# Return of the Edition War



## Fifth Element

I've seen several threads in the past week devolve into fairly vitriolic edition wars. Seems to me we had quite a long period of relative civility and good discussion. Things seem to be coming loose again. Maybe it's just me.


----------



## Nymrohd

The edition war never left, it just took a break (and for a long good time was confined to _that forum_).


----------



## Bumbles

The cease fire is over, let the warmongering begin!


----------



## Cadfan

That's because its not truly an edition war.  Its a people war.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Mmmm I didn't notice them stop, well at least edition snarks are all over the place.

BTW shouldn't this be in meta?


----------



## Flatus Maximus

What, exactly, is the purpose of this thread?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fifth Element said:


> I've seen several threads in the past week devolve into fairly vitriolic edition wars. Seems to me we had quite a long period of relative civility and good discussion. Things seem to be coming loose again. Maybe it's just me.




So you are so upset by the recent outbreak of edition warring that has been happening and feel left out?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

It never stopped. People stayed in the trenches on there own forms and subforms but to much bad blood is there to end this soon


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Cadfan said:


> That's because its not truly an edition war.  Its a people war.




Bingo.

Some people just can't let go.  Unfortunately, they just end up making their own side look bad.


----------



## Remathilis

There seems to be two separate trends coalescing...

* A number of threads of late dealing with older-editions or clones, and specific elements therein (rules lightness, S&S elements, retro-viability, or nostalgia) that begin with an extolling for virtues of said play, but degenerate quickly into "our way is better" vs. "your way is outdated" flame-battles.

* A smaller number of threads dealing with industry elements (and 3pp in specific) that have touched off a firestorm of 3pp vs. 1pp arguments and "industry health" debates, especially focused on 4e's sales and potential D&D-inspired competitors. 

I think this is partially due to the slower release schedule and lack of anything interesting going on in the industry (certain company-health stories aside). Once Gen-Con, Pathfinder, and DMG II all fall on the horizon, some of these petty squabbles will fade again.


----------



## Crothian

I don't get it.  It is very obvious that yes one game is better then the other.  It doesn't matter what people think, the facts are thus: Changeling the Dreaming is better then Changeling the Lost.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Crothian said:


> I don't get it.  It is very obvious that yes one game is better then the other.  It doesn't matter what people think, the facts are thus: Changeling the Dreaming is better then Changeling the Lost.




sakjfshdsakjdgaskdghaflgewahj;ufhwhuf;OIAHW;VUJHGWSAZOGRKahgkuHGKJ


----------



## Piratecat

Pfft. Paranoia XP is better than Paranoia 5th edition. Try finding someone who will argue the other side of _that_.

For reference, we have little interest or patience for edition war posts. Don't like 'em, don't care about 'em, don't want to see 'em. Bleah. Give me a post about cool game stuff that makes my campaign better instead, please.

And yes, this should be in Meta. I'll move it a bit later.


----------



## Shroomy

Remathilis said:


> I think this is partially due to the slower release schedule and lack of anything interesting going on in the industry (certain company-health stories aside). Once Gen-Con, Pathfinder, and DMG II all fall on the horizon, some of these petty squabbles will fade again.




I'm not so certain.  Edition war threads tend to flare up when various companies make announcements (I'd say the last bunch was precipitated by WoTC pulling PDFs, WoTC's announcements of DDI exclusive content, and recent, seemingly opposed 3PP declarations).  Given the historical trends, I would think that Gencon and Pathfinder's release will cause a huge dust-up, maybe the worst since the 4e release, and given Sigil's prominence in the DMGII, I expect that we'll also see some smaller scale fights between fans of the various cosmologies.


----------



## Crothian

Piratecat said:


> Pfft. Paranoia XP is better than Paranoia 5th edition.




Only commie mutant traitors talk about 5th edition!!


----------



## thecasualoblivion

I just recently started posting again. Its all my fault.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Remathilis said:


> * A smaller number of threads dealing with industry elements (and 3pp in specific) that have touched off a firestorm of 3pp vs. 1pp arguments and "industry health" debates, especially focused on 4e's sales and potential D&D-inspired competitors.



What I want to know is:
*# Who or what are 2pp?*


----------



## Shroomy

mach1.9pants said:


> What I want to know is:
> *# Who or what are 2pp?*




I thought it was companies that produced officially-licensed content for WoTC.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

mach1.9pants said:


> What I want to know is:
> *# Who or what are 2pp?*




A 2pp would be a company directly contracted by WotC to publish D&D under the main D&D name. Paizo doing Dragon and Dungeon would be 2pp I believe.


----------



## Odhanan

mach1.9pants said:


> What I want to know is:
> *# Who or what are 2pp?*



Nah. 3PP means "Third Party Publisher". This is because business happens normally between two parties: a Publisher, and a Customer. This is one, and two parties here. Any other Publisher who also sells a product via a license from the first party becomes, de facto, a third party in this business and thus, a "Third Party Publisher".


----------



## Invisible Stalker

Maybe we just need some new ones?

Let's have 2e and 4e fans fight it out while the 1e and 3e fans snipe at each other.


----------



## JohnRTroy

No, it comes from the definition of third party.

The first party is the seller, WoTC.  The second party is us, the consumer.  

Third Party means somebody else who ends up getting involved in the chain.  The term third party is somebody who ends up making complementary or supplementary products that are somehow dependent on the first party's creation.


----------



## Mikaze

I'm long past tired of people trying to get their digs in on each others gaming choices and knowingly stirring the pot.  They know who they are.

On Topic: Diablo 2 was the superior edition.  Diablo 3 is all rainbows and cartoony OH MY GOD IT'S RUINED FOREVER.


----------



## Piratecat

Invisible Stalker said:


> Let's have 2e and 4e fans fight it out.



Bizarrely, I just had this discussion with an old friend I'd gotten back in touch with. I had mentioned that I liked playing 4e, and he said that he had hated 3e and still played a house-ruled version of 2e. 

Honestly, I wasn't quite sure what to say.


----------



## Sammael

Crothian said:


> I don't get it.  It is very obvious that yes one game is better then the other.  It doesn't matter what people think, the facts are thus: Changeling the Dreaming is better then Changeling the Lost.



Trolling points+++ 

(Changeling the Dreaming was a failure; Changeling the Lost is - rightfully - considered to be one of the best NWoD games)


----------



## Hereticus

Fifth Element said:


> Return of the Edition War
> 
> I've seen several threads in the past week devolve into fairly vitriolic edition wars. Seems to me we had quite a long period of relative civility and good discussion. Things seem to be coming loose again. Maybe it's just me.




There are differences between Fourth Edition and earlier editions.

Why must every comment that mentions a difference be labeled WAR?


----------



## Invisible Stalker

Piratecat said:


> Bizarrely, I just had this discussion with an old friend I'd gotten back in touch with. I had mentioned that I liked playing 4e, and he said that he had hated 3e and still played a house-ruled version of 2e.
> 
> Honestly, I wasn't quite sure what to say.




One of my players is a big 2e fan, and that's the one edition I don't like. Thankfully, we both enjoy 4e.


----------



## Odhanan

Sammael said:


> Trolling points+++
> 
> (Changeling the Dreaming was a failure; Changeling the Lost is - rightfully - considered to be one of the best NWoD games)



Bah! Both of these games are failures! _Promethean: the Created_ wins by comparison, in any case!


----------



## Crothian

Sammael said:


> (Changeling the Dreaming was a failure; Changeling the Lost is - rightfully - considered to be one of the best NWoD games)




Those are fighting words.  I've successful had great multi year CtD campaigns.  It was only a failure to people who were consumed by banality and truly dead inside.


----------



## Eridanis

Over to Meta you go.


----------



## Darrin Drader

Call of Cthulhu is the one true roleplaying game. All others are dinner.


----------



## Piratecat

Darrin Drader said:


> Call of Cthulhu is the one true roleplaying game. All others are dinner.



I hate to say it, but Pelgrane's Trail of Cthulhu is better. 

Oh, yes. I *did *go there.


----------



## Fifth Element

Hereticus said:


> There are differences between Fourth Edition and earlier editions.
> 
> Why must every comment that mentions a difference be labeled WAR?



It musn't. That was not implied. Note my use of the term "vitriolic" in the OP.

Not every thread that discusses differences between editions is an edition war. But all too often these threads become edition wars, when someone pipes in with "this edition sux, my favotire is the only god one!"

And yes, this should have been in Meta. Thanks for the move, mods.


----------



## Ariosto

If Trail is the Gumshoe derivative, then I'll stick with Call (which in my book is simply nonpareil, but of course everyone has an opinion).

When D&Ders beat their glaive-guisarmes into ploughshares, we'll know it's time for something new, shiny and thoroughly incompatible with the last $1000 worth of game products you bought.

Then shall nostalgia driven 4E devotees take up the wailing and gnashing of teeth incumbent upon curmudgeons. Then shall 5E evangelists don the nerd mantle of insisting that every friend of theirs must like their new best friend just as much.

The Circle of Life goes ever on.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

The big issue is that people have put emotional stock on 4e, be it for or against.  Some people foam at the mouth whenever anything that could be taken as criticism is mentioned against anything that's remotely related to 4e or Wizards.  Some people foam at the mouth whenever someone even thinks about suggesting that 4e might have even the smallest positive about it.  it's not something you can solve with reasonable and enlightened debate, because it's not about logic or understanding.  It's about "I'm right, they're wrong."

The worst thing about it isn't just that it's polarizing, but that it makes people on both sides groan and feel ashamed for liking D&D at all.  If I want to have a nice, honest discussion about Pathfinder, I can't if someone runs up and yells in my ear how I'M WRONG OMG WAT DO U THINK UR DOING THIS GAME SUX SO MUCH.  If I want to have a nice, honest discussion about 4e, I can't if someone runs up and yells in my ear how I'M WRONG OMG WAT DO U THINK UR DOING THIS GAME SUX SO MUCH.  And again, whenever that happens, it disenfranchises people who might have legitimate complaints about either game, because suddenly they're being forced into taking sides.

Really, it's that last one that irks me so much - the idea that there has to be "sides."  Nothing devolves a discussion further then forcing everything to be polarized into them vs us, with nothing in between.  If there's anything involving the edition wars that needs to be permabanned, it's the notion that people need to take sides.

Edit: Oh yes, and Changeling: The Lost is far better then Otakukin: The Glamourbombing ;p


----------



## Piratecat

ProfessorCirno said:


> Nothing devolves a discussion further then forcing everything to be polarized into them vs us, with nothing in between.  If there's anything involving the edition wars that needs to be permabanned, it's the notion that people need to take sides.



Now, that's interesting. So, what do you think works better for a messageboard: One big forum to discuss both Pathfinder and all D&D editions, or separate forums to help separate threads into ones that people will find most interesting for what they want to play?


----------



## kenmarable

JohnRTroy said:


> No, it comes from the definition of third party.
> 
> The first party is the seller, WoTC.  The second party is us, the consumer.



2pp is PEOPLE!!!

(Someone had to say it.) 



Piratecat said:


> Now, that's interesting. So, what do you think works better for a messageboard: One big forum to discuss both Pathfinder and all D&D editions, or separate forums to help separate threads into ones that people will find most interesting for what they want to play?



Hey, personally, I really like the split of a General, and then edition specific forums for rule-specific threads. Because a lot of interesting discussion is edition neutral. (In fact, pretty much the only stuff I find interesting is typically edition neutral.)


----------



## Umbran

There's any number of factors probably at play. 

Here's an interesting thought for you - how many of the people posting nastily are in the northeastern and midwestern United States?  Because both areas have been having cruddy weather for a couple weeks now.  Our normally sunny and pleasant late spring and early summer has turned into cloudy, rainy (occasionally floody) ick.  It doesn't lead to good tempers.  Especially not on what was a semi-holiday weekend.  

Not that this is an outright cause for everyone, but an influence?  Perhaps...

Anyway, along with P-cat, I'd like to see folks quit trying to work out their grudges, and get back to the business of playing the game.  Talk about your game, or cool stuff to do in a game, or great funny bits for your game, or resources you found for your game.

I would love a week where nobody talked about anything on the boards that wasn't about playing the game.


----------



## Mark

Umbran said:


> There's any number of factors probably at play.
> 
> Here's an interesting thought for you - how many of the people posting nastily are in the northeastern and midwestern United States?  Because both areas have been having cruddy weather for a couple weeks now.  Our normally sunny and pleasant late spring and early summer has turned into cloudy, rainy (occasionally floody) ick.  It doesn't lead to good tempers.  Especially not on what was a semi-holiday weekend.
> 
> Not that this is an outright cause for everyone, but an influence?  Perhaps...





It's true that around Chicago this has been the worst few weeks leading into Summer in a long time.  And this in a year when a lot of people cannot even take a typical vacation.




Umbran said:


> Anyway, along with P-cat, I'd like to see folks quit trying to work out their grudges, and get back to the business of playing the game.  Talk about your game, or cool stuff to do in a game, or great funny bits for your game, or resources you found for your game.
> 
> I would love a week where nobody talked about anything on the boards that wasn't about playing the game.





Like post in the Fatherly Gaming Tales thread in honor of Father's Day -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/257957-fatherly-gaming-tales.html


And report threads where people appear to be trying to start up edition wars.  The mods cannot be everywhere and when they see the patterns they will deal with the offenders.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Piratecat said:


> Now, that's interesting. So, what do you think works better for a messageboard: One big forum to discuss both Pathfinder and all D&D editions, or separate forums to help separate threads into ones that people will find most interesting for what they want to play?




Eh, I don't think the sides are neccisarily 3e vs 4e, or even other editions vs 4e, though.  I think the sides came about from some people being fanatical about hating 4e and needing others to do so, and others being fanatical about loving 4e and needing others to do so.  I think "edition war" is somewhat of a misnomer as it implies editions fighting each other; on the contrary, I think the whole thing is about and just about 4e.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Piratecat said:


> Pfft. Paranoia XP is better than Paranoia 5th edition. Try finding someone who will argue the other side of _that_.




I wanted to play Paranoia Vista, but heard that it didn't work so well and I needed to upgrade all my dice...


----------



## Piratecat

ProfessorCirno said:


> Eh, I don't think the sides are neccisarily 3e vs 4e, or even other editions vs 4e, though.  I think the sides came about from some people being fanatical about hating 4e and needing others to do so, and others being fanatical about loving 4e and needing others to do so.  I think "edition war" is somewhat of a misnomer as it implies editions fighting each other; on the contrary, I think the whole thing is about and just about 4e.



So what's the solution? Is there a solution? 

And Umbran, I'm in the northeast, as of course are you. Seattle can have its weather back, honestly!


----------



## La Bete

Topic bans, ala RPG.net.

"Hi (Poster X), we understand you're a big fan of (subject Y), but we've noticed you've been posting some inflammatory stuff about (subject Z). For the next (day/week/month), please do not post about (subject Z).

Thanks!"

Another aspect is that the most vitrilic threads tend to be "about the industry" you could shift them to a subforum (but I don't think that is the best plan) - perhaps you could topic-ban some posters from the industry threads?


----------



## PaulofCthulhu

Piratecat said:


> I hate to say it, but Pelgrane's Trail of Cthulhu is better.
> 
> Oh, yes. I *did *go there.




Whatever floats your Lovecraftian (pirate) boat!  I reach into the Oracle's aether and predict that _Call of Cthulhu_ will be one of the last RPGs to go when the Dancean revolution succeeds!

Edition wars do no one any favours and are ultimately futile, they're just a vent. In capitalist societies, time and wallets matter most.

I'm not the world's biggest fan for D&D 4e, so what? I'm not teling you what to play, play what you like* as long as it's something you enjoy!

* you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu., you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu, you must play Call of Cthulhu and then Cthuhu wll eat you last. Other games are available.


----------



## jaerdaph

Plane Sailing said:


> I wanted to play Paranoia Vista, but heard that it didn't work so well and I needed to upgrade all my dice...




You can still use your old dice, but you have to install them as Administrator, and in a folder other than Programs...


----------



## Umbran

La Bete said:


> Topic bans, ala RPG.net.




Would be, for us, rather mod-work-intensive.  It is easy to ban a person from a specific thread, or from the boards.  But to ban them from a subject of discussion effectively we would have to follow them around like hawks and police what subjects they choose to speak about.  I don't think that'd be viable.


----------



## jaerdaph

ProfessorCirno said:


> Eh, I don't think the sides are neccisarily 3e vs 4e, or even other editions vs 4e, though.  I think the sides came about from some people being fanatical about hating 4e and needing others to do so, and others being fanatical about loving 4e and needing others to do so.  I think "edition war" is somewhat of a misnomer as it implies editions fighting each other; on the contrary, I think the whole thing is about and just about 4e.




I agree - and I think there is a "silent majority" who don't really care because they are too mature to participate and simply ignore the posts or threads in question like functional adults who know how to show restraint. 

Someday I hope to be one of them.


----------



## Mark

Piratecat said:


> So what's the solution? Is there a solution?





I get the feeling that some people who come and go and start a good deal of the trouble have come to accept the short bans as a tolerable cost of their posting routine.  Perhaps it is time to consider that people with three or more short bans should take a year off.


----------



## Arnwyn

I agree with Mark.

Really, I certainly hope the moderators track who gets banned, and how many times.

People who have been banned _in any way at all_ need to be more closely looked at, and on a constant basis. (I track a little on my own based on what I see, and it comes to no surprise for me to see the people who have been banned in some way on multiple occasions [read: more than once] are some of the most vile posters around.)


----------



## LightPhoenix

jaerdaph said:


> I agree - and I think there is a "silent majority" who don't really care because they are too mature to participate and simply ignore the posts or threads in question like functional adults who know how to show restraint.




*Raises hand*

Also, to me, it seems like there's never any room for middle ground in those threads.  The opinion that there are parts of _any game_, not just 3E/4E, that are liked and disliked is anathema to those threads.  Which is why I don't post in them... though I do read them from time to time.



Mark said:


> I get the feeling that some people who come and go and start a good deal of the trouble have come to accept the short bans as a tolerable cost of their posting routine.  Perhaps it is time to consider that people with three or more short bans should take a year off.




I don't know how the bans work here, but why not have a tiered system instead of a three-strikes system?  For example, maybe three days/ten days/one month, and then a year-long ban (effectively a perma-ban).  Perhaps it already works like that and I don't know.

Another suggestion may be some sort of internal "warning points" system.  For example, every time a post gets moderated (ie, a mod needs to edit) they get a point, so you can tell who the problem users are more easily.  This might be a little more work though.


----------



## jaerdaph

La Bete said:


> Topic bans, ala RPG.net.
> 
> "Hi (Poster X), we understand you're a big fan of (subject Y), but we've noticed you've been posting some inflammatory stuff about (subject Z). For the next (day/week/month), please do not post about (subject Z).
> 
> Thanks!"




That's great, and I agree with Mark and others that probably the disciplinary action should get a little tougher around here like it is at RPGNet, but I would caution that RPGNet tends to go too far. They have this forum there called Trouble Tickets, where the name of a permanently or temporarily banned user is posted, and anyone is allowed to post in that forum, frequently mocking the person being disciplined. The mods have even taken to writing cute little announcements and thread titles of late as part of that process as well. It all seems very hypocritical to me, especially if the individual was removed for personal attacks on other users. And I'd truly hate to see a similar pillory or whipping post at EN World. 



La Bete said:


> Another aspect is that the most vitrilic threads tend to be "about the industry" you could shift them to a subforum (but I don't think that is the best plan) - perhaps you could topic-ban some posters from the industry threads?




It would be nice to see threads about WotC (and other companies) policy, legal issues, business practices, piracy etc. stay out of general so folks who just want to play the game and could care less could easily ignore them.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

La Bete said:


> Topic bans, ala RPG.net.
> 
> "Hi (Poster X), we understand you're a big fan of (subject Y), but we've noticed you've been posting some inflammatory stuff about (subject Z). For the next (day/week/month), please do not post about (subject Z).
> 
> Thanks!"
> 
> Another aspect is that the most vitrilic threads tend to be "about the industry" you could shift them to a subforum (but I don't think that is the best plan) - perhaps you could topic-ban some posters from the industry threads?




I would hesitate greatly before taking RPG.net's advice regarding anything that involves the edition war, seeing as how horribly scewed the moderation is there.  The problem with topic bans is the old "Who decides who gets to post where?"  I'm not saying this to claim anything bad about EN Worlds moderators, mind you ;p, but RPG.net's moderators are very definately scewed regarding the edition war, and the end result has been "anyone is allowed to insult Pathfinder and 3.5 as much as they want, but a ban on anyone who speaks ill of 4e."


----------



## Piratecat

I assume you mean skewed and not screwed.  

While people don't always perceive it that way, the mods here are as big fans of 3e and Pathfinder as of 4e (in fact, probably half the mods aren't playing 4e as far as I know.) We specifically pick people to mod who are edition neutral; I'll be buying Pathfinder when it comes out, and I'm loving Sagiro's 3.5 game. I think the perception comes that for a while, certain folks got shut down when they were particularly vitriolic about 4e. We're just against anyone being fervently unreasonable and insulting.

Same goes for OSRIC. While I don't personally think much of how Joe went about trying to force the issue, I'm all for the game.


----------



## Morrus

A big problem - and perception - with such threads (which leads to supporters of either "side" feeling they are picked on and those on the other side are given carte blanche) is that people focus on the topic of the thread rather than the nature of the thread.

If it's a negatve thread, it's far more likely to be one those which erupt into argument. An "I love X" thread is almost always OK, but an "I hate X" thread is more likely to go downhill.

And of course, with a new game on the block, your'e gonna get a lot of "I love the new game" and "I hate the new game". Unsurpisingly, the former tend to be peaceful, and the latter tend to be acrimonious; and therefore they attract moderator attention.  Conversely, you get few"I hate the old game" threads, and so less moderation on that side of the coin.

Then of course, you get folks saying "the mods moderate those who don't like X, but not those who like it", which is blatantly untrue (we truly couldn't give a flying crap which version of the game you like); the truth is that the mods moderate those who act in an antisocial manner, and the "I hate X" threads tend to attract such posts. 

So the issue isn't of a difference of opinion in edition preference; it's of the _delivery_ of that opiion. It's the difference between "I hate 4E and people who play it are idiots..." and "I love 3.5, and here's why..." (exagerated generlized examples, obviously, but they serve to illustrate the point).

In short, just being polite and friendly, whetever you point or opinion, will pretty much guarantee you're OK.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Again, I'm not trying to claim that ENWorld moderators lean any which way, merely that topic bans are something that seems way too much, and could way too easily fly out of control.  Also, please don't take advice from RPG.net D:

Also...eh...I'm not an ENGLISH professor ;p


----------



## Eridanis

jaerdaph said:


> You can still use your old dice, but you have to install them as Administrator, and in a folder other than Programs...




"Are you sure you want to roll those dice? Please enter your password to roll 1d20..."



LightPhoenix said:


> Another suggestion may be some sort of internal "warning points" system.  For example, every time a post gets moderated (ie, a mod needs to edit) they get a point, so you can tell who the problem users are more easily.  This might be a little more work though.




This is actually something we're discussing right now in the mod's forum. Really, none of us can be everywhere, and while we're very good at communicating, i's true that a particular nitwit might be disciplined seperately by three different mods without the others knowing. A tallied infraction system might let us track these things quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.



Piratecat said:


> While people don't always perceive it that way, the mods here are as big fans of 3e and Pathfinder as of 4e (in fact, probably half the mods aren't playing 4e as far as I know.) We specifically pick people to mod who are edition neutral; I'll be buying Pathfinder when it comes out, and I'm loving Sagiro's 3.5 game. I think the perception comes that for a while, certain folks got shut down when they were particularly vitriolic about 4e. We're just against anyone being fervently unreasonable and insulting.




Indeed. Point is, we seek out the kind of people to moderate who are very good at keeping thier personal feelings seperate from the need to keep the peace. Whatever game we play, we're all on the same page when it comes to wanting fair, respectful, and lively discussions.


----------



## Dyson Logos

Personally, as someone who is pretty system-neutral overall (although I admit to not having tried to run 4e yet, just played it twice) I've found the moderation to be excellent here. Not the clumsy moderation I've seen on many other forums.


----------



## LightPhoenix

What I appreciate is the _speed_ of the moderation.  Case in point: I stupidly posted in the newest veiled edition war thread (Goodman v. Dancey) and within the maybe six hours before I checked the thread again, someone who flamed my post had already been moderated.  I didn't even get the chance to read the flame.  I learned my lesson and am not even reading those threads anymore.

This goes to two points.  First, the mods are doing an excellent job staying on top of things.  Second, the community is doing a good job reporting those things.  So perhaps this is a bit self-congratulatory, but yay for us!


----------



## Shemeska

Morrus said:


> Then of course, you get folks saying "the mods moderate those who don't like X, but not those who like it", which is blatantly untrue (we truly couldn't give a flying crap which version of the game you like); the truth is that the mods moderate those who act in an antisocial manner, and the "I hate X" threads tend to attract such posts.




I suppose there's also the risk of some people ascribing slants in moderation due to the financial support of WotC's advertising dollars. Mind you, I think the mods have done a pretty good job around here, and I have no complaints about what does or doesn't get nuked when there are rude or warring posts. But it's a tricky situation that risks a presumption whenever anything anti-whoever is paying for advertising gets moderated.

Of course I also haven't seen any major WotC ads online for the past month, so their ad blitz might be slowing down, or I'm not noticing it here, or rpg.net, or slashdot, etc.


----------



## Lanefan

ProfessorCirno said:


> Eh, I don't think the sides are neccisarily 3e vs 4e, or even other editions vs 4e, though.



Quite right.  In some cases it's old-school vs. 3e *and* 4e, and I'll gladly throw down in that arena if anyone will ever let me. 

In case it matters, I'd rather see the General forum stay as inclusive as possible, if only because anything put anywhere else tends to get lost.

Lanefan


----------



## Morrus

Shemeska said:


> I suppose there's also the risk of some people ascribing slants in moderation due to the financial support of WotC's advertising dollars.




Well, other than tell people they're wrong, not much I can do about unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty.  There will always be a percentage people who attribute their being moderated to _any_ motive other than the likely real cause - that, at the time, they were being an ass.  

Sure, nobody's perfect, and we might slip up from time to time, but accusations of systemic and organized dishonesty are completely false.


----------



## Mark

Morrus said:


> Well, other than tell people they're wrong, not much I can do about unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty.  There will always be a percentage people who attribute their being moderated to _any_ motive other than the likely real cause - that, at the time, they were being an ass.
> 
> Sure, nobody's perfect, and we might slip up from time to time, but accusations of systemic and organized dishonesty are completely false.





Just as you wish your slip ups to be charitably framed, you might want to consider that people are less likely to believe in "systemic and organized dishonesty" as they are that the same results can come from a subconcious bias to remain relevant to the largest segment of a downwardly trending demographic.  It's only natural that those with a vested interest in the success of the site would lean toward a pro-WotC bias without ever having to do so purposefully.  Also, people should be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that most critical opinion is negative by nature when in fact it is more often meant to bring about positive change.  Beware the extremists on both sides but be sure not to ignore that pseudo-positive extremists damage the dialogue by stifling the critical discussion that can otherwise improve all manner of things worthy of close imspection and analysis.  Just some cautionary thoughts.


----------



## Rolflyn

I've noticed the resurgence of the Edition War as well.  Or maybe I've slipped into more problematic threads of late.

I've always found ENWorld pro-4E.  It seems every thread has an anti-3E backhanded comment such as "Before 4E came along and saved me from 3E,..."  This used to really bother me, but now I laugh.  Still, it gets tiring to see the same names making the same references.  I generally stay to threads I feel aren't going to go that direction, but sometimes curiosity gets the better me.

As a result, I spend much more time at Paizo.  Yes, there is an edition war there too but it leans more my direction.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hereticus said:


> There are differences between Fourth Edition and earlier editions.
> 
> Why must every comment that mentions a difference be labeled WAR?




There are differences between every edition published. If that were not the case then there would only be one edition. 

There are people who take the "game remains the same" advertising way too literally. The various editions all have different flavors and are written with separate sets of assumptions about playing style. Everyone will gravitate to the game or games that provide what they are looking for. 

There is nothing inherently bad or ill meaning in recognizing these differences and embracing the ones that we find most appealing. Ignoring that major changes in style and theme have taken place through the editions is sometimes as annoying as climbing on a soapbox about it. 

Such opinions do not need to be accompanied by comments that all alternate styles suck and shouldn't exist. 

I'm sure someone, somewhere will see this as an attack.


----------



## Lanefan

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm sure someone, somewhere will see this as an attack.



So quit wasting time and roll your to-hit die, dammit! 

Lanefan


----------



## stonegod

I don't frequent the non-PbP parts as often, and then its mostly General and a little bit of 4E. But, just to counter "biases", the PbP-side is still heavily 3.5 with some healthy 4E interest. Not as much Pathfinder, but (1) its not out officially and (2) they tend to stay over an paizo it seems.

The Playing the Game board had in the last day:
- 30 3.5E games updated
- 10 4E games updated
- 3 Pathfinder games updated
- 2 Star Wars games updated
- And one each of World of Darkness, BCMI, Dark*Matter, Call of Cthulu, and Babylon 5

I'm excluding the 3 living forums as they are editions specific (one 3, one 4, and one transition to 4).

Just an FYI.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Rolflyn said:


> I've noticed the resurgence of the Edition War as well.  Or maybe I've slipped into more problematic threads of late.
> 
> I've always found ENWorld pro-4E.  It seems every thread has an anti-3E backhanded comment such as "Before 4E came along and saved me from 3E,..."  This used to really bother me, but now I laugh.  Still, it gets tiring to see the same names making the same references.  I generally stay to threads I feel aren't going to go that direction, but sometimes curiosity gets the better me.
> 
> As a result, I spend much more time at Paizo.  Yes, there is an edition war there too but it leans more my direction.




I gotta disagree there, man.  While many of the *posters* here love 4e, that doesn't mean the forums themselves are skewed a different way.  Yeah, those names - and I bet I could guess a few ;p - get rather tiresome, but it's just people making noise.  And keep in mind, I'm willing to bet those same people glare at their own list of names or people who always talk about ho much better 3.5 is over 4e.  I'm probably on one or two...er...or several...lists.

What makes a board skew in one direction over the other is in cases like RPG.net, where the moderators *enforce* an edition war by openly backing one of the editions, or when a website is closely tied with one of the editions and has an actual stake in it.  I don't think EN World has a stake in any of the editions - it's a D&D website first, specific edtion website second.


----------



## ST

Mark said:


> Just as you wish your slip ups to be charitably framed, you might want to consider that people are less likely to believe in "systemic and organized dishonesty" as they are that the same results can come from a subconcious bias to remain relevant to the largest segment of a downwardly trending demographic.  It's only natural that those with a vested interest in the success of the site would lean toward a pro-WotC bias without ever having to do so purposefully.




I don't believe that. It's very cleverly worded, but it's just not plausible to me. Morrus is talking about people accusing the mods of being in bad faith, and you're basically saying "well, maybe they're not _intentionally_ acting in bad faith, they're just subconsciously influenced", and I don't buy it. No offense intended, but no, the mods really are getting attacked just for doing their jobs.

The mods probably have a lot less emotionally invested in this than some of the posters. IMO the mods are the healthy ones, emotionally, for this. That's my only dog in this fight, speaking up for the mods since I think they've had to handle a Gordian knot. 

It's especially strange to see the comparison with Paizo -- I like those guys, but, hey, _there_ is clearly a financial interest in one edition over another, so it kind of squicks me when they actively support anti-4e posters. But I guess it's only fair, a company isn't bound to encourage people who use competitor's products to post on their forums.


----------



## Morrus

I think it's fair to say that _delivery_ is more important than the message with this issue.  Nobody should hold it against you for having an opinion or a preference; and they're welcome to have a contrary opinion or preference.  It's how those are presented where problems arise.


----------



## Mark

ST said:


> Morrus is talking about people accusing the mods of being in bad faith, and you're basically saying "well, maybe they're not _intentionally_ acting in bad faith, they're just subconsciously influenced", and I don't buy it.





There's nothing to buy.  No one can act completely without bias.  Those behind the scenes are the only ones with all of the information, so they will have to take a hard look at things on their own and make whatever adjustments they need to make based on their info.  If this were some crackpot acting as a lone voice in the wilderness, certainly it could be easily dismissed but obviously there are enough members speaking up that this could use a closer look.  Part of the secret of success for EN World has always been to listen to its members and make adjustments based on feedback.  We can trust them to do the right thing.


----------



## Rolflyn

ProfessorCirno said:


> I gotta disagree there, man.  While many of the *posters* here love 4e, that doesn't mean the forums themselves are skewed a different way.




I think it does.  If there are more pro-4E/anti-3E posters on the boards, the boards skew pro-4E.  When it seems that the 4e posters get away with more bashing while the 3E posters are hushed more quickly, the boards skew even more that direction.


----------



## Morrus

Rolflyn said:


> When it seems that the 4e posters get away with more bashing while the 3E posters are hushed more quickly, the boards skew even more that direction.




4E posters are NOT treated differently to 3E posters, or anyone else.  As we've repeated many times now, we really _do not care_ what game you like; and, indeed, more mods play 3E than 4E.  In fact, most of the time we don't _know_ what game you prefer before we look at a particular reported post, since there are 80,000 members.

Rude people are treated differently to polite people, however.  And 4E gets "bashed" more than 3E due to it being the new kid on the block; and "bashing" is an acivity which has a higher probability of rudeness.  

IF you believe you've seen 4E posters acting in a way they shouldn't, just report the post.  We'll look at it.


----------



## Mark

Morrus said:


> IF you believe you've seen 4E posters acting in a way they shouldn't, just report the post.  We'll look at it.





It may just be that so much happens behind the scenes that it is not as obvious when certain situations are handled.  Is there a way to address some of the current concerns through increased transparency?


----------



## Morrus

Mark said:


> It may just be that so much happens behind the scenes that it is not as obvious when certain situations are handled.




I don't think that's it. What I think is that folks notice things relevant to themselves, and not other stuff going on. A person who gets a warning, for example, is focused on that warning, and not on the half-dozen others that may have been given out that day.

Combined with - as I've illustrated a couple of times in this thread - the _nature_ of threads (new game gets criticised a lot, old game doesn't; perfectly natural - same with movies or anything else, but we're talking about games here) and the fact that a critical thread is _by its nature_ more provocative and negative than a complimentary thread. The stats simply play out exactly as you would expect them to based on basic laws of probability.

So, quite naturally, more people get into trouble criticising 4E than those who get into trouble criticising 3E, _*because more people criticise 4E*_. it's simple maths. If a given percentage of critical threads step over the line, the game which attracts the higher number of criticised threads gets a higher number of people being moderated when they criticise it. And that game, movie, album, TV show, whatever, will nearly always be the "new" one. People then comlpetely mistake the line of causality; they believe that the action was taken because of the poster's _opinion _(even when the moderator explicitly posts otherwise - they'll just claim he/she is lying) and not because of the real reason, the one they can't see in themselves, which is that, at that moment, they were simply being an ass. For many, it's always _someone else's_ fault, not their own.

I know; I'm guilty of it, too. It's human nature. It can be hard to see one's own failings and mistakes. Human nature will tend to look elsewhere for an explanation - any explanation, including unjust accusations of others' motives - than admit they're in the wrong.  And - let's be frank here - those accusations of moderator bias, dishonesty, financial motives, etc. _are wrong_.*

A _Star Trek_ site will have had the exact same problem with the new movie, and if it had been around would have had the exact same problem when _The Next Generation_ was launched. 

Ascribing undue motives and so forth to the situation is natural, of course; but that doesn't make it rational.



> Is there a way to address some of the current concerns through increased transparency?




I can't think of a way which wouldn't be humiliating to the posters involved. We're not about to create a pillory so everyone can point and laugh at anyone who got a warning for something.




*You can even apply logic to the ad dollars accusations; it's not in WotC's interests to spend money preaching to the converted.  I'd suspect that they'd be more interested in advertising if they felt they had an audience to convert.  They're a business.  They don't spend money if they don't need to, and any pro-4E bias, if it existed, amongst the moderation would be contrary to that aim.  It doesn't even make sense!  Our motive is "make everyone like 4E so WotC doesn't need to advertise here"?!  I mean, the logic of the accusations isn't even internally consistent!


----------



## Umbran

Rolflyn said:


> I think it does.  If there are more pro-4E/anti-3E posters on the boards, the boards skew pro-4E.




You state that as if pro-4e and anti-3e are the same, or go hand in hand.  Wipe that idea from your head, because you cannot be farther from the truth.  It is, in fact, quite possible to be pro-4e/pro-3e.  There's any number of folks on these boards who like both games for what they do well.

I will repeat what others have said before me in this thread:  the pro-X people on either side are generally not a problem.  Folks could talk about what makes their favorite edition cool until they are blue in the face, and we'd have few problems.  

It is when anti-X shows up that there's a problem.  It is not possible to be anti-something and not be negative.  It is very, very easy to be anti-something and speak negatively about the people who like the something.  And that's where the trouble starts.

And, as a simple matter of logic, the people who prefer 3e had more negative feelings, and thus had a stronger tendency to be anti-something. 

So, jerky behavior had a tendency to be correlated with edition preference.  This produces what is sometimes called a "confounding bias" - action against jerks happens to hit those who prefer 3e somewhat more, even when moderators didn't consider what edition the speaker is talking about.  So, to the outside, it can _look like_ we have an edition bias, when we don't. 

Somehow, back before 4e was released, we were able to discuss 3e without having go beat on another edition to do it.  Return to that, and you should find your 3e discussion remarkably unmoderated, and in fact protected by the mods, most of whom still like 3e.


----------



## Mark

Umbran said:


> Somehow, back before 4e was released, we were able to discuss 3e without having go beat on another edition to do it.  Return to that, and you should find your 3e discussion remarkably unmoderated, and in fact protected by the mods, most of whom still like 3e.





I think that Rolflyn's concern is with people who are pro-4E who feel the need to beat on 3E to discusss 4E, if I am reading him right.  I don't believe that he is saying that all pro-4E posters are also anti-3E, just that certain posters seem to be both.


----------



## Rolflyn

Mark said:


> I think that Rolflyn's concern is with people who are pro-4E who feel the need to beat on 3E to discusss 4E, if I am reading him right.  I don't believe that he is saying that all pro-4E posters are also anti-3E, just that certain posters seem to be both.




I meant a combined Pro-4E and Anti-3E outlook.  There are those that are pro-4E that go into 3E threads and post how awesome 4E is and thus they aren't negative, but they aren't creating goodwill.  Or those that drop a note that they left 3E long behind and are very happy that they did so.

I don't see the reverse as much.  But I'm willing to admit it is because I stay out of 4E threads.

In any event, I find things far nicer for 3E and Pathfinder fans at other sites.  If ENWorld doesn't see this as a problem, that's your call.  I saw a thread about the problem, thought I'd post and clarify.  I know one voice won't change anything, but I would be remiss if I sat silent.


----------



## Morrus

Rolflyn said:


> I don't see the reverse as much. But I'm willing to admit it is because I stay out of 4E threads.




Turst me, it's there and far worse. Anti-4e sentiment, when it occurs, is much more vitriolic than anti-3E sentiment. Believe me, we have to moderate it! I myself percieve an anti-4E bias, with 4E continually refered to as a video game, compared unfavourably to WOW, described as limited and gamist and as nothing more than a tabletop skirmish/war game, as so forth. It's all a matter of perception (in my case, because those are the ones which end up in the moderator queue most often, highlighting a very strong anti-4E sentiment).



> In any event, I find things far nicer for 3E and Pathfinder fans at other sites.




And that's fine; I'm not trying to persuade you that you should prefer EN World to your chosen sites. I'm merely suggesting that it's possible that you may be more sensitive to one particular side of the issue.

As a side-note to everyone, it's easy to say "EN World seems X to me"; but do you have any actual constructive suggestions on how to address the problems from a moderation front? Preferably suggestions that don't stem from the false premise that the mods treat anyone differently depending on their edition preference rather than their demeanour because, that premise being untrue, it's not really a suggestion we can work with. 

We're totally open to practical suggestions (doesn't mean we'll adopt them, but if you've thought of some great idea that we haven't, we'll never know about it unless you tell us!) Unfortunately, people just repeating "I believe there's a bias in X direction" just doesn't help us resolve anything except give us the opportunity to reassure folks that we don't have an edition-bias when moderating. Which is an approach which is clearly not working.

It could be that folks on both sides of the coin are experiencing exactly the same thing in opposite directions, and so _everyone_ sees EN World as being anti-them. The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.


----------



## Mark

Morrus said:


> The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.





Given the posts in this thread, I'd have to agree.


----------



## rounser

Nevermind


----------



## rounser

On the whole, I want to thank the mods here, you guys mostly do a fantastic job, and thank you for putting up with my bollocks for years.  

I think the problem is not so much with the community but how the custodians of the game have chosen to proceed, and the aftermath of that.


----------



## LightPhoenix

Rolflyn said:


> I meant a combined Pro-4E and Anti-3E outlook.  There are those that are pro-4E that go into 3E threads and post how awesome 4E is and thus they aren't negative, but they aren't creating goodwill.  Or those that drop a note that they left 3E long behind and are very happy that they did so.




That's pretty much the exact definition of thread-crapping, and these posts should, _hopefully_, be reported.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> It could be that folks on both sides of the coin are experiencing exactly the same thing in opposite directions, and so _everyone_ sees EN World as being anti-them. The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.




An equally drastic alternative would be to ban anti-edition threads/comments altogether.  In essence, apply the idiom, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

I don't either option actually _solve_s the problem, they're just sticking heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away.  The problem is a small subset of posters that will deliberately go out of their way to start edition wars.  Any solution has to deal with that subset, and not with the community as a whole.

I've mentioned a couple options earlier in the thread, but I'd like to put forth a specific option with regards to posters inciting edition wars.  The only* real way to "punish" posters, regardless of the infraction, is to ban them from using the site and the boards.  I use the term punish loosely here, because I question whether that is really a punishment to people who break the rules.  Perhaps it is better to say it is the only way to make breaking the rules have consequence.  Any solution would have to be necessity stem from that.  I would suggest making the bans for edition war nonsense twice what they would normally be for other infractions.  For example, if a temp ban for attacking another poster is one day, make it two days if it's an edition war situation.  Make this known with an announcement.  Make it clear that it won't be tolerated.

I know it sounds a little draconian (and more than a little jerky), but it would work.  The reason it would work is because the repeat offenders would simply offend themselves into a long-term temp ban or a permaban.  The people who want to keep posting will learn to behave themselves.  After a while, the edition wars should reach some sort of minimal level.

I'd point out that the edition war ban here earlier when 4E came out did a significant amount to minimize this stuff, even if it left it simmering.  That's why I think a flat out moritorium on it isn't the ideal situation.

Another suggestion is to point banned members towards the boards at RPG.net or Paizo or WotC.  If they really want highly-polarized partisan discussion, those boards may be more to their liking.  Perhaps with an outlet there some of the offenders will simply leave it be here, or stop posting.

Of course, it does require more work from the moderators, and that's the downside.  After all, who wants to constantly moderate?  It's a crappy job having to be the parent all the time.  So I don't know if that's something to be considered.


----------



## Lanefan

Morrus said:


> It could be that folks on both sides of the coin are experiencing exactly the same thing in opposite directions, and so _everyone_ sees EN World as being anti-them. The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.



Or go the opposite route: stop trying to accomodate anyone and just let the battles rage until they burn out on their own.

Planting a flag won't ensure a more harmonious membership; in fact it'd alomst certainly guarantee quite the opposite, until and unless you start booting out those who run under different colours than those chosen.  And that would be a sad day.

Lanefan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I don't think there is a catch-all solution. 
Maybe an addition to the "Edition War" post sticky: 
"Remember the pitfalls of being anti-anything, be it Winona Ryders latest haircut, Micheal Bays latest action fest, or an edition of your favorite RPG. You risk being - whether you want it or not - being more rude, and you provoke people disagreeing with you. Monitor yourself and make you express your opinion adequately, avoiding insults, baits or rudeness. 
But better yet - rather talk about what you love and like."

Mods, but maybe more importantly any poster worried about Edition Wars should focus on "positive" things. What do they like and why do they like it. What questions do they have on a specific topic - be it in-game, a rule or something else. Report cool experiences you had and explain or ask how to replicate them, or bad experiences you had and ask how to fix them.


----------



## jdrakeh

Lanefan said:


> Planting a flag won't ensure a more harmonious membership




Neither will not moderating posters. There are a couple of forums that have tried this and become widely reviled as the squatting places of the Internet's worst trolls as a result.


----------



## S'mon

Mmm, ok so it sounds like the mods are not anti 4e or anti 3e, but anti perceived 'negativity'.

Personally, *I like both 3e and 4e*, and am currently taking a break from my ongoing 3e campaign to start a short 4e campaign next month.

However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this.  To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.  

A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban.  I also got a ban.  My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.

So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative?  Are they being disruptive?  What's actually going on here?  

In particular, indiscriminate banning of everyone involved in a conversation may be quick and easy, it may even fend off accusations of bias ("See, we banned both sides!"), but I don't think it's a good idea.


----------



## Morrus

S'mon said:


> Mmm, ok so it sounds like the mods are not anti 4e or anti 3e, but anti perceived 'negativity'.




Negativity is fine; it's rudeness that's the problem.  Unfortunately, the negativity and the rudeness seem to be firm bedfellows.



> However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.
> 
> A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.




Hmmm?  The post you got the 3 day ban for was: "I can't "man up and talk straight" to you, sir, because that would get me a suspension, and you're not worth it."

Admittedly, an incredibly minor infraction which would have ordinarily have gone unnoticed.  Unfortunately, it came shortly after a civility warning.  But that aside (I won't dispute that it was very minor), the ban reason clearly was "ignoring a mod", not "negativity".

I think this is, perhaps, a perfect example of what I meant above when people see the reasons for a ban as something contrary to the actual, and indded explicitly stated, reasons.  

Someone else would be crowing on RPGnet by now about how they got banned for "not liking 4E" or some such nonsense (you, of course, not being that someone else - I can't imagine you acting in such a manner).



> So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?




Sure.  I think that goes to the _level _of the infraction rather than the reason for it, though.   

One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason.  That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.*



*I realise you emailed me, but I found that email too late.  Sorry about that!


----------



## rounser

> However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.
> 
> A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.
> 
> So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?



In the mod's defense, I don't think that was a typical thread nor a typical day.  I think they were just fed up with the shenanigans.  I know I was, almost welcomed the ban, people were acting strange.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason.  That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.




That sounds like a _fine_ houserule. Err, I mean it's a great idea. 

Mustrum "Hopes he never has to see that feature in action" Ridcully


----------



## kenmarable

Morrus said:


> The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.



Seriously? I don't know if being moderators pushes the worst of the site in your face, but personally, this is the most civil RPG messageboard I've found that also has a large wealth of edition neutral material. I don't know about others, but the edition war vehemence seems pretty rare, and when it does arise, it's really easy to spot and avoid. The vast majority of what I see on EN World is no different than the civil discussion that has been happening here for years.

Yeah, unfortunately there will be some who will complain about biases (and nearly always biases against them, of course), but I'm quite comfortable believing that they are the minority and the vast majority appears to be people like me who just like to talk D&D and other RPGs. I doubt EN World "picking a side" would increases civility at all, and just drive traffic of those interested in the losing side away. Plus I could see edition neutral discussions being diminshed by everything having the filter of one edition.

Maybe I'm wrong and EN World is made up of more complainers and haters who want to talk about one system only than fans like me that quietly enjoy EN World and don't rant and rave and complain. But planting a flag and choosing a side would make EN World less useful for me, and as the only messageboard I still visit multiple times a day (the nastiness on others have driven me away from them), EN World would lose a lot of use to me, which obviously I'm against.


----------



## Rel

I just wanted to say a couple things about a couple things mentioned in this thread.

First of all, the moderators here are some damned fine individuals.  I think they do a great job overall and I'm proud to be among them.  I also think that (to use a trite cliche) "our strength is our diversity".  We have a wide range of personalities in all respects but this extends to our tastes in gaming and games of choice.  Some really like 4e.  Some really like 3e.  Some don't care for 4e at all.  Some are lukewarm to it.  Some prefer different systems altogether.  I think this really helps cover all the bases and lets us keep an eye on each other as well.  We're all friendly with each other but we DO call each other on our screwups.

The second is on the nature of moderator warnings.  When you see one of us bust out the ominously colored text, *read it.*  If it is directed at a specific individual who is being a problem in the thread, and if that individual is not you, then move right along.  If it is a general warning that the thread is getting out of hand then _be very careful about what you post next._  We are NOT drawing a line at where the current hostilities are and say, "Ok guys, don't get any nastier than you are already."  What we're doing is placing a sizable "demilitarized zone" in the middle of the argument that has gotten too heated.  If you violate that zone, at all, then you're going to get smacked down.

And don't ask us where the edge of the zone is.  That's part of the effectiveness of this technique.  If we tell you then everybody will be back to the edge of that zone as soon as possible, taking pot shots hoping they'll hit a target on the other side.  If you're unsure whether something would be acceptable then don't post it.  This is your chance to be extra polite to your fellow posters and get your points across in the nicest way you know how.  Exercise that opportunity.


----------



## Mark

Morrus said:


> One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason.  That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.






I think this is a good step that will probably clear up some of the backlash and misconceptions.  I think increasing the severity toward the repeat offenders who are regularly banned only to return when their sentence is up and they feel their bowels stirring would be something to consider.


----------



## LightPhoenix

Mark said:


> I think this is a good step that will probably clear up some of the backlash and misconceptions.  I think increasing the severity toward the repeat offenders who are regularly banned only to return when their sentence is up and they feel their bowels stirring would be something to consider.




Reason For Ban: rampant diarrhoea.  Please e-mail piratecat@enworld.org to discuss.


----------



## S'mon

Thanks Morrus for your explanation, that was helpful.



Rel said:


> The second is on the nature of moderator warnings.  When you see one of us bust out the ominously colored text, *read it.*  If it is directed at a specific individual who is being a problem in the thread, and if that individual is not you, then move right along.  If it is a general warning that the thread is getting out of hand then _be very careful about what you post next._  We are NOT drawing a line at where the current hostilities are and say, "Ok guys, don't get any nastier than you are already."  What we're doing is placing a sizable "demilitarized zone" in the middle of the argument that has gotten too heated.  If you violate that zone, at all, then you're going to get smacked down.




I think I missed this, or at least its significance, in the thread where I got banned.  I didn't think my comment was skirting any lines - I had decided I wasn't going to take the bait and thus come close to any line - so I wasn't worried about any prior mod warnings.  So I was pretty gobsmacked to log on later and find I'd been banned, later finding out it was along with several other people - some who seemed to deserve it, others not, even on the basis of a hyper-sensitive demilitarised zone.

I think being able to contact the mod directly will be very helpful.  I was kept in the dark several days, until Piratecat posted on therpgsite - where I had gone to complain about being banned  - and put things in some perspective.

I'm not entirely sure what I think about all this.  I like the strong moderation on ENW, I prefer it to the lopsided modding on rpgnet or the invective-filled free-for-all on therpgsite.  I appreciate the even-handedness and lack of bias of most of the mods, most of the time.  For guys who presumably don't get paid, you do a great job.  OTOH in this particular case the post-general-warning tripwire was set at a different place than I could possibly have imagined, and I think I wasn't the only one.  I think that lack of predictability makes it less helpful as a deterrent, and I can't concur with its use in this particular case.


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> I'm not entirely sure what I think about all this.  I like the strong moderation on ENW, I prefer it to the lopsided modding on rpgnet or the invective-filled free-for-all on therpgsite.  I appreciate the even-handedness and lack of bias of most of the mods, most of the time.  For guys who presumably don't get paid, you do a great job.  OTOH in this particular case the post-general-warning tripwire was set at a different place than I could possibly have imagined, and I think I wasn't the only one.  I think that lack of predictability makes it less helpful as a deterrent, and I can't concur with its use in this particular case.




Yes, well, that's the tradeoff.  If we are gentle, and there is a "false positive" or borderline case, you aren't apt to really mind it overmuch.  If we are rather more harsh, then those same edge cases are going to be less pleasant.

So, is that tradeoff worth it?  Folks, ask yourself, are *you* willing to take one for the team?


----------



## S'mon

Just to say that Xath has replied by email with clarification on her actions, and in conjunction with what Piratecat said on therpgsite about the sad personal event in his life that weekend, I think I understand what happened:  Piratecat was understandably upset, while Xath was following PC's instruction that there would be bans without further explanation for 'the slightest hint of rudeness'. On that basis I can understand why I received the suspension.  Thanks to the various mods for your patience.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Hey, I think I'm an edge case a lot and I wouldn't mind harsher mods.

Has the army of people registered in the last two months posting major edition war crap been noticed?  The problem is getting worse.


----------



## jdrakeh

Charwoman Gene said:


> Has the army of people registered in the last two months posting major edition war crap been noticed?




I've noticed several people with very low post counts posting deliberately inflammatory threads (i.e., trolling), yes. I didn't realize that any of them had registered so recently, though.


----------



## Windjammer

While I think the ratio of thread closure seems a bit high recently, and I can't always see the reasoning behind the closures (particularly when someone says he/she hasn't even read the thread before closing), I don't perceive moderators' actions to be the dominant problem. 

I perceive the dominant problem to arise from the sort of peer moderation non-moderator posters exert on one another in most forums, this forum included. Peer moderation, of itself, is wonderful because it shows a community's desire and effort to take care of itself. At the same time, peer moderation is problematic because, given that anyone can participate, it will wildly fluctuate in quality.

For that reason I'd appreciate if Enworld communicated to its posters to be more conscientious when peer moderating. For instance, just reading this thread on this page, and reading some other recent threads, blanket accusations of trolling abound. Trolling is a serious issue, but so are unfounded accusations thereof. It should be an issue of honesty and responsibility to only issue negative characterizations of other people's posts by

1. clearly saying which post you mean, avoiding generic elusive references like "they", "some", "people", or "we all know who I mean", 

2. clearly saying why one thinks the accusation is warranted i.e. the reason on which one declares a post to be indicative of trolling.

I observe how some posters are very conscientious about observing 1. and 2., and I value their integrity for doing so. It's just I wish that their practice was more widespread.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Eridanis

Windjammer said:


> I perceive the dominant problem to arise from the sort of peer moderation non-moderator posters exert on one another in most forums, this forum included. Peer moderation, of itself, is wonderful because it shows a community's desire and effort to take care of itself. At the same time, peer moderation is problematic because, given that anyone can participate, it will wildly fluctuate in quality.
> 
> For that reason I'd appreciate if Enworld communicated to its posters to be more conscientious when peer moderating...




I get a little queasy thinking about posters moderating (i.e., explicitly commenting on) other posters; that's crossing the line into rudeness. I think the best way to get to what you're saying is to follow a model we've practiced for years: posters setting the tone of the discussion, being an example of good citizenship. I agree that we could use more of that again.


----------



## Piratecat

I was in a really foul mood this last weekend. Normally when that happens I recuse myself form moderating for a while; I didn't recognize it at the time, though. I think it's worth me apologizing for the overly stringent result, because I largely things worse instead of better. Sorry about that.


----------



## jdrakeh

Windjammer said:


> I perceive the dominant problem to arise from the sort of peer moderation non-moderator posters exert on one another in most forums, this forum included.




Peer moderation as you allude to doesn't really happen here past individual posters being allowed to report a post (which is something that all vBulletin forums allow to my knowledge). Indeed, moderators and admins regularly warn or even _ban_ posters for acting as though they were moderators. Looking into almost any moderated thread will turn up a moderator or admin reminding posters that the correct course of action when one disagrees with another poster is to report the post, not respond to it. Incidentally, the following is the kind of thing that _I_ regard as trolling: 

1. _Accusing_ an unspecified group of people of certain behavior. 
2. Negatively characterizing those people (frex, as cowards and liars).  
3. _Challenging those people to particpate in behavior that is specifically against forum rules_. 

The second and third things are what make a trolling attempt, really. The first thing is so unspecific as to be harmless. If something like that is really causing people angst, then they're strung _way_ too tight, IMO ("I just know that he's talking about _me_!"). When people get into calling each other names (a violation of forum rules), and challenging people whom they disagree with to break forum rules in the hope that they'll be moderated. . . well, I think _that_ is the quintessential essence of trolling. 

Trolling forums is just like trolling for fish. . . the person doing the trolling is throwing out bait (deliberately rude or inflammartory comments designed to provoke a heated response) and hoping that somebody will bite it, so they can be reeled in and bopped in the head. What seems to be at the heart of the issue currently is that some people* want to be able to post deliberately inflammatory threads or replies and not be held accountable for it, while demanding that the targets of their efforts be subject to the harshest moderation possible. 

I think the answer is — and has always been — to adhere to the simple maxim "What's good for one is good for all." AFAICT, that's pretty much how moderation here has always worked. I can say that as somebody who has been moderated as a current fan of d20/OGL games and as a past vocal critic of same said games. Most of the people I see who are currently raising cain about ENWorld mod action are people who were, in fact, fairly moderated for clear breach of the forum's rules. I don't think that there is any grand conspiracy plotting against them. I think the truth is much more simple. _I think they just don't like being held accountable for their actions_. 

*And, no, I won't name names — doing so is against the forum rules and constitutes a personal attack, as I've learned in the past. I also don't feel that naming names will lead to any kind of a productive discussion, nor is it necessary for one.


----------



## S'mon

I think peoples' view on what counts as inflammatory varies a lot, depending on their own strongly held beliefs.


----------



## Windjammer

I see that my post was misleading since I took a certain understanding of "peer moderation" for granted without making any effort to spell out what I mean. Apolgoies. So here I try again.

To begin with, peer moderation (as I understood it) has nothing to do with endowing non-moderator posters (or worse, a subset thereof) with a moderator's rights and/or duties. The division of labour between moderators and non-moderators is important for a site's well being (for reasons others have already pointed out here).

What I meant, rather, was that peer moderation of a different sort, where people do not comment on other people as such but on their posts, is a natural given on any forum, this forum included. To be plain, every time one uses the quotation function and comments on the merits or demerits of a particular posting, and (more particularly) on its general nature regarding certain qualities (constructiveness, neutrality, being well-researched as opposed to ill-founded), peer moderation is in place. *This has nothing to do with personal attacks since the target of such a remark - even if highly critical - is never the person but the posting. *(I'm sure I missed stating this vital qualification in my previous post!)

At the same time, using the quotation function isn't tantamount to peer moderation per se. Sometimes we simply ask for clarification, voice a follow-up question, or simply voice an opinion to the contrary. These aren't instances of peer moderation but of straight on-the-topic-discussion. Just to repeat,  "peer moderation" rather covers the type of comments all of us engage in when we explicitly or implicitly comment on other people's "posting standards" _with regard to particular postings of theirs_. (I can't stress enough how important this qualification is!)

And this is what I meant when citing unfounded accusations of trolling as an instance of offending on this score. (I'm sure there are other instances, and more important ones, this one was just on my mind at the time of writing.) Accusing other people of trolling is a very important step in peer moderation. However, equally important is to keep to certain standards oneself when doing so. It's the absence of these standards - which I detailed above - which deteriorate a lot of discussion on these boards in my estimate.

 If you're still unclear as to where I'm going with this, perhaps the following will help. Enworld isn't the only forum which on occasion struggles with the inevitable pitfalls of peer moderation. Here's a singularly instructive thread on Paizo which addresses a similar issue over there head on (no need to read too much of the thread, you'll get the gist of it soon enough  ). Basically, there comes a point when less than careful peer moderation amounts to thread crapping, which is when peer moderation has overshot its purpose of precisely avoiding that. The parallel of Enworld to Paizo is interesting because, despite some superficial (and nonetheless important) parallels, the underlying cause of the problem in the two cases couldn't be more varied. Basically, on Paizo's boards 4E-supporters have to resort to peer moderation because they don't have any other option - they are compensating the absence of top-down moderators who take care of anti-4e-threadcrappers. This isn't the case on Enworld -  *my perception re Enworld is that the moderators always have to keep a step ahead of peer moderation*. And this isn't exactly an easy affair, let alone on a day-to-day basis. For, when peer moderation gets ouf of hand, it becomes all the harder to maintain sober moderation practices oneself.

To guarantee that this posting itself adheres to my self-declared standards, I wish (in closing) to pin my observations on concrete examples. NB This isn't meant to be exhaustive but exemplifying of what I've written here.

In my estimate, a couple of recent threads *didn't* deterioriate because they were discussing controversial subjects in an insensitive manner - threads discussing: the extent to which the inclusion of virtual table tops influenced the design of the 4E ruleset; the question of whether the Retro-Clone movement is on safe legal grounds; the issue of whether elements of 4E met suboptimal rigors of playtesting. No, these threads_ had _to be closed because they, and I mean ALL OF THEM, were continuously threadcrapped by certain people who had *no interest* in seeing the questions raised therein getting answered, and went to extraordinary measures to prevent others from discussing these questions and seeing them answered. Basically, the amount and nature of this threadcrapping had in each instance reached intolerable levels where discussion was no longer possible. 

That such a development is highly detrimental to a site dedicated to the very discussion of such issues is, I hope, not a controvercial claim. What is controvercial, I think, is the distribution of blame or, to use a word I vastly prefer, of responsibility. All of us, and I mean ALL, are responsible for the nature of discussion on these boards and if not ALL of us make a WAY higher effort when peer moderating then fruitful discussion about a crucial, but crucially important, set of issues related to D&D will have no future on this board.


----------



## Samuel Leming

The reason that you're continuing to have edition wars is because of threads like this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/258380-long-we-talking-hypothetically.html 

where jerks say things like this:

[Edited out namecalling of a specific member - Morrus]

OK, he's skirting just beneath the the rules so I can't report him and Umbran has already 'oranged' him, but these kind of statements are intended to cause trouble.

It doesn't bother me when somebody says a game I like is crap. I just take that to mean he prefers a different kind of game. When somebody says the WAY I've been role playing for the last 32 years( and the way the hundred or so people I've gamed with) is crap then I find cause to be offended.

As far as I know 'acting as your character would based on a given situation' is the most common way of playing these games. It's even the most common definition of role playing! Gloating that D&D has removed support for that is trying to be offensive.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Rel said:


> The second is on the nature of moderator warnings.  When you see one of us bust out the ominously colored text, *read it.*




Just to chime in- I tend to actually seek out recently locked threads in order to see what happened.  By reading the ominously colored text- _even in threads I didn't or even have an intention to participate in_- I constantly remind myself of the boundaries.  It helps rein in my own baser instincts.*

Its worked pretty well so far- in all my time here, AFAIK, I've only had one "Time out" and that was for something I posted in haste while sleep deprived and thus was poorly composed...

Which resulted in an entirely justified kick in the pants because even though I didn't say what I meant, what I said was ultimately my responsibility...and what I said was pretty inflammatory.

On the whole, I can honestly say I haven't seen too much in the way of mods overusing the Banhammer.  Keep up the good work, y'all.

* Which is why I once proposed having a section of the website- call it "The Abyss," why not- devoted to the banned threads.  It might be more educational than the forum rules sticky.


----------



## Morrus

Samuel Leming said:


> The reason that you're continuing to have edition wars is because of threads like this:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/258380-long-we-talking-hypothetically.html
> 
> where jerks say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, he's skirting just beneath the the rules so I can't report him and Umbran has already 'oranged' him, but these kind of statements are intended to cause trouble.




And responding by calling him a jerk here in Meta is not the way to handle it. Someone "skirting beneath the rules" isn't license for you to _break_ the rules. The best approach, as always, is to report the post or ignore him; don't escalate it.

You've put me in a difficult position here.  I've edited out the reference to a specific poster, leaving it as a general comment.  _Please_ don't do that, though.


----------



## Mark

Morrus said:


> And responding by calling him a jerk here in Meta is not the way to handle it. Someone "skirting beneath the rules" isn't license for you to _break_ the rules. The best approach, as always, is to report the post or ignore him; don't escalate it.
> 
> You've put me in a difficult position here.  I've edited out the reference to a specific poster, leaving it as a general comment.  _Please_ don't do that, though.





Having read the post before you edited it, I have to agree and know that particular poster gets reported regularly with no apparent action taken (none in the threads where I personally know he gets reported and he's still here, so obviously not banned).  I've got to ask, is the poster in question actually posting within the limits of what is acceptable behavior?

Samuel Leming, OTOH, has been here for years without any infractions of which I am aware and this poster has him so up in arms he actually risks breaking the rules.  That's gotta tell you something.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just to chime in- I tend to actually seek out recently locked threads in order to see what happened. By reading the ominously colored text- _even in threads I didn't or even have an intention to participate in_- I constantly remind myself of the boundaries. It helps rein in my own baser instincts.*
> 
> Its worked pretty well so far- in all my time here, AFAIK, I've only had one "Time out" and that was for something I posted in haste while sleep deprived and thus was poorly composed...
> 
> Which resulted in an entirely justified kick in the pants because even though I didn't say what I meant, what I said was ultimately my responsibility...and what I said was pretty inflammatory.
> 
> On the whole, I can honestly say I haven't seen too much in the way of mods overusing the Banhammer. Keep up the good work, y'all.
> 
> * Which is why I once proposed having a section of the website- call it "The Abyss," why not- devoted to the banned threads. It might be more educational than the forum rules sticky.




I do the same thing.

I try to avoid the blatant edition war threads entirely (you can usually tell them simply from the thread title).  I'll also tend to avoid threads that end up devolving into edition wars (even if the thread subject wasn't initially about edition wars - sometimes the "Edition Warriors" can turn even good and unbiased threads into edition wars, as I think almost happened with one of Xechnao's latest threads - the mods did a great job setting the tone early in the thread).

But, I will check out threads that were closed to see why, and just to see examples of what the mods are looking for.  Humans are subjective and imperfect, but despite these shortcomings I think the mods here do a hell of a job.  I can't imagine it's easy.  Nobody likes being the bad guy (except for when they're DM'ing), and these guys take a lot of flack for it, but for the most part I think they are very consistent and fair.  Their efforts do seem to pay off with a mostly friendly and helpful environment for the forums.  I didn't get a "Time-Out" like you mentioned Danny, but I have had a gentle and well-deserved admonishment from Pcat.  And he was 100% right.

I decided to take his advice after that and actually started to use the "Ignore" function for a couple of members.  I tried to avoid doing that since I started posting here but after Pcats advice I gave it a try.  It's honestly made my enjoyment of the site much better since.  I find that I don't even notice their absence unless someone quotes them.

So, I'd second what you said Danny and say to the mods, _"Keep up the good work, y'all."_  That is unless it's me that's screwing up.


----------



## Samuel Leming

Morrus said:


> And responding by calling him a jerk here in Meta is not the way to handle it. Someone "skirting beneath the rules" isn't license for you to _break_ the rules. The best approach, as always, is to report the post or ignore him; don't escalate it.



Heh.

I quoted and moved on with composing the post without considering that the name was attached to the quote. If I had thought about it I would have just deleted it or replaced it with something silly like YARB, JARB or even Peter Dragon. The quote makes my point just as well without having a specific name attached, but now that the quote is gone my post really doesn't work that well.

Anyway, to try this from another angle, I don't think the edition wars problem is really caused by people giving their opinions on one game or another. The real issue is that some people are throwing hate at the other side. It's the expression of that hate, within the rules or not, that needs to disappear.


----------



## Samuel Leming

Mark said:


> Having read the post before you edited it, I have to agree and know that particular poster gets reported regularly with no apparent action taken (none in the threads where I personally know he gets reported and he's still here, so obviously not banned).  I've got to ask, is the poster in question actually posting within the limits of what is acceptable behavior?
> 
> Samuel Leming, OTOH, has been here for years without any infractions of which I am aware and this poster has him so up in arms he actually risks breaking the rules.  That's gotta tell you something.



Thanks for the support. I really need it right now.

There really doesn't appear to be a rule against acting like a jerk here as long as you don't step over the line and break an actual rule. That's why some people on other boards say we have a reputation for being passive-aggressive.

I think I see the moderator's reasons for this though. Jerklike behavior is subjective. You know it when you see it, but not everyone agrees on what makes a jerk. The moderators need to be objective. When taking an action they need to be able to point to a specific infraction. Otherwise a moderator can be more easily accused of letting personal issues influence his rulings.


----------



## S'mon

Piratecat said:


> I was in a really foul mood this last weekend. Normally when that happens I recuse myself form moderating for a while; I didn't recognize it at the time, though. I think it's worth me apologizing for the overly stringent result, because I largely things worse instead of better. Sorry about that.




Now that things have calmed down again I'd just like to say here that I think you've behaved like a gentleman in apologising PC, and have minimised any lasting damage.


----------



## S'mon

El Mahdi said:


> I
> I decided to take his advice after that and actually started to use the "Ignore" function for a couple of members.




I have a bit of a problem with the ENW Ignore function because when an Ignored poster starts a thread, it preserves the thread as visible, but without their initial post.  This makes for confusing reading!  Invisibling the entire thread might be better.


----------



## Mark

Another problem with the ignore function becomes apparent when someone who is prolific and prone to derailing threads gets off on a tangent.  It is mostly useful, though.


Also, I agree that PC is most definitely a gentleman.


----------



## Arnwyn

S'mon said:


> I have a bit of a problem with the ENW Ignore function because when an Ignored poster starts a thread, it preserves the thread as visible, but without their initial post.  This makes for confusing reading!  Invisibling the entire thread might be better.



Indeed. AFAIC, ENWorld's Ignore function is broken and essentially non-functional. For me, if an Ignore function doesn't _entirely scrub_ the existence of a poster from ENWorld when I'm browsing, it's pretty much valueless.

(And while this is completely wishful thinking, I'd still love the ability to add myself to _others'_ ignore lists... some people shouldn't ever respond to me! )


----------



## Morrus

Arnwyn said:


> Indeed. AFAIC, ENWorld's Ignore function is broken and essentially non-functional. For me, if an Ignore function doesn't _entirely scrub_ the existence of a poster from ENWorld when I'm browsing, it's pretty much valueless.




And yet, when I set it to do that a while back, people complained that they'd prefer to see the threads so they could change their mind on a case-by-case basis about viewing them.

Can't win, really. 

FWIW, I personally prefer it the way you do.


----------



## Arnwyn

Morrus said:


> And yet, when I set it to do that a while back, people complained that they'd prefer to see the threads so they could change their mind on a case-by-case basis about viewing them.
> 
> Can't win, really.



 Heh!

That complaint doesn't make much sense to me... if one is going to go so far as to use the Ignore function, then there really shouldn't be any "case-by-case basis"... Crazy illogical people! 

And sadly that still doesn't fix the 'see the offending poster in quotes' problem.


----------



## LightPhoenix

I think the reason for it was two-fold.  First, just because someone ignored starts a thread, doesn't mean that the non-ignored replies in the thread have no value.  Second, I think perhaps that people wanted a way to "cheat" the ignore option - ignored people can still be detected, if not always read.


----------



## Mark

Do I sense the beginning of an Ignore List Settings War?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Reading the Pathfinder thread on changes to the Allip, I think we are mislabeling the whole thing. 

It's not an edition war.

It's a playstyle war. 

Samuel Lemings example is great for that, too. It's not about the individual edition, but the playstyle it supported or suggested, and how people like or dislike that playstyle.


----------



## S'mon

LightPhoenix said:


> I think the reason for it was two-fold.  First, just because someone ignored starts a thread, doesn't mean that the non-ignored replies in the thread have no value.  Second, I think perhaps that people wanted a way to "cheat" the ignore option - ignored people can still be detected, if not always read.




But I've often found myself reading a thread "This makes no sense - wait... the OP must be on Ignore! - damnit I'm going to have to de-ignore them to find out what's going on!"

For me, ignorance would be bliss.


----------



## Mark

S'mon said:


> But I've often found myself reading a thread "This makes no sense - wait... the OP must be on Ignore! - damnit I'm going to have to de-ignore them to find out what's going on!"
> 
> For me, ignorance would be bliss.





While "often" is a relative term (and I'll use it myself, knowing this to be true), this is a sign that either you have a lot of people on ignore or that the people you have on ignore post a lot or start a lot of threads.  I find that a couple of the six or eight people I have on ignore are some of the more prolific posters, in streaks, that post in the General forum over the last year and a half.  Sometimes, either a thread will not make sense because one of them starts it and posts a lot within it or because they join a thread and post every second on third post while they are online that time/session (as often as not because they take exception with something about the thread and will keep badgering the other poster(s) until someone is tossed from the thread or it is closed or they need to log off).  It is also, as often  as not, edition war related.


----------



## Lanefan

El Mahdi said:


> But, I will check out threads that were closed to see why, and just to see examples of what the mods are looking for.



As do I, though there's been a few recent cases where the reason for locking is not entirely obvious even after reading the mod's red/orange letters - a few 5e-related threads in "general" leap to mind as examples.

As for the "ignore" function, I have yet to use it, as everyone sooner or later has something worthwhile to say and I'd rather not miss it when it happens. 

Lan-"I'm an Orc Berserker - what's my pick-locks roll to open threads?"-efan


----------



## Piratecat

I agree, those weren't as obvious. We're finding 5e threads really, really annoying right now. Call it a quirk.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Personally, I don't use the ignore function, I just use my own discretion.

For example- I found myself charging into piracy threads like a Barb/Paladin (yeah, I know) intent upon textually swatting down those who misunderstood/mis-stated/ignored the laws regarding piracy because I'm an Entertainment lawyer.

Then I realized:

1) it was doing almost no good- most of those people weren't listening.

2) it was driving my already high blood pressure up.  At times, I could actually hear the blood rushing in my veins..._RAWR!_

3) my posts on the subject were spiraling ever closer to being ban-worthy in their hostility...even when I tried to be cool, calm and collected.

So instead of putting certain posters on ignore, I instead just stopped participating in piracy threads.


----------



## Mark

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So instead of putting certain posters on ignore, I instead just stopped participating in piracy threads.





The result is a shame, though.  One of the strengths of EN World is its breadth of knowledge and I think we lose some of our best experts when they feel they cannot post rather than risk becoming embroiled in a thread where some will troll or use rhetorical fallacies to push agendas and shut down useful discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mark said:


> The result is a shame, though.  One of the strengths of EN World is its breadth of knowledge and I think we lose some of our best experts when they feel they cannot post rather than risk becoming embroiled in a thread where some will troll or use rhetorical fallacies to push agendas and shut down useful discussion.




Actually, for me its just a way for me to keep from dealing with the same stuff I deal with professionally.

If someone asked me something directly, I'd respond.  

However, most of the piracy threads simply rehash the same positions that get espoused in courts.  Its simply not productive  or healthy for me to participate.

Besides, there are a fair number of IP experts on this site, representing a broad spectrum of positions on the subject.  I'm  a bit more pro-IP creator than some, since...well...my clients are IP creators.

If I were in Court, I'd cite a case and hand over a copy of the case or law or whatever...but not all of that stuff is available online, at least not for free.  And if you can't provide an online cite, those contra your position won't believe you.  Even if its settled law.


So, instead of beating my head against the wall, I opt out.

...and opt _INTO_ helping people do conversions, come up with creative PCs, refine nifty campaign ideas and so forth.  Very fun, very theraputic.


----------

