

_Less filling..._


----------



## diaglo (Mar 25, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i think lawful st00pid pallys are the next big thing.





http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2120445#post2120445post2120445


----------



## der_kluge (Mar 25, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> Bigendian vs. Littleendian
> 
> Jim "only computer geeks will get this one" Ade.




RISC vs. CISC.


----------



## der_kluge (Mar 25, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Personally, I walk away from threads and post that 'I perceive' as flames for a day and then see how things are.  I would like to see a 'time out period', where a thread is closed for a day or two and then re-opened to continue dicussions, allowing the posters to relax a bit and think about the topic.
> 
> Just because I don't like the things a posters puts in a post, does not mean I don't respect the poster.




I like that idea as well.

What say ye, Moderators?


----------



## thalmin (Mar 25, 2005)

_Tastes great._


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Mar 25, 2005)

_Ginger._


----------



## Darkness (Mar 26, 2005)

The following is a brief analysis of potential problems, based on my experience with message boards, here and elsewhere.
It's not quite an opinion or recommendation, for or against - just some things to consider.




			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> I like that idea as well.
> 
> What say ye, Moderators?



 Now, if a thread is so far gone that it has to be closed, I see little hope for it. Generally speaking, obviously.

As for pre-emptively closing a problematic thread for a few days so it can cool down... Theoretically, it might work sometimes. Practically, I suspect it would often require heavy moderation to get - and keep - such a thread back on track. (And even then, it would be a lost cause for a non-insignificant percentage of threads.)

It would certainly require a lot of additional work from the moderators, as well as potentially more heavy-handed moderation in many cases. Which leads to more attacks by offenders and some other people looking for something - anything - to be offended about. (Which contributes to moderator burnout. Trust me, it's not pretty.)

Does that make it unfeasible? Not necessarily. But it certainly means it's difficult.

And if we're going to do it, be prepared for me to say the following in moderator posts in such threads a lot (and close the thread if it's ignored enough to wreck the thread):

"Do not respond to personal attacks, inflammatory blanket generalizations, or other rules violations. Just report the post and move on."

It's one thing to take care of a specific troublesome poster. It's much more difficult if others feed the troll (and keep the flames alive) by responding to unacceptable posts.


----------



## Henry (Mar 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> I like that idea as well.
> 
> What say ye, Moderators?




It already happens, just not in that form.

When a thread topic is not inherently flame-inducing, but a given thread gets heated, we close the thread, the respondents move on to other things, and a few weeks later if the interest is still there, someone else totally unrelated usually starts said thread, and cooler heads usually post. We might have to pop in to remind newcomers to remain friendly, but it progresses from there.

The idea of closing a thread for a few days and then monitoring it to re-open has two problems in my mind:

1) I don't care to make a list of things to search for and monitor after a few days just to reopen them, post to them so as to make them rise back into public consciousness, and thereby bring them to the attention of all who were flaming in them before.

2) Take a look back at the date and time stamps of these most recent threads, and see how long they were going on. Most threads of a long-running nature last for days as it is, with no sign of tempers cooling in the event of a nasty argument. If a thread will go a week of posting as-is with slowly increasing vitriol until the boiling point of closing is reached, it will take more than a couple of days (more like, say, a few weeks) for people who are passionate about it to get back to level.

The idea of banning particular users who were offensive from a thread is an interesting idea, and if Jelsoft could do it successfully in this day and age of spoofed IP's, duplicate names & e-mail addresses, and other sneaky tricks, I'd be all for it. But the next best alternative is if someone is a repeated problem for other posters, we just ban them entirely, and using our devious wiles, make sure they STAY banned. 

So while a nice idea, and we've discussed similar approaches in the past, it's not one that has ever struck us as being easily implemented.


----------



## der_kluge (Mar 26, 2005)

I think the real solution is to make me a moderator. So I can just ban anyone that doesn't agree with me!  

Or, better yet, find some way to keep controversy from following me everywhere!


----------



## Crothian (Mar 26, 2005)

You obviously need to start more threads, they can't all be this bad so the more you start the more non flame ones you will have


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 26, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> _Ginger._



Mary Ann


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Or, better yet, find some way to keep controversy from following me everywhere!



HA!    Diaglo, stop stalking die_kluge!  

But that does bring up a point, we as posters have options, the use of smiles, placing statemments in parentheses (I may be wrong here or playing devil's advocate or fooling myself) to even a disclaimer, all can be used to keep threads from getting out of control.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 27, 2005)

So, where are all the people proclaimning these folks in the new race and class threads as bad role players?  I'm amazed at some of the reasons.  And I thought I had problems


----------



## arwink (Mar 27, 2005)

hong said:
			
		

> Ford vs Holden.




I lived on the edge of the Gold Coast indy for about six years, and I've been asked that question by far to many drunk guys looking to pick a fight.  

Yech, thanks for the memories.  If that debate breaks out here, my pedestrian self is leaving


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Mar 28, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Oh, this was not my point. I was not really complaining that this board is too restrictive. I was just wondering why these topics develop into such serious fights despite the relatively restrictive atmosphere here. Maybe, it's just because I can't take insults like you'll get them on rpg.net too seriously *shrug*.




Because everyone has their own POV about things like these and stuff tends to fly when someone disagrees with them. Both subjects are volatile subject matter.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Mar 28, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i find it funny you think that way.
> 
> there is real hate over at rpg.net b/c of their policy.





And I've seen a board over here on AOL that has gotten rather nuke-level flamey over religious arguments that get out of hand since that board has no moderator. Sure there's a guy who moderates OTHER boards who posts there..... but since it's not his job to patrol that particular board......  :\


----------

