# This is why we can't have nice things.



## Deset Gled (Aug 15, 2009)

This is far from the first time this has happened, but it's the first time that it's happened when I actually have the time to post a mini-rant about it, so here goes...

I was reading this thread today - http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-worst-type-encounter-you-hate-write-up.html - when I was struck by the rancor in posts #3 and #7.  This is a thread that started out completely edition-neutral, and within the first 10 posts has two utterly scathing, flame-baiting, edition-war style posts with practically no back up or comments worth discussing.  It is worth noting that (most) posts like this are in not bad enough to warrant Moderator intervention, but they are also posts that do practically nothing to further discussion of any topic.  

These are the type of comments that have led to the edition war bans, and are what lead people to thinking that ENWorld is a hostile, unhappy place.  It's well veiled thread crapping; it's hatred seething out in a socially acceptable manner.  Posts like this are not limited to one side or the other, and they come from both newbies and members that have been here for years.  

I would also like to pat kitsune9 on the back for post 14, where (s)he takes what started as mindlessness, and built on it with a good story, a good examples, a mild tone, and a sense of humor.  This type of post is what first made me love ENWorld, and what makes me keep coming back (despite the fact that I game pathetically little these days).

So I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the next time we have to put up with a ban on edition wars, or have to actively discuss how to moderate and sort this type of thing in the Meta forum, realize that it's not the big threads with multiple bans that are the problem; the real problem is all the little snark that infiltrates every corner to the community.  Start paying closer attention to the one liner posts like this that infiltrate otherwise neutral threads.  Try not to make them, and try not to let them kindle the flames of a larger problem.

/soap box


----------



## Morrus (Aug 15, 2009)

Please report the problematic posts.  If they're not reported, we won't see them.  We can't possibly read 'em all!


----------



## kitsune9 (Aug 15, 2009)

Deset Gled said:


> This is far from the first time this has happened, but it's the first time that it's happened when I actually have the time to post a mini-rant about it, so here goes...
> 
> I was reading this thread today - http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-worst-type-encounter-you-hate-write-up.html - when I was struck by the rancor in posts #3 and #7.  This is a thread that started out completely edition-neutral, and within the first 10 posts has two utterly scathing, flame-baiting, edition-war style posts with practically no back up or comments worth discussing.  It is worth noting that (most) posts like this are in not bad enough to warrant Moderator intervention, but they are also posts that do practically nothing to further discussion of any topic.
> 
> ...




Thanks Deset! I try to make my threads as edition neutral in the General forum and certainly in agreeance with you in that I don't like edition wars. Even though I play only one particular kind of game, I think I can learn from the experiences of the other gamers who play everything else and find ways that will make my gaming experience better.

Happy Gaming!


----------



## Umbran (Aug 15, 2009)

Deset Gled said:


> I was reading this thread today - http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-worst-type-encounter-you-hate-write-up.html - when I was struck by the rancor in posts #3 and #7.




I am sorry, but I disagree with you.

To my reading, those posts both thoroughly _lack_ the rancor that marks edition war posts.  They are simple statements of personal opinion.  They do not go beyond that in scope.  Most importantly, they don't insult others for their preferences, or for anything else.  They are phrased briefly, but not rudely. 

It looks like honest critique and opinion to me.  Statting up high-level encounters for 3e is a bear.  Sometimes bear-and-a-half.  There's nothing wrong with not liking that, and saying as much.

If we get to the point where any statement of, "I don't like this" is considered an edition war, the boards will simply be non-functional.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 15, 2009)

I think oversensitivity to anything anyone says that's critical of someone else's preferred system is becoming a bigger problem. 

Not every criticism is snark or meant to start an edition war. Not everyone is going to share your tastes, preferences or experience. If you don't like something or don't agree with something, move on. 

I also believe if our nerd rage could be harnessed and directed at something meaningful, we'd probably have cures for AIDS and cancer by now.


----------



## kitsune9 (Aug 15, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> I think oversensitivity to anything anyone says that's critical of someone else's preferred system is becoming a bigger problem.
> 
> Not every criticism is snark or meant to start an edition war. Not everyone is going to share your tastes, preferences or experience. If you don't like something or don't agree with something, move on.
> 
> I also believe if our nerd rage could be harnessed and directed at something meaningful, we'd probably have cures for AIDS and cancer by now.




This reminds me of some old addage that goes like, "Our own worst enemies is ourselves." Something like that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2009)

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
-from the comic strip _Pogo_, by Walt Kelly


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 15, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> I think oversensitivity to anything anyone says that's critical of someone else's preferred system is becoming a bigger problem.




This.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> I think oversensitivity to anything anyone says that's critical of someone else's preferred system is becoming a bigger problem.




Oversensitivity is a problem, occasionally.  But people being jerks is still the larger issue.  

I think we are starting to see claims of oversensitivity as an excuse for being a jerk.  "You should have a thicker skin" is not an excuse.  If you truly did not mean offense, offer an apology, and move on.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 16, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I am sorry, but I disagree with you.
> 
> To my reading, those posts both thoroughly _lack_ the rancor that marks edition war posts.  They are simple statements of personal opinion.  They do not go beyond that in scope.  Most importantly, they don't insult others for their preferences, or for anything else.  They are phrased briefly, but not rudely.
> 
> ...




As poster number 3 in that thread I would like to thank you, Umbran, for seeing it for what it was.  I thought a while about how to word it so as to not sound like a yet another edition warrior.  To hear someone describe that post as 'utterly scathing, flame-baiting, edition-war style' surprised the hell out of me.  It was an honest answer that, if responded to, I planned to flesh out.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 17, 2009)

Just a quick note: I agree with Umbran that both of those posts are absolutely fine. Folks have sometimes gotten oversensitive and see statements of fact as flamebait, when they're certainly not meant as such.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 17, 2009)

The two posts (3 & 7) mentioned in the OP, here, don't strike me as "utterly scathing, flame-baiting, edition-war style", but they do feel like the posters were taking an opportunity to make an unnecessary snide jab at the edition they referenced. The OP of that thread was completely edition neutral, but those particular replies were shots at a specific edition. Not really insulting, but poor form.

***

I realize that what I'm about to say could be taken harshly and confrontational. I do not mean it as such, but I think I see a double standard.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but I disagree with you.
> 
> To my reading, those posts both thoroughly lack the rancor that marks edition war posts. They are simple statements of personal opinion. They do not go beyond that in scope. Most importantly, they don't insult others for their preferences, or for anything else. They are phrased briefly, but not rudely.
> 
> ...



This seems to me to be out of sync with what was said here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...rush-define-vintage-gaming-4.html#post4891194 and here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...rush-define-vintage-gaming-4.html#post4891248

And I dare you  to post on in the General forum any statement of "I don't like this about first edition AD&D." It will taken as, and erupt into, an edition war. Heck, just neutrally discussing anything about AD&D1 gets people hackles up without anyone giving a personal statement of dislike.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 17, 2009)

The rule in all forums, across all the Internet, is:

If someone takes umbrage at negative comments on their love/like/preference, they are overly sensitive.

If you’re offended by negative comments on your love/like/preference, the commenter is an ass.

* * *

If someone says that guy over there is ugly, that someone is just stating an opinion.

If you say that guy over there is ugly, you’re giving an objective description.

If that guy says you are ugly, well that’s just downright insulting.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Aug 19, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> I realize that what I'm about to say could be taken harshly and confrontational. I do not mean it as such, but I think I see a double standard.
> 
> This seems to me to be out of sync with what was said here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...rush-define-vintage-gaming-4.html#post4891194 and here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...rush-define-vintage-gaming-4.html#post4891248




No confrontation is taken.  It is a fair question.  What you are calling a "double standard" is actually me trying to work both ends of the problem.

I the Vintage Gaming thread, you asked me how to avoid offending people.  I said, in effect, "Don't poke 'em in the sensitive parts".

Now, I am turning to the pokee, and saying, "Let's try to be more reasonable about what we call sensitive parts."

It's called compromise and cooperation.  You make some effort to not offend, then make an effort to not be offended.  No double standard there at all.



> And I dare you  to post on in the General forum any statement of "I don't like this about first edition AD&D." It will taken as, and erupt into, an edition war.




Well, I would probably be a bad example, as a moderator.  Starting stuff in a mod's thread would rather like coming in from playing in the rain, actively getting Mom's attention, and then pointedly dropping them on her newly-mopped floor.  

But, to your point, say I used an alt.  I still expect I could do it.

You see, there are worlds of difference between the ends of the following spectrum:

1) "I LURV my 4e!  I always hated X about 1e!  1e is the SUXX0RS, and only loosers play it!!1!"

2) "I hate X about 1e."

3) "After Gygax and Arneson passed, I ran a couple of memorial dungeon crawls with 1e.  While I'm not giving up my 3e or 4e games for it, I'd like to do a six-session mini-campaign with 1e.  Thing is, I always had a bit of a problem with X, which always seems to bring about Y, which doesn't work for me.  Have any of you had any luck in working around it within the system?"

The first is clearly antagonistic.

The second is a simple opinion.  It is not judging the edition as a whole, or the people who play it.  It makes no generalizations beyond a specific item.  However, neither is it particularly constructive.  Not much point to it, as stated.  There may be some risk that people will assume there must have been a point - which isn't really your fault, but you could have avoided it.

The third is actively non-partisan, and constructive.  It is focused on a specific problem, and asking for help in dealing with it so that people can have more fun.  Very difficult to call this one edition warring.  If I were to post as you dare me to, I would aim for this sort of tone, and could probably get it done.

To relate this to your earlier question - I was suggesting that you aim for the third tone when speaking to avoid offense.  And now I'm urging listening folks to accept the second when they see it.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 19, 2009)

> 1) "I LURV my 4e! I always hated X about 1e! 1e is the SUXX0RS, and only loosers play it!!1!"
> 
> 2) "I hate X about 1e."
> 
> 3) "After Gygax and Arneson passed, I ran a couple of memorial dungeon crawls with 1e. While I'm not giving up my 3e or 4e games for it, I'd like to do a six-session mini-campaign with 1e. Thing is, I always had a bit of a problem with X, which always seems to bring about Y, which doesn't work for me. Have any of you had any luck in working around it within the system?"



Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen anyone seriously post anything here even close to #1. But I do get the sense that many questions posed get translated into what you wrote there.

I have seen comments like #2 and they seem to always turn into shots back and forth in an edition war. "Yeah? Well I hate Y about 4e."

Does #3 not strike you as supplicating? Must one go through this virtual bowing and scraping to show those with Edition Sensitivity Syndrome that the question is truly, honestly, verily, good sir, not meant to offend?

Bullgrit


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 19, 2009)

Re #1 -- You've missed it.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 19, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen anyone seriously post anything here even close to #1.




I think, "Everyone who likes 4e's WOW-like combat is immature," is close to #1, and I have seen it several times.  The other examples (from both sides) are too numerous to list.  



> I have seen comments like #2 and they seem to always turn into shots back and forth in an edition war. "Yeah? Well I hate Y about 4e."




Yep.  Note how I said that the statement was not itself constructive, and had little point, but that there was risk of people _assuming_ there was a point?  That's likely what's happening.  In the context of events since 4e's launch, that assumption really shouldn't be unexpected.



> Does #3 not strike you as supplicating? Must one go through this virtual bowing and scraping to show those with Edition Sensitivity Syndrome that the question is truly, honestly, verily, good sir, not meant to offend?




#3 is, in fact, honest truth.  I did run memorial dungeon crawls, and I have considered doing a mini-campaign, even thought I stopped regularly playing 1e a long, long time ago.  No, I don't believe telling people sincere truth that puts my question in a context that is not threatening, "supplicating".  I think it settling questions up front.  And I did it with just a few sentences.  Easy-peasy.  Little cost to me, lots of problems dispelled or avoided.

On top of that, I don't view showing a little basic respect for others and their sensibilities "bowing and scraping".  I am going to assume that is a dramatic overstatement, because the other obvious implication is that this is a matter of pride - and I can't help you with that.

You are in a text-only medium.  Face to face, you could say, "I hate X", and the audience can hear your vocal tone, look at your body language and facial expression, and gauge a bit about what you mean by "hate" - they'll be able to tell where you sit between actual disgust and a dramatically overstated vague dislike.  In simple text, you need to use words to replace that non-textual information to get the same meaning across.  

Bullgrit, you are trying to deal with _human beings_.  Think about that for a moment, in the light of your cynical "rule for all forums across the Internet" above.  Do you honestly think you should reasonably expect to communicate clearly without putting in at least a little thought into how you present yoruself?  That you can expect to be given respect without putting a little effort into giving some yourself?  

I'm sorry if that's too much like work.  But it is the nature of the beast.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 20, 2009)

> Bullgrit, you are trying to deal with human beings. Think about that for a moment, in the light of your cynical "rule for all forums across the Internet" above. Do you honestly think you should reasonably expect to communicate clearly without putting in at least a little thought into how you present yoruself? That you can expect to be given respect without putting a little effort into giving some yourself?



You're coming across as lecturing to me, personally, on how to show respect. Please show me where I've been disrespectful. What questions have I asked or points have I made that were disrespectful to the sensibilities of anyone for any edition.



> I don't view showing a little basic respect for others and their sensibilities "bowing and scraping". I am going to assume that is a dramatic overstatement, because the other obvious implication is that this is a matter of pride - and I can't help you with that.



That you felt the need to invoke Gygax's and Arneson's names, and tip-toe softly into the question just seems overly sensitive. Nothing wrong with it if that's how you want to broach a subject, but a little much to ask of everyone else who wants to simply ask a question or start a neutral discussion for information exchange.

Does anyone need to show such high-level reverence for D&D4 to ask a question?
"Out of respect for the 4e designers, I ran a couple of short adventures with 4e. While I'm not giving up my 1e game for it, I'd like to do a six-session mini-campaign with 4e. Thing is, I have a bit of a problem with X, which seems to bring about Y, which doesn't work for me. Have any of you had any luck in working around it within the system?"

I would have phrased the question: "Did/do you use rule X as written in the rules, or did/do you use a house rule work around?" Straight, neutral, without laying any bias for the direction of discussion. Most of the time my questions on older editions come from either reading the books the night before posting, or reading comments in various threads here at ENWorld.

I only ever comment on editions that I personally like and love. So I find it odd that anyone would take my comments as any kind of hating on the edition at issue. I specifically do not comment on editions I don't like or don't know. How many other posters here can say that with a straight face?

Bullgrit


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> You're coming across as lecturing to me, personally, on how to show respect. Please show me where I've been disrespectful. What questions have I asked or points have I made that were disrespectful to the sensibilities of anyone for any edition.



IMO, it wasn't "you" as in you, Bullgrit. I think was mostly "you" as in the hypothetical general anyone.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 22, 2009)

I have been impressed with the general niceness of the people here. There many gaming forums I won't visit, but Enworld is always tops.

By the way the only rancor I want to see at EnWorld is here.


----------



## Mark (Aug 22, 2009)

Eric Anondson said:


> IMO, it wasn't "you" as in you, Bullgrit. I think was mostly "you" as in the hypothetical general anyone.





The lesson of Mark Twain is to use "we" (or "humanity" or "the human race") instead of "you" when being condescending.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 23, 2009)

Mark said:


> The lesson of Mark Twain is to use "we" (or "humanity" or "the human race") instead of "you" when being condescending.



*
We are not amused...*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2009)

_We _are!


----------



## Mark (Aug 24, 2009)

"Man is the Only Animal that blushes. Or needs to." - Mark Twain


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> You're coming across as lecturing to me, personally, on how to show respect.




Well, between you and Mark, this makes an interesting and rather ironic example of some of the dynamic I am talking about.  

You asked for my thoughts on how not to appear like you were edition warring.  You asked follow up questions, and I then went into depth on those points as well.  Somehow, as I am trying to give you solid and complete answers on things you specifically asked about, I am now "lecturing", and that's been taken further - to an implication of being condescending.  

So, you tell me - do we have to be careful with how we talk?  



> That you felt the need to invoke Gygax's and Arneson's names, and tip-toe softly into the question just seems overly sensitive.




Yes.  I was presenting a spectrum, from one end to the other.  Did it not come across that that was intended to be one of the _extremes_ of sensitivity, utter crassness at the other end?  

I don't see how we are disagreeing, here.  That was the far end - the general place to "aim for", not the place I expect everyone to reach and perpetually sit.  



> I only ever comment on editions that I personally like and love.   So I find it odd that anyone would take my comments as any kind of hating on the edition at issue.




The readers do not know that you only comment on what you love.  There are tens of thousands of registered posters, and hundreds to thousands of fairly active ones.  You cannot at all count on the reader following your personal posting history much to tell what you've said in the past, and to have established your individual personality.

It is all what's there at the moment, in your words and their heads, and they get mixed together.  You have no control over what is in their heads.  You can only control the mixture with what you're saying at the moment.  

Given the nastiness that's in people's heads...


----------



## DaveyJones (Aug 24, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _We _are!





"Can't we all just get along." --Rodney King


"We are the World." -- Michael Jackson, et. al.


----------

