# Flamebait allowed?



## Quasqueton (May 12, 2005)

What would be said of a person going to a Dog-lover forum and posting (repeatedly) "Cats rule, dogs drool." Or "Cats rule, dawgs drool."?

What would be said of a person going to a Chicago forum and posting (repeatedly) "Chicago is a stunted version of New York." or "Chicagone is a stunted version of New York."?

What would be said of a person going to a Lord of the Rings forum and posting (repeatedly) "Tolkien was a hack." or "Tolcan't was a hack."?

What would be said of a person going to a Rolemaster forum and posting (repeatedly) "Rolemaster is a poorly designed rip off of D&D." or "Chartmaster is a poorly designed rip off of D&D."?

What would be said of a person going to the Dragonsfoot forum and posting (repeatedly) "O/AD&D are an ill-conceived and incomplete attempt at a game system." or "EG&G is an ill-conceived and incomplete attempt at a game system."

Would those posters be called out as trolls trying to start arguments? Would such comments be allowed constantly?

Why does this D&D/d20 board allow some people to constantly say, "d20 is not D&D." or "d02 ain't D&D."? And all the variations of that kind of trolling comment. "Third edtion killed D&D." "The game has gone downhill ever since AD&D1." etc.

Such statements are nothing more than "forum grenades" thrown into conversation to prompt a flame war. Such statements do not further discussion; do not add interesting information; serve no purpose other than flame bait. It is an intentional insult. Even if no one is actually insulted by the comments, the intention is there.

Yet, here, such trolling comments are allowed. It's not like saying the current game is "too/more complicated." Or that the art is "too spikey". Such things are topics for discussion. What I'm talking about are those comments that have no purpose or value other than to slight, insult, and bait the people of the forum.

Why are such "grenades" allowed here? [And it's not just one person, either.] It just seems odd, that given ENWorld's other pretty tight restrictions and guidelines for decency and politeness (which I agree with and appreciate), that such flamebait is not warned off.

Quasqueton


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2005)

If you see a problem thread, the best thing to do is report it by using the report post button.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 12, 2005)

There is a 'report bad post' button at the bottom of the user field, this alerts mods to a concern you may have on a post and allows them to make the call.  



I hope I have not cause issue somehow.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2005)

I can think of at least one such poster who's words have always been tolerated (including by myself).  

The thing is that the analogy breaks down - this isn't like a Chicago forum unless there are a number of different Chicagos out there that share at least passing similarity to each other.  The site may have a focus on 3.x D&D, but it is not limited to it.

All in all, I think flat statements "My favorite is good/real, all others are not good/real" are thoroughly non-constructive.  But non-constructive does not equate to actionable.  The question isn't whether the grenade gets dropped, but whether the grenade contributes to general destruction.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 12, 2005)

> The thing is that the analogy breaks down - this isn't like a Chicago forum unless there are a number of different Chicagos out there that share at least passing similarity to each other. The site may have a focus on 3.x D&D, but it is not limited to it.



I gave 5 examples. Even if one (arguably) doesn't fit, the other 4 support my point.

Say, instead of a Chicago forum, it is a "Big City" forum (for cities with over a million population). Someone says (repeatedly), "Big City 12 [with 1.01 million pop] isn't really a Big City." or "Almost Big City isn't really a Big City."



> The question isn't whether the grenade gets dropped, but whether the grenade contributes to general destruction.



Drop a grenade in the command tent, and it doesn't matter that it turned out to be a dud. If I post an obvious troll, but it doesn't start a real flame war, am I still being a jerk, and need a warning?

Quasqueton


----------



## Crothian (May 12, 2005)

Sometimes in the context of a thread certain comments are not as bad as they look when they are just seen without the context they were written.  

The Mods cannot be everywhere all the time, so just report the post that may be flamebait.  That's what I do.


----------



## EricNoah (May 12, 2005)

It takes two to play the game -- one to be a troll and one to rise to the bait.  For the most part, EN World users do a great job of not rising to bait; if anything, they respond to an "unreasonable" statement with good questions, requests for clarification, etc.  That's the best defense -- douse the flame with the cold, wet blanket of decorum. 

I guess I must be missing the person/people who are doing this a lot.  Sure, there are members here who are D&D players who don't love 3rd edition.  They're welcome to say what they like and what they don't like as long as they're not making personal attacks and violating the rules.  

Beyond that ... point the mods to a thread/post where it actually happened when it happens is all I can suggest.


----------



## der_kluge (May 12, 2005)

I think EN hit on it.

Above all else, I consider this a D&D forum, and secondly I consider it a role-playing forum. I think thirdly I consder it a d20 forum.  Some might disagree with me.

I think given my choice, I'd rather play HARP over D&D, but I still hang out here, because I enjoy the forums, and can still bounce game ideas off people. So, yea there are people here who despise d20, but even those who constantly complain still offer nuggets of wisdom because good ideas are system-independent.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 12, 2005)

> It takes two to play the game -- one to be a troll and one to rise to the bait. For the most part, EN World users do a great job of not rising to bait; if anything, they respond to an "unreasonable" statement with good questions, requests for clarification, etc. That's the best defense -- douse the flame with the cold, wet blanket of decorum.



So a troll is OK so long as no one rises to the bait? That's like saying it's not a foul unless you punch back.

Quasqueton


----------



## Crothian (May 12, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So a troll is OK so long as no one rises to the bait? That's like saying it's not a foul unless you punch back.




Actually, that's no blood no foul, play ground rules.  

I think if no one takes the bait and the troll is ignored it doesn't matter.  You can still report him though.  Your orginal post seems to suggest this type of thing goes on all the time by many posters, but I'm not seeing it.  It also looks like you want these people banned or something to prevent them from posting here.  I think that might be an over reaction.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 12, 2005)

> Your orginal post seems to suggest this type of thing goes on all the time by many posters, but I'm not seeing it. It also looks like you want these people banned or something to prevent them from posting here. I think that might be an over reaction.



It is often by one or two, and occassionally by others. I've not said anything about banning anyone.

Quasqueton


----------



## James Heard (May 13, 2005)

It sounds like an overreaction to me. Some people aren't as charming as others, or pick the most constructive comments, but that's not really anything you want to do something about. And for every post someone calls troll over you'd have at least some small portion of people who well and truly want to have a discussion on the topic or issue, whether or not it drags out the bad behavior in other people who fail to have the ethical fortitude to not just drop it and move on. Trolling isn't as bad behavior as flaming someone who's trolled because, simply put, you just can't put a finger on things that precisely most of the time and out and out call someone a troll just because one (or even more) people think so. If I put out a thread topic like, "Why does anyone play this useless roleplaying game?" I might be trolling or I might, instead, just be trying to start a conversation of a particular tone (promoting people to make defensive polite claims about the hobby).

Most importantly, I think ENWorld has survived as well as it has because it's mostly unpoliced and open to any interpretation of the rules that doesn't blatantly break them. Personally I don't think you'll find a better behaved forum than ENWorld of similar size, it's really kind of amazing.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Say, instead of a Chicago forum, it is a "Big City" forum (for cities with over a million population). Someone says (repeatedly), "Big City 12 [with 1.01 million pop] isn't really a Big City." or "Almost Big City isn't really a Big City."




Not really a problem, so long as it is a topic for discussion.  In a Big City forum, I would expect much of the discussion to be around what a big city is, and why it is different from other communities.  And different folks will have different opinons.  Just as on a Chili forum, I'd expect to see the beans/no beans debate replayed endlessly.  



> Drop a grenade in the command tent, and it doesn't matter that it turned out to be a dud.




If it is a fairly obvious, oranged colored plastic grenade, and the folks in the tend glance at it, shrug, and go on with their lives, the act isn't worth noticing.  Even if it isn't obvious, if it doesnt' disturb anyone, I don't think of it as a problem.  It is only when the occupants must cease their paper-shuffling and have to scatter or jump on the grenade that there's an issue.

We must be sensible about where lines are drawn, lest we burn out moderators running around trying to warn people.  There's a difference between what isn't constructive or particularly nice, and what's _actionable_.  Playground rules seem reasonable.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 13, 2005)

The Rules are: Keep it civil, clean and on topic.

Your example are IMO within the rules.  So what's the big deal?  Nothing in the rules says you cannot start an arguement - as long as the arguement stays within the rules.  If people argue with the original poster and manage to keep it civil, the topic moves along, the troll gets his attention, and people get something to read/write about.

The examples you posted are personal opinions, and are not ones that people should be offended by - unlike racial or religious comments or personally derogatory remarks.  If the original poster said something like  "EG&G is an ill-conceived and incomplete attempt at a game system and those who play it are a-hats" then the line has been crossed.

From what I have observed on these boards, if a poster continuously starts threads like this and they do not lead to any constructive discussions, people eventually learn to ignore the poster, or add them to their ignore list.

Its just like TV - nobody is forcing anyone here to read and respond to any threads.  If you hate all the [insert game system here] slamming, just don't bother reading the thread.  

Keeping the grenade metaphor going - most grenades thrown on this site don't have the pin pulled.  They can only hurt someone if somebody else pulls the pin.  If a live grenade is thrown, stay clear of the area and let the "mod squad" know so they can deal with the mess.


----------



## Belen (May 13, 2005)

Quasqueton: I am not sure which thread caused your heart burn this time.  If you do not like someone's comments and they really are trolling, then it is easy to report them.  That is what I do if someone is really offending me.

I have noticed that you are vehemently disagreeing with anyone who states a prefernce for games other than 3e lately.  It's fine to love a game, but not everyone is going to agree with your positions all the time.  I think things would be more civil around here is others did not throw personal attacks because of game preference.  This happens on both sides of the issue.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 13, 2005)

> Quasqueton: I am not sure which thread caused your heart burn this time. If you do not like someone's comments and they really are trolling, then it is easy to report them. That is what I do if someone is really offending me.



There has been no single incident/post/thread that has bothered me. There has been one poster, but I've returned him to my ignore list, so that won't be an annoyance anymore.

But there are recurring incidents of some few folks making snide/disparaging remarks and/or veiled-insults about the current edition of the game *_on a board dedicated to that edition of the game_*. I find that rude and obnoxious. Apparently I'm the only one who thinks this.



> I have noticed that you are vehemently disagreeing with anyone who states a prefernce for games other than 3e lately.



I'm curious to see examples of this. Can you please point out such instances? I have no idea what you are referring to, as I don't give a rat's bottom what game anyone plays, so long as they don't insult my choice.

Quasqueton


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> But there are recurring incidents of some few folks making snide/disparaging remarks and/or veiled-insults about the current edition of the game *_on a board dedicated to that edition of the game_*. I find that rude and obnoxious. Apparently I'm the only one who thinks this.




But this board ISN'T dedicated to one edition of the game. Its not even dedicated to one game! Sure, there's a strong bent towards 3e/3.5e D&D, but that's definitely not the what this board is 'dedicated' to.



> I'm curious to see examples of this. Can you please point out such instances? I have no idea what you are referring to, as I don't give a rat's bottom what game anyone plays, so long as they don't insult my choice.




Well, most times I've seen a thread with someone saying they prefer another edition of the game, you usually jump in with a quasi-Diaglo quote about 3e being the one true game.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But this board ISN'T dedicated to one edition of the game. Its not even dedicated to one game! Sure, there's a strong bent towards 3e/3.5e D&D, but that's definitely not the what this board is 'dedicated' to.




I dunno, look at the title: "EN World - Morrus' D&D / d20 News & Reviews Site".

Look at the background image with the big circled 3.  

Look at the Ennies, which (iirc) originally only considered d20 products.

Look at the ad copy that identifies this place as "EN World is the largest, busiest unofficial d20 website in the world."

You may not like to think of it as "dedicated", but the strong focus is there, and it ought to be easy to see that others might see it as dedicated.  You think the folks at RPG.net and WotC think of us as a general purpose RPG website?

That is an aside, though.  It seems more to come down to a balance between politeness and tolerance.  Flat statements like "X is the one true game" are a bit impolite.  But we should be thick skinned enough to tolerate them.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 13, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You may not like to think of it as "dedicated", but the strong focus is there, and it ought to be easy to see that others might see it as dedicated.  You think the folks at RPG.net and WotC think of us as a general purpose RPG website?




Guess it comes down to how you definite 'dedicated'. 

But it DOES say "D&D/d20", so every edition of D&D is what we're 'dedicated' to if you go by that.


----------



## Belen (May 13, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Well, most times I've seen a thread with someone saying they prefer another edition of the game, you usually jump in with a quasi-Diaglo quote about 3e being the one true game.




That is one of the posts I have noticed lately.  With Diaglo, you  know he is doing it mainly for humor and post count.


----------



## Belen (May 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I'm curious to see examples of this. Can you please point out such instances? I have no idea what you are referring to, as I don't give a rat's bottom what game anyone plays, so long as they don't insult my choice.




I think it is mainly how you choose to say things lately.  You have become very militant.  I, also, believe that you see insults to the game where none have been offered.  It's great that D&D 3e does everything well for you, but that is not the case with everyone.

Instead of being snarky, I would either report the post, call the poster on their comments, or ignore them.  Otherwise, you run the risk of people dismissing your views out of hand.

3e is a big part of these boards, but when I describe ENWorld to people, I call is the main site for d20 News anywhere.  It is the WOTC boards whose prime focus is D&D 3e, IMO.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 13, 2005)

> But this board ISN'T dedicated to one edition of the game. Its not even dedicated to one game! Sure, there's a strong bent towards 3e/3.5e D&D, but that's definitely not the what this board is 'dedicated' to.



Umbran said my answer. This board *exists* because of D&D3 and d20.



> Well, most times I've seen a thread with someone saying they prefer another edition of the game, you usually jump in with a quasi-Diaglo quote about 3e being the one true game.



So diaglo can do it, but I cannot? If you'll note that usually I only post my "one true game" statement is after diaglo has made his.



> But it DOES say "D&D/d20", so every edition of D&D is what we're 'dedicated' to if you go by that.



"Committed" is a better term. I like to think we should all be "committed".  Besides, if you are going to so precisely point at that, you must realize that AD&D is apparently not included. 



> That is one of the posts I have noticed lately. With Diaglo, you know he is doing it mainly for humor and post count.



Yet you assume mine are not?



> I think it is mainly how you choose to say things lately. You have become very militant. I, also, believe that you see insults to the game where none have been offered. It's great that D&D 3e does everything well for you, but that is not the case with everyone.



Again, please give an example of this. BelenUmeria, I like you, so please don't take this personal or harsh: but don't make accusations without offering evidence.



> Instead of being snarky, I would either report the post, call the poster on their comments, or ignore them. Otherwise, you run the risk of people dismissing your views out of hand.



I can't be snarky in response to snarky?

Interesting how this thread has turned completely around to be about *me* being impolite/snarky/an ass. I can essentially say the *exact* same thing as someone else, yet I come across as bad? If we were still in last month, I'd think people were pulling an April Fools' joke on me.

Quasqueton


----------



## James Heard (May 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I can't be snarky in response to snarky?



Sounds like you're getting snarky _here_ when I don't particularly see anyone getting snarky with _you_. If you feel like you're having to be on the defensive all the time then maybe you just need to chill out for a little while, have a cold drink, and turn the computer off. All I'm seeing is that the vast majority of the people responding aren't seeing the problem you are, which kind of says that maybe it isn't a problem to be seen. Maybe you're just having a bad day, or week, or whatever - in any case it doesn't seem to be impacting everyone else like it is yourself. You can call it bizarre all you want, but if the majority of people aren't seeing the same things you are then maybe it's not everyone else that's having the problem with perception here. Just sayin'...


----------



## Crothian (May 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Umbran said my answer. This board *exists* because of D&D3 and d20.




and tyhings change, the focus of the boards has slowly shifted away from that and while not there yet it shifts ever closer


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 14, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> and tyhings change, the focus of the boards has slowly shifted away from that and while not there yet it shifts ever closer



yep...2012 is not that far away now.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I can't be snarky in response to snarky?




You can't have it both ways, Q. Either you can be snarky in response to snarkiness, or you can complain about snarkiness, but not both.  You shouldn't get to exhibit the behavior that you're complaiing against - Golden Rule, and all that.


----------



## Michael Morris (May 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 3e is a big part of these boards, but when I describe ENWorld to people, I call is the main site for d20 News anywhere.  It is the WOTC boards whose prime focus is D&D 3e, IMO.




 :cough: :Magic:  :cough: uelmasters:  :cough: :Neopets: .....

There are over 19 product lies on that board - only 4 are D&D related.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 14, 2005)

Amazing how this thread has morphed.

Quasqueton


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Amazing how this thread has morphed.




Topic Drift is as natural a process as Continental Drift


----------



## Orius (May 15, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So diaglo can do it, but I cannot? If you'll note that usually I only post my "one true game" statement is after diaglo has made his.




Yes, I've noticed.

Sometimes diaglo's "one true game" comments can be tiresome, but anyone who's been here long enough can tell when he's going to trot out that spiel in a thread and either laugh at it or ignore it.  And no matter how much he complains about later editions of the game, his comments in various threads make it pretty clear he's playing a character in a 3.x campaign.  In any case, it's sort of a personaly idiosyncracy of his.  However, your counter response makes it seem like you're trying to pick a fight.

And I don't see any compelling reason why this board should be 3.x D&D/d20 only.  A large majority of poster on this board have been playing for 20+ years, so in my mind, it's really only natural that they would discuss the more classic elements of the game as well as more recent ones.


----------



## Psion (May 15, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> However, your counter response makes it seem like you're trying to pick a fight.




That's a baffling stance. If Diaglo is the one (and from what I have seen, he is) to continually rub his disdain in people's face, it seems to me that by definition, Diaglo is the one picking a fight.



> And I don't see any compelling reason why this board should be 3.x D&D/d20 only.  A large majority of poster on this board have been playing for 20+ years, so in my mind, it's really only natural that they would discuss the more classic elements of the game as well as more recent ones.




_Discussing_ classic elements is one thing. Starting psuedo-religious gaming holy wars is another. In the realm of gaming "your game isn't D&D" is just as inflamatory as "your religion isn't really Christian." You can beleive that all you wan't. Rubbing it people's face every third post is simply not polite and does not lead to discussion, but gaming holy war.


----------



## James Heard (May 15, 2005)

Sorry, not seeing it. Too few people are gathering their torches and storming the castles I think.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 16, 2005)

> A large majority of poster on this board have been playing for 20+ years, so in my mind, it's really only natural that they would discuss the more classic elements of the game as well as more recent ones.



For the record: I have been playing this game for 25 years-- B/ED&D, AD&D1, AD&D2, and current D&D.

I'll also point out my series on this board: Classic adventure module discussions.

Quasqueton


----------



## pogre (May 16, 2005)

Q,

I think you have it handled correctly - if Diaglo's schtick is getting to you - put him on ignore. The truth is he's been doing it for so long and so consistently he does get a pass on it. Don't worry about whether he should - it's not worth it


----------



## Quasqueton (May 16, 2005)

Psion:







> _Discussing_ classic elements is one thing. Starting psuedo-religious gaming holy wars is another. In the realm of gaming "your game isn't D&D" is just as inflamatory as "your religion isn't really Christian." You can beleive that all you wan't. Rubbing it people's face every third post is simply not polite and does not lead to discussion, but gaming holy war.



"Quoted for truth."

Soluzar (a Dragonsfoot regular):







> My initial impression was that this forumed seems to be more 3e/3.5e centric




This is just what I've seen this morning in the General forum, without looking specifically for them:

diaglo:







> and i play 3.11ed for Workgroups when the DM comes to town.




Gentlegamer:







> It isn't D&D anymore, its d20 Fantasy.




diaglo:







> d02 ain't D&D.




ARandomGod:







> As opposed to the forum we're in now, which is about the "3.x" D20 games. That's not D&D at all, but a knockoff.




ARandomGod:







> Oh, and please don't think that I'm NOT flaming d20. I like the system well enough. I play it regularly, I even write in forums about it! But 3.X is no more D&D than Star Wars is. It's just a completely different game.




Do these posts serve any purpose other than to purposefully stir up stinky stuff? Do they forward discussion? Do they bring a new perspective? Or are they specifically to drop flamebait in the forum water?

Should each of these posts be reported? Most people here just let such posts slide, without responding or reporting. And that is more a sign of the maturity of most people here, than of the negligable number of such posts. But I've noticed the number of such posts increasing. And after a while, a critical mass will be reached.

I'm just pointing out a noticable trend. Say I'm overreacting. Say I'm too sensitive. Deflect the issue onto me. Just note that I pointed it out first. 

Quasqueton


----------



## Belen (May 16, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Do these posts serve any purpose other than to purposefully stir up stinky stuff? Do they forward discussion? Do they bring a new perspective? Or are they specifically to drop flamebait in the forum water?
> 
> Should each of these posts be reported? Most people here just let such posts slide, without responding or reporting. And that is more a sign of the maturity of most people here, than of the negligable number of such posts. But I've noticed the number of such posts increasing. And after a while, a critical mass will be reached.
> 
> ...




I think you're taking those comments too personally.  To me, they represent a difference of opinion.  The rules of 3e really make a difference in how the game plays and feels.  I can see why people do not get the same feeling from the game that they had in the past.  In most cases, these people are not flaming anyone for playing 3e, they are stating an opinion.  If they feel that way, then arguing with them or making poor comments about the rules from past editions will only cause the situation to warm up.

3e is the current version of D&D and it retains enough sacred cows to still identify with D&D, but it is a different game.  It is a stronger game and the rules are more open and intuitive, but the feel and flavor can be at odds from people who enjoyed past editions.

One thing I have noticed on ENWorld is a large number of people start to get rude when someone posts problems with 3e or if someone dares to think that a previous edition handled things better.  

I can say that I have been personally attacked for views like this on a large number of occasions by rabid 3e fanboys who never admit that 3e CAN have faults.  So, for as many comments as you can find decrying 3e, I'll bet I can find an equal or greater number attacking the opposite viewpoint.  In many cases, the fanboys of 3e get personal whereas people commenting about how 3e is not really D&D are stating a opinion which people take personally.  There is a difference.


----------



## Belen (May 16, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Again, please give an example of this. BelenUmeria, I like you, so please don't take this personal or harsh: but don't make accusations without offering evidence.




I like you too, so I managed to finally do some searching.  Ok, here are some comments that I found to be over the line and this was in just one thread. 



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> D&D3 forced you to be a better DM? That bastard!
> 
> Yeah, I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to go back to earlier editions of the game so you don't have to make memorable encounters, and you could run all combats as "I attack, he attacks".
> 
> Quasqueton






			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yeah, what he said.
> 
> "Oh man, the new cars suck. They're so complicated. I mean, how can you enjoy driving when you've got to push in the cigerette lighter, open the sun roof, set the AC, adjust the seat angle, change the radio stations, etc. Driving used to be so much simpler when you just had to push the gas peddle and steer."
> 
> Quasqueton






			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I guess it is 'relevant' in the rather academic sense that D&D3 is fundamentally identical to earlier versions of D&D, but some people are so irritated by that fact they feel the need to argue an irrational point.
> 
> Quasqueton






			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> What does Akrasia know? He doesn't even play D&D, so he has no ground to stand on. Why is he even arguing?
> 
> Quasqueton






			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> By your own definition, you don't play D&D. The earlier games were prototypes, tests, and practice systems. Heck, they weren't even *named* "Dungeons & Dragons".
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons [current edition] is the only true game. All previous editions were just attempts to reach this level of excellence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quasqueton (May 16, 2005)

I remember that thread. Can you give a link, please? (Not to question you, but to better remember the context.) If I remember correctly, most of the above statements were rephrasings of someone else's statements.

[I really need to renew my subscription.]

Quasqueton


----------



## Belen (May 16, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I remember that thread. Can you give a link, please? (Not to question you, but to better remember the context.) If I remember correctly, most of the above statements were rephrasings of someone else's statements.
> 
> [I really need to renew my subscription.]
> 
> Quasqueton




Here is the link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=126642

I posted from that thread, because I thought they were over the top, despite the context.  I think you have started making these types of comments, in general, over the last fews months.  They have been enough that I have become hyper aware of them.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 16, 2005)

Ah, yes. That thread was an intentional troll for April Fool's Day. Note the date; note all the buzzwords; note the declaration "This is the truth. Accept it." I also stand by my responses in that thread as "in kind" with what I was responding *to*.

Quasqueton


----------



## Arnwyn (May 17, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Do these posts serve any purpose other than to purposefully stir up stinky stuff? Do they forward discussion? Do they bring a new perspective? Or are they specifically to drop flamebait in the forum water?



Quasqueton, if you think something like this:


> Oh, and please don't think that I'm NOT flaming d20. I like the system well enough. I play it regularly, I even write in forums about it! But 3.X is no more D&D than Star Wars is. It's just a completely different game.



qualifies as "flamebait" and should be "reported", then yeah - the problem actually lies with you.


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I'm just pointing out a noticable trend. Say I'm overreacting. Say I'm too sensitive. Deflect the issue onto me. Just note that I pointed it out first.




Actually, you're pointing out a noticible _state_.  It doesn't become a "trend" until you can also prove that there was less of this in the past, and that there's been growth over time (as opposed to a current spike).  You've only done these things anecdotally.  

And why are you worried about who takes credit for the find?  What constructive purpose does that serve?


----------



## EricNoah (May 17, 2005)

I would just like to add that it's a scientifically proven fact that people who play 3E are, in fact, 3etards.  

Thank you.


----------



## diaglo (May 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I would just like to add that it's a scientifically proven fact that people who play 3E are, in fact, 3etards.
> 
> Thank you.




EN????


----------



## Enkhidu (May 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I would just like to add that it's a scientifically proven fact that people who play 3E are, in fact, 3etards.
> 
> Thank you.




Thank you and goodnight! Remember to tip your waitstaff, and that the 10 o'clock show is completely different from the seven o'clock show.


More seriously, I don't see how diaglo's D&D circa '74 fetish is a big deal. I've always looked at him like the old crazy guy living next door yelling at kids to get off his lawn and talking your ear off about how it was "back in my day." Sure, it's old and annoying, but you you put up with it primarily because _he's_ old and annoying, and because once you cut through all the stories of how it was "back in 'Nam" he's got a thing or two constructive to add. 

In between his frequent bouts of OD&D inspired senility, he's a mostly harmless 3E gamer pining for the golden days.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I would just like to add that it's a scientifically proven fact that people who play 3E are, in fact, 3etards.
> 
> Thank you.



*Moderator's Notes:*

Hi, and welcome to the boards! Please review the rules, especially the one that we refer to as the "Your Grandma" rule (as opposed to the "Yo Momma!" rule that they have over at rpgnet).

I look forward to hearing more from you--perhaps in time you'll become as well-known and respected around this place as me or Bugaboo!

Daniel


----------



## JoeBlank (May 17, 2005)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> More seriously, I don't see how diaglo's D&D circa '74 fetish is a big deal. I've always looked at him like the old crazy guy living next door yelling at kids to get off his lawn and talking your ear off about how it was "back in my day." Sure, it's old and annoying, but you you put up with it primarily because _he's_ old and annoying, and because once you cut through all the stories of how it was "back in 'Nam" he's got a thing or two constructive to add.




Although his World Peace flag is purty, I think diaglo should make this his .sig


----------



## EricNoah (May 18, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Moderator's Notes:*
> 
> Hi, and welcome to the boards! Please review the rules, especially the one that we refer to as the "Your Grandma" rule (as opposed to the "Yo Momma!" rule that they have over at rpgnet).
> 
> ...




Hey, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.  After all, I'm a whale biologist!*

And wasn't Bugaboo the one who ran the DM Friend's Network?  I've been trying to get a refund from that guy for years!  $39.95 per session for "DMing services rendered" my eye.  He just read the ingredients list from a cereal box for 4 hours!  Though I did get 16,000 XP.

*Bonus points if you figger this one out.


----------



## Greylock (May 18, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Hey, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.  After all, I'm a whale biologist!*




Uhmmm, _The Voyage Home_??

At any rate, I don't believe in no EricNoah. He's just a myth.


----------



## diaglo (May 18, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Hey, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.  After all, I'm a whale biologist!*




Bugaboo was Da Mang.


I'm gonna guess your quote came from Moby Dick. Not Ishmael though.


----------



## Umbran (May 18, 2005)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> More seriously, I don't see how diaglo's D&D circa '74 fetish is a big deal. I've always looked at him like the old crazy guy living next door yelling at kids to get off his lawn...




Yes, but that can quickly lead to Old Man Smithers Syndrome, where he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!


----------



## Pielorinho (May 18, 2005)

I spent awhile trying to see the gist of what you were saying--I decided I couldn't see all the gist if I focused on "cetologist."  And then I remembered my 1337 Google fu.

Ph3ar my 1337 Google fu!

Daniel


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 18, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, but that can quickly lead to Old Man Smithers Syndrome, where he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!



 And their stupid dog, of course.


----------



## EricNoah (May 18, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I spent awhile trying to see the gist of what you were saying--I decided I couldn't see all the gist if I focused on "cetologist."  And then I remembered my 1337 Google fu.
> 
> Ph3ar my 1337 Google fu!
> 
> Daniel




the winnar!!!1!!1!!1

I loves me some Futurama, baby...


----------



## Varianor Abroad (May 18, 2005)

Old Man Smithers? Omigosh, Old Man Withers is Smithers from Simpsons? That explains a lot.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (May 19, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So a troll is OK so long as no one rises to the bait? That's like saying it's not a foul unless you punch back.




Trolling is a victimless crime, like punching somebody in the dark.


----------



## diaglo (May 19, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> Trolling is a victimless crime, like punching somebody in the dark.




i attack the Darkness...

i cast _magic missile_


----------

