# Is an Edition Warz moritorium possible?



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2007)

simple request in the thread title.

pweeze.


----------



## hafrogman (Jan 9, 2007)

I second this request.  Perhaps one of the old ones could be left for those who still feel the need to discuss it.  But now new threads seem to be popping up with delibrately inflamatory titles.  Nothing that by itself merits reporting, but when similar things fill the General forum it becomes a nuisance.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 9, 2007)

Or can we just move it CM were it can be properly discusses?


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 9, 2007)

Once I have ENWorld on 3.6 I swear I'm going to make a button for the mods called "kick thread to Circvs"


----------



## nerfherder (Jan 9, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Once I have ENWorld on 3.6 I swear I'm going to make a button for the mods called "kick thread to Circvs"



Ooh, fresh meat!


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 9, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Once I have ENWorld on 3.6 I swear I'm going to make a button for the mods called "kick thread to Circvs"



Haha!  That sounds awesome!

I second... uh.. third... uh... whatever the original request.  Any way we can consolidate some of the Edition Wars into... well, into less threads anyway?  It's swallowing up General.

I think it's time we soundly flogged some other dead horse, like Low magic/Grim-n-Gritty or something anyway.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 9, 2007)

Weirdly enough, I'm in total agreement with Diaglo, for once.  Lock 'em down and ditch 'em.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 9, 2007)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I think it's time we soundly flogged some other dead horse, like Low magic/Grim-n-Gritty or something anyway.




Exactly!

...so its time to bring back the Ranger discussion!!


----------



## XO (Jan 9, 2007)

*Moratorium is now in effect...*

...with 3.5 declared an OK game, and 2e a good game near its end run, and AD&D the best ever...

We all agree !


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 9, 2007)

My hat of &DD know no limit!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 9, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Weirdly enough, I'm in total agreement with Diaglo, for once.  Lock 'em down and ditch 'em.  It's pretty obvious that posters like dungeondelver (who's admitted elsewhere he's aiming to get banned) are coming over from other fora to just stir up trouble.





And, weirdly enough, while I am enjoying parts of them (I certainly like _actually discussing_ the relative merits of the various editions), I would agree with consolidating these threads.  The thread I opened (he admitted shamefacedly) was actually more of an attempt to _consolodate_ various editions strong points than to continue ripping them apart.

Of course, I have been as guilty of splitting a topic into multiple threads in the past as anyone, so who am I to talk?


RC


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 9, 2007)

When it comes to issues of moderation my voice is no louder than any other users, but I would like to voice that I'm sick of wading through them too.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 10, 2007)

As long as different points are being raised, as opposed to the same things being rehashed over and over, I don't mind 'em at all.  But that's just me... 

Lanefan


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 10, 2007)

Yes, please, let's see a reduction in Edition Warz threads for a while (though that should also mean that diaglo agrees to a 1 week moratorium on posting his signature line ).


----------



## Garnfellow (Jan 10, 2007)

Yeah, I've been pretty discouraged by the last week or so of EnWorld: very tedious and irritating. I haven't seen a lot of forum rules broken outright, but I think I'm seeing an awful lot of bending -- many passive-aggressive and baiting posts that really only seem intended to nudge the limits of civility. Maybe Eric's Grandma hasn't read any one thing that truly offended her, but can't imagine she would be very pleased by the general tenor of this discourse -- if borderline trolling can be called discourse.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 10, 2007)

We have a moratorium on new edition-related threads for a few weeks. With luck, that'll help substantially.


----------



## BOZ (Jan 10, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Once I have ENWorld on 3.6 I swear I'm going to make a button for the mods called "kick thread to Circvs"




that does sound awesome.    how hard would it be to do?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> It's pretty obvious that posters like dungeondelver (who's admitted elsewhere he's aiming to get banned) are coming over from other fora to just stir up trouble.




Please stop that.

You don't like it when posters try to acscribe motivations to you, or other posters, right? So don't do it yourself.  I do not care how "obvious" it seems to you, it isn't appropriate.

The Golden Rule applies, as always.


----------



## Eridanis (Jan 10, 2007)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Once I have ENWorld on 3.6 I swear I'm going to make a button for the mods called "kick thread to Circvs"




It's all fun & games until EF and IUH get a button to send threads back to ENworld...


----------



## Jim Hague (Jan 10, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Please stop that.
> 
> You don't like it when posters try to acscribe motivations to you, or other posters, right? So don't do it yourself.  I do not care how "obvious" it seems to you, it isn't appropriate.
> 
> The Golden Rule applies, as always.




Understood.  My apologies.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jan 10, 2007)

Well, now that you think about it, that could be fun too


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 10, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We have a moratorium on new edition-related threads for a few weeks. With luck, that'll help substantially.



Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too.  Does that mean the whole topic is banned?

Lanefan


----------



## hafrogman (Jan 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too.  Does that mean the whole topic is banned?
> 
> Lanefan




I think you'll find that one was locked because it was degenerating into a flame war and had already reached 1,000+ posts.  Only one was locked to decrease the numbers in existence.  Some of them are still alive out there.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too.  Does that mean the whole topic is banned?




Consider - the ones that did get closed (which was not all of them), got closed because people were getting acrimonious, and no longer really communicating.  With that as the case, would you expect a new thread to do anything but continue in the same way?  Probably not.

Thus - even if there were not a ban on the topic for the moment, it isn't like you'd likely get anything constructive out of a new thread right now anyway.  If you want real, thoughtful discussion, let it rest a bit, and come back to it after folks have had a chance to cool down.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jan 10, 2007)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> It's all fun & games until EF and IUH get a button to send threads back to ENworld...



 It would have to be called the "Go Back ot ENWurld" button.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too.  Does that mean the whole topic is banned?
> 
> Lanefan



As others have said, when people are being rude, threads get closed. When people are being constructive and not bickering, threads stay open. The acceptable line for passive-aggressive sniping on this topic is currently slightly lower than normal. Fully half of the already existing threads are still open, if I remember correctly. I hope it stays that way!


----------



## Quasqueton (Jan 10, 2007)

Edition Wars usually erupt because of Edition Insults. Sometimes the Edition Insult is subtly or "cleverly" inserted into an otherwise civil discussion. Sometimes the Edition Insult is expanded upon and used as a thesis for an opening post to start an Edition War thread. Sometimes the Edition Insult is wrapped up in enough non-insulting or disarming text to give the poster a seemingly legitimate way of claiming innocence or accident.



> What I've found very perplexing is why those who left (A)D&D in the past for "being such a bad system" are so adamant that the game they are currently playing "really" be D&D.





> I can't see many 3E fans liking Holmes very much, honestly.





> It's not the fluff, it's the system itself. The "3e" ruleset is a different game than D&D. "3.5e" is really d20 Fantasy, 2nd edition. It has nothing to do with "not being worthy" of the name.





> Of course, the part about playing anything you want in OD&D and Holmes Basic that 3e players may not like is that DM approval is required . . .





> So, what was the first product where D&D's soul was sold?



And then there’s the well-known buzzwords: video gamey, KEWL POWERZ, etc.

And Edition Wars don’t always erupt because of one statement or one post – sometimes there is a critical mass reached when folks just can’t ignore the undercurrent in so many posts.

ENWorld has a permanent ban against the subjects of religion and politics, yet there have been some threads discussing both without getting closed. And usually when someone says something inappropriate on the subject (a Religion Insult or a Politics Insult), the text of the post gets edited by a mod. This prevents others from responding to the insult, and usually the discussion is allowed to continue. I think this is a good idea. How about use it for Edition Insults?

I’d have no problem with a Mod editing out something I say if they think it would start an Edition War. Or if the statement/post was found insulting by some other folks. Put a note in that current sticky on the General forum that directs people to report posts (and how to do so) that they find insulting. If more than one person reports that post, a mod should edit it to remove the Edition Insult.

Don’t just contact the poster by email and wait for him/her to edit it – that just leaves the insult out on the forum for folks to respond to, possibly for hours. This is how you seem to handle Religion Insults and Politics Insults. You nip it in the bud.

Also, how about, giving posters warning points for Edition Insults? Ban them when they acquire so many in a time period? I believe there are some posters who come here *just* to throw out Edition Insults – whether to start a war or just to annoy the regulars here. They should not be suffered.

Quasqueton


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 10, 2007)

I'd like to point out that edition insults, like everything, are a two-way street. Frankly, 3e fans are often being as rude to earlier editions of the game as proponents of old D&D are sometimes being to 3e. If you think someone's being rude or you get offended, don't be rude to them back. That way lies madness, closed threads, and annoyed mods.

We're not going to start editing specific edition insults. That's a burden I'm not going to place onto our moderators. We're generally adults here, and we moderate under the assumption that people act like adults. Babysitting arguments has never been something we put up with for long.

Anyways, different people have different tolerances for such things, and some folks are a lot quicker to take offense than (for instance) I am. I'm of the opinion that discussing these things can sometimes be really interesting, but that such discussions flow a lot more smoothly when people phrase things as their opinion instead of as absolutes. I'm okay with someone who says "I dislike 3e", while I'm not okay with that person unilaterally saying "3e sucks." 

Going forward, we'll expect people to be respectful of one another's opinions. If someone can't respond to another person except in anger, we've got a newly-improved ignore feature that may help.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jan 10, 2007)

> I'd like to point out that edition insults, like everything, are a two-way street. Frankly, 3e fans are often being as rude to earlier editions of the game as proponents of old D&D are sometimes being to 3e.



I agree, that does happen. And that should not be allowed either.



> If you think someone's being rude or you get offended, don't be rude to them back. That way lies madness, closed threads, and annoyed mods.



Easier said than done. If that concept worked so well, there wouldn’t be a ban on religion and politics, here. People don’t like to be insulted, and insulting a person’s favorite hobby (or version of the hobby) is essentially insulting that person.



> We're not going to start editing specific edition insults. That's a burden I'm not going to place onto our moderators.



Very well.



> We're generally adults here, and we moderate under the assumption that people act like adults. Babysitting arguments has never been something we put up with for long.



Adults can be jackasses, sometimes. It happens. Some are even such intentionally, and regularly. But I was not suggesting or asking for anyone to “baby sit” arguments. I hope my post didn’t come across as asking for mods to sit and watch every thread for arguments – I was just talking about responding to reports.



> Anyways, different people have different tolerances for such things, and some folks are a lot quicker to take offense than (for instance) I am. I'm of the opinion that discussing these things can sometimes be really interesting, but that such discussions flow a lot more smoothly when people phrase things as their opinion instead of as absolutes. I'm okay with someone who says "I dislike 3e", while I'm not okay with that person unilaterally saying "3e sucks."



If you are saying this as a disagreement to what I said, then I obviously didn’t explain my thoughts/opinion on the matter very well.

Are the statements in quote boxes in my previous post acceptable for ENWorld discussion? Is this:







> Yes, but this is 1e, where weird departures from the norm are, well, normal.




Quasqueton


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Edition Wars usually erupt because of Edition Insults. Sometimes the Edition Insult is subtly or "cleverly" inserted into an otherwise civil discussion.




And, frequently enough, an insult is seen in a discussion where none was intended.  From a moderation standpoint, that is a non-trivial problem.



> ENWorld has a permanent ban against the subjects of religion and politics, yet there have been some threads discussing both without getting closed. And usually when someone says something inappropriate on the subject (a Religion Insult or a Politics Insult), the text of the post gets edited by a mod. This prevents others from responding to the insult, and usually the discussion is allowed to continue. I think this is a good idea. How about use it for Edition Insults?




There's a major difference - religion and politics are not on-topic for these boards.  We don't lose much of what people come here for if we ban those topics.  However, comparison and contrast of different systems is on topic, and often a constructive exercise.  People could learn a whole lot about games and gamers if they got into it but didn't walk down the road of insult.

So, that brings us back to our problem.  We want to see thoughtful, coherent, civil discourse about various games.  Editing out some of those for possible offenses will put a damper on such discussion, because the moderators will have to err on the side of caution.

An occasional temporary block on a relelvant topic is preferrable to a long-term wet blanket upon it.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jan 10, 2007)

> Editing out some of those for possible offenses will put a damper on such discussion



Obviously, I did not explain my concept well, at all. And I can't think of a clearer way of stating it.

Quasqueton


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Obviously, I did not explain my concept well, at all. And I can't think of a clearer way of stating it.




I think you explained your concept clearly enough - I think perhaps your concept contains clear-cut lines and definitions that we cannot put into practice in reality.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jan 10, 2007)

> I think you explained your concept clearly enough



Yet you "paraphrased" me with: 







> Editing out some of those for possible offenses will put a damper on such discussion



I never suggested the mods need to "baby sit" as Piratecat put it, or edit out "possible" offenses. If that's the way you guys interpreted my post, I was not clear.



> I think perhaps your concept contains clear-cut lines and definitions that we cannot put into practice in reality.



I didn't think I gave any clear-cut lines or definitions.

Out of curiousity, are these quotes acceptable for an ENWorld discussion thread?


> What I've found very perplexing is why those who left (A)D&D in the past for "being such a bad system" are so adamant that the game they are currently playing "really" be D&D.





> I can't see many 3E fans liking Holmes very much, honestly.





> It's not the fluff, it's the system itself. The "3e" ruleset is a different game than D&D. "3.5e" is really d20 Fantasy, 2nd edition. It has nothing to do with "not being worthy" of the name.





> Of course, the part about playing anything you want in OD&D and Holmes Basic that 3e players may not like is that DM approval is required . . .





> So, what was the first product where D&D's soul was sold?





> Yes, but this is 1e, where weird departures from the norm are, well, normal.




If you think they are OK, then I am just being too sensitive. And I'll shut up. (Although *I* didn't respond to any of the above statements. But others did.)

Actually, I'll shut up anyway. I'm apparently a master of miscommunication. (Though I hope you answer this last question.)

Quasqueton


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 10, 2007)

Don't shut up! I'd much rather have one of us explain our position, and the other person disagree, than just sit and be frustrated in silence.

In this case, I think the topic is very important to you, and that's why you're more sensitive to it than some other folks. I think most of those quotes are just fine, although I certainly don't agree with them and would enthusiastically defend an opposing view. The problem comes when I decide that [pick your poster] is a jerk because he says such things, and so I get personally insulted that he doesn't like something that is exceptionally dear to me. It's hard not to take such things as a personal insult, although really they're just criticizing a game I happen to love.

More later, I think - I'm still at work.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 10, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> More later, I think - I'm still at work.




You...you work?!


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 10, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You...you work?!



Shush, you!

Actually, I make video games. And we hit alpha in two days. Right now I work a LOT; I'm mostly here when the game is building.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I never suggested the mods need to "baby sit" as Piratecat put it, or edit out "possible" offenses. If that's the way you guys interpreted my post, I was not clear.




I still think you were clear.  I was not trying to paraphrase you - I was trying to describe some of the practical upshots of attempting to do what you suggested.



> I didn't think I gave any clear-cut lines or definitions.




You spoke of "Edition Insults", with capital letters.  I suggest that there is no such thing.  Instead, we have a mess of people who may read a post and feel insulted.  Mods cannot remove Edition Insults.  Mods can only remove those things in their judgement might be taken as insulting - my "possible offenses".



> Out of curiousity, are these quotes acceptable for an ENWorld discussion thread?




I don't usually moderate based on the content of a sentence alone.  I try to take the rest of the post and discussion context into account as well.  Right now people are really touchy - virtually anything on the subject is likely to be taken as insulting.  What starts a fight now would not have raised an eyebrow a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 11, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'm okay with someone who says "I dislike 3e", while I'm not okay with that person unilaterally saying "3e sucks."



I remember being part of a (smaller) online community that had a very similar feel to ENW, and it had the rule (I only bring this up because of the coincidence in phrasing) that you could say "3e sucks" all you want as long as you didn't say "YOU suck".  I mean, that phrase "3e sucks" is clearly an opinion; I'm not sure that couching it in extra soft "opinion" language really changes the thrust or impact of the statement any.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jan 11, 2007)

I think one problem in the last week has been that many posts have been disrespectful and rather dinkish -- but they aren't breaking any rules, and if read in isolation and out of context these posts don't necessarily read as problematic. These are really hard, if not impossible things to moderate, but if this practice goes on for too long it creates an atmosphere that can destroy a message board or mailing list.

I've been online now for over 12 years (holy crap!) and belonged to dozens of forums over that period, some gaming related and some not. I've seen at least a couple of excellent online communities go dark because a handful of passive-aggressive posters slowly poisoned the well -- and I really don't want EnWorld to go that route.

For what it's worth, the tenor seems to have improved markedly in the last day or so. I hope it continues.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 11, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I think one problem in the last week has been that many posts have been disrespectful and rather dinkish -- but they aren't breaking any rules, and if read in isolation and out of context these posts don't necessarily read as problematic. These are really hard, if not impossible things to moderate, but if this practice goes on for too long it creates an atmosphere that can destroy a message board or mailing list.



That tends to be a problem in general at ENW, so much so that those who are most bothered by it have been going to "escape valve" forums like Nutkinland, Nothingland or Circvs Maximvs for years to deal with it.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 11, 2007)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> That tends to be a problem in general at ENW, so much so that those who are most bothered by it have been going to "escape valve" forums like Nutkinland, Nothingland or Circvs Maximvs for years to deal with it.



don't forget randomlings. not as an escape value to get angry or rally against ENW but as a place to get away from some of the ire on ENW too.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 6, 2007)

8 4E threads on the front page right now - does it need to be reinstated?


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 6, 2007)

It was three yesterday morning... at folks aren't fighting in a 4e thread.  

we don't see the need for a 4e forum for a while. We'll monitor this, though.


----------

