# Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?



## SakanaSensei

I've been lurking here for... a year? Two now? And I enjoy looking at people's thoughts on all kinds of TTRPG stuff. I enjoy the "what piece of art made you love X" threads, I enjoy the breaking down of game mastering styles, I enjoy having a place to check for RPG news.

But I feel like I'm seeing a lot more bickering over relatively minor things since the 1DnD playtest started, in particular. And it kinda makes me sad, because this has been a place I enjoy coming to check and now I feel like I'm seeing posters that I tend to like the posts of getting snarky with others, I'm seeing more moderation actions, and pretty much every thread that goes past 10 pages I feel like I need to mentally prepare myself before checking it out because it's almost a guarantee that people have gotten mean.

Is this all in my head? Is the prospect of the new edition making people more testy? What's going on, here?


----------



## payn

It's just edition churn. Things will mellow eventually.


----------



## DeviousQuail

I've been hanging out here since mid-2020. It seems like it has more to do with a big change to the current edition of D&D than anything else. And I see @payn has beat me to that observation.


----------



## Sacrosanct

payn said:


> It's just edition churn. Things will mellow eventually.



Yep. This. These reactions are typical, and have happened since 2e came out. It will die down


----------



## SakanaSensei

Oof. With release not being for another 2 years, that's... not great.


----------



## TerraDave

payn said:


> It's just edition churn. Things will mellow eventually.



In like 3 years...

5es stability has done a lot calm the board down. That is over.

The only conciliation is that it will probably be worse elsewhere. That has been in the pattern in the past, and I am already seeing a lot of huing and crying out there, and this process has barely started.


----------



## SkidAce

Not sure its "just" edition change.

Conversations tend to polarize into to sides and go downhill more frequently IMO.

Been bothering me for a while.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

SkidAce said:


> Not sure its "just" edition change.
> 
> Conversations tend to polarize into to sides and go downhill more frequently IMO.
> 
> Been bothering me for a while.



Part of that is he last several years have had a lot of big political discussions in the larger community, I think. 

One side has little patience for the other and no interest in “agreeing to disagree” about important moral questions (in fact a vociferous distaste for doing so), while some folks use manipulative rhetorical tactics to stay within the rules while ticking people off, or just flat out say stuff that gets them immediately shut down by mods, but some damage is already done by then. Hackles are up. 

Add a lot of change to that, and you get what we have here lately.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

SakanaSensei said:


> I've been lurking here for... a year? Two now? And I enjoy looking at people's thoughts on all kinds of TTRPG stuff. I enjoy the "what piece of art made you love X" threads, I enjoy the breaking down of game mastering styles, I enjoy having a place to check for RPG news.
> 
> But I feel like I'm seeing a lot more bickering over relatively minor things since the 1DnD playtest started, in particular. And it kinda makes me sad, because this has been a place I enjoy coming to check and now I feel like I'm seeing posters that I tend to like the posts of getting snarky with others, I'm seeing more moderation actions, and pretty much every thread that goes past 10 pages I feel like I need to mentally prepare myself before checking it out because it's almost a guarantee that people have gotten mean.
> 
> Is this all in my head? Is the prospect of the new edition making people more testy? What's going on, here?



Agree with the others - anything about rules changes typically engenders discussion, and sometimes that discussion goes acrimonious. I mean, before OneD&D was announced, any discussion about updates to race rules usually ended up getting ban-hammered and shut down for more comment.

I ignore those long comment threads on purpose just for that reason. Life is too short (recently figured out that if I live to my father's age he is now, I'll only be alive another 1352 weeks or so)...


----------



## DeviousQuail

There are a few things you can do to help yourself if you feel like taking action:

The ignore button is effective if there are one or two people that are ruining your experience regularly. You can always stop ignoring someone if you decide to later. I try to take a break from the site if I'm thinking of blocking someone as a way to cool down. It really does help.
In the longer threads you can skip a page or two ahead and see if the contentiousness is still going. Just skim for the interesting bits and skip the stuff you don't like.
Start a new thread or find one with a tighter focus on a subject. The 1D&D Expert UA is live thread is a great example of something that quickly gets too big and unwieldy for discussion. Many of the more focused offshoot threads from that one were easier to follow and less likely to get diverted.
Sometimes it helps to check other sites and see what their discussions are like. This one has become my go to for many reasons (the biggest one being the depth of knowledge and experience of some of the people here) but other sites talk about D&D, shows, movies, etc too.


----------



## TheSword

The forum injunction against politics has been suspended a few times because important issues intersected with the hobby. That then allowed activism into the threads which is all about changing public positions and moving the dial beyond what people of comfortable with. That was always going to cause tension.

The really long threads tend to either be about politics or where people have ideological views about the game. There’s too much magic, fighters aren’t as a good as wizards, killing goblins etc. etc etc.

You learn which topics to avoid if you don’t want to increase your blood pressure.


----------



## R_J_K75

I'm not sure it's any more or any less now than before but I've noticed that opinion-based posts in some instances are picked apart on a minute level and then quoted negatively, condescendingly, or told they are flat out wrong. In these cases, it's not done constructively. When I find myself in this situation, I'll defend my stance once or twice then drop it or admit I'm wrong if someone points out evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Lazvon

I echo whoever mentioned ignoring. I have only been back for 4-months or so; I quickly ignored like 3 or 4 folks, now I see a lot less annoying stuff. 

With One D&D testing, I can’t imagine how many posts those 3-4 folks are posting right now, quoting point-by-point why every single “opponent” is wrong and doing so constantly for each and every differing opinion. They are really “winning” the discussions and racking up their “Internet Points”. Yay for them.


----------



## Morrus

I think post reports are certainly up.

I also think the _internet_ is getting more an more antagonistic with people being horrible to each other everywhere you look.

It's likely a combination of things.


----------



## payn

SkidAce said:


> Not sure its "just" edition change.
> 
> Conversations tend to polarize into to sides and go downhill more frequently IMO.
> 
> Been bothering me for a while.



Still seems like a pleasant stroll to me compared to 2008.


----------



## Retreater

I've done my part to avoid 5.5e discussions. I don't have much nice to say about it, and I'm not especially interested in the development. It's better to stay out (and stay quiet) than to pollute a hobby forum that is a place for like-minded people to talk about something we all (theoretically) love, even if there are subtle differences.


----------



## Umbran

SkidAce said:


> Not sure its "just" edition change.




I don't think it is, either.  Antagonism was higher before the edition change notice came out.

Morrus may have at least part of it - people, in general, are more antagonistic on the internet these days, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## JEB

One particular trend that isn't helping is the increase in personal attacks. I don't previously recall seeing so many posts that were clearly picking on specific posters, and not just their ideas, until recently.


----------



## Andvari

"Is the forum getting more antagonistic."

Those are fighting words! Have at thee!


----------



## J.Quondam

DeviousQuail said:


> There are a few things you can do to help yourself if you feel like taking action:
> 
> The ignore button is effective if there are one or two people that are ruining your experience regularly. You can always stop ignoring someone if you decide to later. I try to take a break from the site if I'm thinking of blocking someone as a way to cool down. It really does help.
> In the longer threads you can skip a page or two ahead and see if the contentiousness is still going. Just skim for the interesting bits and skip the stuff you don't like.
> Start a new thread or find one with a tighter focus on a subject. The 1D&D Expert UA is live thread is a great example of something that quickly gets too big and unwieldy for discussion. Many of the more focused offshoot threads from that one were easier to follow and less likely to get diverted.
> Sometimes it helps to check other sites and see what their discussions are like. This one has become my go to for many reasons (the biggest one being the depth of knowledge and experience of some of the people here) but other sites talk about D&D, shows, movies, etc too.



Good list. I'd add that, when starting a new thread, there's always the option of making it a [+] thread to signal to readers that you want to keep language positive and discussion on-topic.


----------



## R_J_K75

JEB said:


> One particular trend that isn't helping is the increase in personal attacks. I don't previously recall seeing so many posts that were clearly picking on specific posters, and not just their ideas, until recently.



Ive noticed too that people pile on when someone posts an unpopular opinion.


----------



## Riley

DeviousQuail said:


> The ignore button is effective if there are one or two people that are ruining your experience regularly.




I highly recommend the ignore function. 

I’m not seeing much conflict at the moment, probably because 1) I am not following the edition change discussions, and 2) I have a long ignore list (which is solely for my personal happiness; it’s not a judgement of the people I’ve ignored).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

*Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?*

The best way to avoid antagonists, is to associate with the protagonist.*








*


Spoiler



Wait.... are you saying that the protagonist will encounter the antagonist?????


----------



## billd91

Riley said:


> I have a long ignore list (which is solely for my personal happiness; it’s not a judgement of the people I’ve ignored).



I have a relatively long one too but I'm totally judging the people I'm ignoring.


----------



## beancounter

Yep...


----------



## CleverNickName

This happens every time a major update or revision is announced.  
People fear change, always have.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

SkidAce said:


> Not sure its "just" edition change.
> 
> Conversations tend to polarize into to sides and go downhill more frequently IMO.
> 
> Been bothering me for a while.




I think it _is_ (mostly) edition change, but what you've noticed is that just _before_ an edition changes, people will start to bicker about the current edition. It's part of how you know that it's "time" for a change. Warts start to grow on the "old" version. (Usually from option bloat - in particular from unintended consequences from mixing earlier rules with later rules). 5e did a pretty good job of avoiding this for as long as possible (mostly by not adding much material, but also by working pretty hard to avoid conflicts).

But still, the community has collectively anticipated the edition change for awhile (Tasha's probably alluded to it). And started the ball rolling earlier than the reality of it. Of course, the OneD&D Playtest has got it going in full force. But ENWorld is pretty mild as far as these things go. Truly unreasonable people do not last long here.

It's a storm we'll have to weather, though! Stay safe out there.


----------



## billd91

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think it _is_ edition change, but what you've noticed is that just _before_ an edition changes, people will start to bicker about the current edition. It's part of how you know that it's "time" for a change. Warts start to grow on the "old" version. (Usually from option bloat - in particular from unintended consequences from mixing earlier rules with later rules). 5e did a pretty good job of avoiding this for as long as possible (mostly by not adding much material, but also by working pretty hard to avoid conflicts).



I'm not sure with that. Since there is no option bloat, I don't think there's anything inherent about 5e that's driving warts starting to grow. 


FitzTheRuke said:


> But still, the community has collectively anticipated the edition change for awhile (Tasha's probably alluded to it). And started the ball rolling earlier than the reality of it. Of course, the OneD&D Playtest has got it going in full force. But ENWorld is pretty mild as far as these things go. Truly unreasonable people do not last long here.



Yeah, much more this. I think any sense that there's an edition coming was generated simply by the knowledge that the 50th anniversary of D&D was coming up. That started the speculation long before WotC affirmed that there would be a 50th anniversary edition. I think that had a bigger impact than Tasha's did.

Add in the general antagonism out there in the public whether on the internet, because of particularly polarizing politics, or the pandemic and we've got a lot of people here, myself included, with a lot shorter fuses. And as much as the mods try to keep out the worst of it, those forces active in the world around us are going to seep in.


----------



## Retreater

If you were to ask me if the forum was getting more agnostic, I'd have to answer I don't know.


----------



## Umbran

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think it _is_ (mostly) edition change, but what you've noticed is that just _before_ an edition changes, people will start to bicker about the current edition.




This does not explain the long-running and rising antagonism about games other than D&D.


----------



## RealAlHazred

Umbran said:


> This does not explain the long-running and rising antagonism about games other than D&D.



You mean, like _Pathfinder_? Or _13th Age_? Or do you mean the Old School Renaissance?


----------



## Undrave

I haven't noticed. I try not to take things too personally and just enjoy the engagement of a heated discussion. It's just a game, disagreeing with people over design isn't live threatening.


----------



## DeviousQuail

J.Quondam said:


> Good list. I'd add that, when starting a new thread, there's always the option of making it a [+] thread to signal to readers that you want to keep language positive and discussion on-topic.



I've always basically understood what (+) threads mean but is there a definition for this site? Do mods watch them more closely and/or have a shorter leash for removing someone from the thread?


----------



## Umbran

RealAlHazred said:


> You mean, like _Pathfinder_? Or _13th Age_? Or do you mean the Old School Renaissance?




None of the above.  Threads about games with narrative focus and more player authorial control have had a great deal of antagonism in them as well.


----------



## J.Quondam

DeviousQuail said:


> I've always basically understood what (+) threads mean but is there a definition for this site? Do mods watch them more closely and/or have a shorter leash for removing someone from the thread?



They've only been a thing for a couple years, iirc, and I'm not certain if there's an official definition. As for how [+] threads are modded, that might be a good question for @Umbran or other mod.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> This does not explain the long-running and rising antagonism about games other than D&D.



_*Part*_ of that, I think, is a growing sense of being pushed to the margins amongst indie rpg fans. 

I know I’ve given offense to @Campbell in the past for language I thought was neutral, because of the general tone of other discussions about indies, and the fact I wasn’t aware of that ahead of time. 

It’s gotten to where the term “indie game” has been claimed to be pejorative by twitter eggs, rather than simply a designator of not being the face of tabletop gaming in the eyes of the public, nor long established stalwarts of the industry. 

Again, part of it. Definitely not the whole answer, which also includes the intersection of human psychology and algorithmic attention-seeking in nearly all online venues, and the general political unrest in the last decade.


----------



## Umbran

DeviousQuail said:


> I've always basically understood what (+) threads mean but is there a definition for this site? Do mods watch them more closely and/or have a shorter leash for removing someone from the thread?




So, a (+) thread is one in which all participants agree to the basic premise of the thread.

If you start a normal thread, saying, "Hey, look at this cool new game mechanic!" you may get a lot of responses from people who feel the mechanic is uncool, doesn't work, will cause your game to crash and burn and your washing machine to explode.

If you start a (+) thread saying, "I think this new game mechanic is cool, I'd like to talk about using it in D&D combats!" and folks come to tell you the mechanic is uncool, doesn't work, and will cause your washing machine to explode, they are apt to be removed from the thread.

It isn't that we watch them more closely, so much as there's a specific expectation of playing nice with the general topic that is enforced.

Edit to add:  By he way, it is expected that in the first post of a (+) thread, the OP calls out the fact that it is a (+) thread.  Relying on the thread title proves insufficient, sometimes.


----------



## Cadence

Umbran said:


> None of the above.  Threads about games with narrative focus and more player authorial control have had a great deal of antagonism in them as well.




Is it the threads started about those games or styles in the general ttrpg forum that get heated, or the threads about D&D that those games are brought up in that get heated?


----------



## Umbran

Cadence said:


> Is it the threads started about those games or styles in the general ttrpg forum that get heated, or the threads about D&D that those games are brought up in that get heated?




I was thinking about the former, but I wouldn't doubt there's some of the latter as well.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> Again, part of it. Definitely not the whole answer, which also includes the intersection of human psychology and algorithmic attention-seeking in nearly all online venues, and the general political unrest in the last decade.




And, we cannot neglect specific contributions to antagonism by particular persons, whose behavior may be less about overall culture, and more about just them being themselves.


----------



## Leatherhead

Morrus said:


> I also think the _internet_ is getting more an more antagonistic with people being horrible to each other everywhere you look.



As someone who works face to face customer service: The antagonistic behavior is not limited to just the internet, I can assure you. People have been steadily getting more angry over the past three years, for obvious reasons.


----------



## J.Quondam

Leatherhead said:


> As someone who works face to face customer service: The antagonistic behavior is not limited to just the internet, I can assure you. People have been steadily getting more angry over the past three years, for obvious reasons.



I can sympathize. I quit my job in elections tech because of the nastiness.


----------



## Fifth Element

Leatherhead said:


> As someone who works face to face customer service: The antagonistic behavior is not limited to just the internet, I can assure you. People have been steadily getting more angry over the past three years, for obvious reasons.



Up until a while ago, I hadn't been to this site or any other RPG forum for about 8 years. What I noticed when returning, that this site, and another big one, had become notably LESS toxic than they were 8 years ago. Meanwhile another site, which 8 years ago was substantially more toxic but still generally tolerable, has become an absolute cesspool of open hatred. There really has been change in recent years, and being away from a subcultural for a good while and then returning to it made that extremely clear.


----------



## Fifth Element

R_J_K75 said:


> Ive noticed too that people pile on when someone posts an unpopular opinion.



No idea if we're thinking of the same instances, but I've noticed a few times recently posters who post an opinion along with reasons for that opinion, and the reasons are demonstrably false or at best misleading, and when others point out that they're using false premises in support of their opinions, they retreat to "it's just my opinion, I should be allowed to have an opinion" sort of thing. It would help if people could remember that on a public discussion forum, if you post your opinion, it's likely to be discussed. Publicly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> Is it the threads started about those games or styles in the general ttrpg forum that get heated, or the threads about D&D that those games are brought up in that get heated?



Both. Probably every thread in the last 3 years at least about either broad topic. 


Umbran said:


> And, we cannot neglect specific contributions to antagonism by particular persons, whose behavior may be less about overall culture, and more about just them being themselves.



Hey now, I think we all knew I was pointing one finger at myself there, no need to call it out! 

Goofing aside, yes absolutely, although I’d be willing to bet some large percentage of what you see as “person being themselves” is rather or also that person reflective overall cultural leanings that they agree with, like publicly yelling at people who are behaving a certain way or espousing a certain set of beliefs. The mindset that this is a social good is very much a broad cultural shift, as much as an individual personality trait.

But overall, the point I think we agree on is that there are many factors that contribute.


----------



## R_J_K75

Fifth Element said:


> No idea if we're thinking of the same instances, but I've noticed a few times recently posters who post an opinion along with reasons for that opinion, and the reasons are demonstrably false or at best misleading, and when others point out that they're using false premises in support of their opinions, they retreat to "it's just my opinion, I should be allowed to have an opinion" sort of thing. It would help if people could remember that on a public discussion forum, if you post your opinion, it's likely to be discussed. Publicly.



We could be talking about the same instances, but I don't think it's worth rehashing here. Speaking strictly for myself, I can't remember where I read lots of things let alone find them to post links. Alot of times one can pick up pieces of information from different places from which you then form an opinion. I have no problem with someone questioning, correcting or discussing my opinions, but it usually comes down to someone saying another person's opinion is wrong, calling them a liar, and the tone in which it is done that I have a problem with.


----------



## Zardnaar

Rushing tides on one truisms imho combined with various stuff going on in the world the last 40 odd years and a collective failure to deal with those programs. Same as the 1930's drives extremism. 

 Even + threads are a form of that basically means you can't disagree with me IMHO. 

 And a lot is used on reasonably trivial things and the application of the rukrs has been inconsistent.


----------



## BookTenTiger

I have a crazy theory that if ENWorld removed the "Like" button there would be an upswing in positive posting. This is just my own thinking, but when someone agrees with a post, they have two options: reply with an agreement, or press "Like." When someone disagrees with a post, they only have one option (other than ignoring the post): posting a disagreement. This leads to more disagreement posts populating threads, and fewer agreement posts being posted.

That's just my theory!


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> I don't think it is, either.  Antagonism was higher before the edition change notice came out.
> 
> Morrus may have at least part of it - people, in general, are more antagonistic on the internet these days, for a variety of reasons.



Yeah. I know I encourage myself to take breaks myself if I catch myself  looking to argue more than discuss. I can't say with certainty whether it is a change in me, the boards, or online culture in general, but if I had to guess I would say it is a little bit of all of those. I am almost 50 now and I know I can "old man yells at clouds" on certain subjects. But I also think the post-WotC forum shutdown influx changed the tenor of the boards overall. And, of course, we are in a weird place when it comes to online discourse in general.

All that said, I still prefer to talk you y'all here about things than anywhere else. I have been coming to this site since it appeared ahead of 3E and figure it will be the last D&D forum I ever visit.


----------



## Campbell

BookTenTiger said:


> I have a crazy theory that if ENWorld removed the "Like" button there would be an upswing in positive posting. This is just my own thinking, but when someone agrees with a post, they have two options: reply with an agreement, or press "Like." When someone disagrees with a post, they only have one option (other than ignoring the post): posting a disagreement. This leads to more disagreement posts populating threads, and fewer agreement posts being posted.
> 
> That's just my theory!




Agreed. Far too often who liked which post becomes a central part of the discussion and helps incite an existing tendency towards tribalism.


----------



## Cadence

BookTenTiger said:


> I have a crazy theory that if ENWorld removed the "Like" button there would be an upswing in positive posting. This is just my own thinking, but when someone agrees with a post, they have two options: reply with an agreement, or press "Like." When someone disagrees with a post, they only have one option (other than ignoring the post): posting a disagreement. This leads to more disagreement posts populating threads, and fewer agreement posts being posted.
> 
> That's just my theory!




I'm very tempted to click the laughing face under the like button.

But seriously, is there an emoji that wouldn't feel passive aggressive to hit as a reply to things one disagreed with?  :-/     Would that be better than a negative post?

If we got rid of the like reply would we be flooded with lots of agreement posts that have nothing new to say but just wanted to express support somehow?


----------



## BookTenTiger

Cadence said:


> I'm very tempted to click the laughing face under the like button.
> 
> But seriously, is there an emoji that wouldn't feel passive aggressive to hit as a reply to things one disagreed with?  :-/     Would that be better than a negative post?
> 
> If we got rid of the like reply would we be flooded with lots of agreement posts that have nothing new to say but just wanted to express support somehow?



I enjoy brief agreement posts.


----------



## Cadence

BookTenTiger said:


> I enjoy brief agreement posts.




I'm picturing us as a group and wondering about our collective brevity, even in the face of nothing new to say.


----------



## payn

Folks, the ticket is to just unwatch and stop looking at any thread over 10 pages, unless of course, im posting in them.


----------



## Blue

Zardnaar said:


> Even + threads are a form of that basically means you can't disagree with me IMHO.



All it means is you can't disagree with someone _here_.  You absolutely can start another thread and debate it there, even @ Mentioning people to come speak.

We've all seen when just a handful of posters argue with each other and overwhelm a thread - that seems to be a valid way to stop a conversation from getting derailed.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure with that. Since there is no option bloat, I don't think there's anything inherent about 5e that's driving warts starting to grow.



In 5e, I'm not sure "bloat" is the right term, sure, but there did seem to be more and more analysis going on (IME) of what is working and what is not, even before the OneD&D announcement. (And all the arguments that occur about that).



Umbran said:


> This does not explain the long-running and rising antagonism about games other than D&D.



I'll have to defer to you experience there, to be fair, I don't think I look at too many non-D&D threads. I'll take your word for it.

I mean, sure, it's not JUST edition-change, of course! There's an overall increase in antagonism in the WORLD (and in particular on the Internet. In fact, I think it's BECAUSE of the internet that its seeped into the world!) The pandemic made it worse, but I think it was starting before that.

I now have Billy Joel "We Didn't Start the Fire" stuck in my head.


----------



## Riley

Cadence said:


> If we got rid of the like reply would we be flooded with lots of agreement posts that have nothing new to say but just wanted to express support somehow?


----------



## Thomas Shey

Cadence said:


> But seriously, is there an emoji that wouldn't feel passive aggressive to hit as a reply to things one disagreed with?  :-/     Would that be better than a negative post?




Just as a data point, on those occasions elsewhere where I've said something I meant seriously and got the laughing emoji, it made me roll my eyes.  At least with a negative post there's something to engage with and some context.


----------



## J.Quondam

I gather I'm in the minority here, but I don't necessarily use a "like" to mean "I agree."  
It often _does_ equate to a "high five," but I also use it to mean "I acknowledge" or "I think this post is a positive contribution even if I don't agree." It depends on the thread.


----------



## Zardnaar

Blue said:


> All it means is you can't disagree with someone _here_.  You absolutely can start another thread and debate it there, even @ Mentioning people to come speak.
> 
> We've all seen when just a handful of posters argue with each other and overwhelm a thread - that seems to be a valid way to stop a conversation from getting derailed.




 Often one thread is an official one or may as well be and it will get all the responses even if it gets started after the first one.


----------



## Deset Gled

Cadence said:


> If we got rid of the like reply would we be flooded with lots of agreement posts that have nothing new to say but just wanted to express support somehow?




I am old enough to remember when this was considered a real problem in conversations on the internet.  It was called "Me too!" posting, and was considered a semi serious issue in the days of usenet and listservs.  Basically, people would quote a post just to say "Me too" with nothing to add, it it would quickly fill your mail box with tons of useless emails.  It was considered an e-tiquette faux pas, and often sent the message that the poster was a noob.  You will have trouble googling it by name now because the "MeToo" movement took over the phrase, but it is immortalized in the Weird Al song "All About the Pentiums" in the verse where he accuses a technologically inept user of "posting 'me too' like some braindead AOLer".


----------



## GreyBeardDM

I agree that people are getting more and more angry about lots of things outside of the game that are influencing how they reply.

However even before the pandemic there were plenty of "you are playing the game wrong" and belittling of how people have been adapting the game for their groups on here, when the posters were asking for assistance.

This is my first post in a long time, as I am always wary of posting on enworld.org forums, even though they contain lots of incredibly useful answers the threat of abuse is not something I want to deal with.

please note: I do read the forum and the news pages most days


----------



## Olrox17

BookTenTiger said:


> I have a crazy theory that if ENWorld removed the "Like" button there would be an upswing in positive posting. This is just my own thinking, but when someone agrees with a post, they have two options: reply with an agreement, or press "Like." When someone disagrees with a post, they only have one option (other than ignoring the post): posting a disagreement. This leads to more disagreement posts populating threads, and fewer agreement posts being posted.
> 
> That's just my theory!



Or how about the other way around? Let’s add a “respectfully disagree” button. It may deter people from going into flame wars, since they can just press a button to show their disagreement. Some other forums I go to have this, and it seems to work well enough.


----------



## Blue

Zardnaar said:


> Often one thread is an official one or may as well be and it will get all the responses even if it gets started after the first one.



Took a quick look on the first five full pages of new posts.  Here are all the + threads.

[+] The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - SPOILERS ALLOWED
Dioltach

(+)One Big Thing I Would Change
doctorbadwolf

Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)
pemerton

None of them are official.

And as for one thread getting all the responses, the + thread is only asking for positive responses.  If there actually is enough to discuss negatively then the other thread would be the place to discuss it.  That's a self correcting problem.


----------



## payn

Make loves; not likes!


----------



## Umbran

Zardnaar said:


> Even + threads are a form of that basically means you can't disagree with me IMHO.




What you seem to be missing in that assessment is the weaponization of disagreement.

If folks were willing to voice their disagreement, _and then walk away_, there would be no pressing need for a (+) thread.  Unfortunately, when folks disagree, they tend to come in, voice disagreement, and then badger the discussion with it _ad nauseum_, with no regard to what other people might want to do with their time.  Disagreement comes in the form, "I disagree, and you must prove to my satisfaction that I am incorrect before I'll leave you in peace."

And, human dynamics means that the "to my satisfaction" clause is never fulfilled, and nobody gets to talk about anything other than that disagreement. 

Also, as others have noted, you are perfectly welcome to start another thread that disagrees with a (+) thread.  You are allowed to disagree.  You just are not entitled to badger people with it anywhere you gosh darned please.


----------



## Umbran

Zardnaar said:


> Often one thread is an official one




I think you will find very few "official" (+) threads.    



Zardnaar said:


> or may as well be and it will get all the responses even if it gets started after the first one.




And if your disagreement is not so interesting that it can support its own conversation, maybe that tells you something.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Umbran said:


> Disagreement comes in the form, "I disagree, and you must prove to my satisfaction that I am incorrect before I'll leave you in peace."




I often marvel at the number of teachers that must be on the internet, given how comfortable people are assigning homework.


----------



## CleverNickName




----------



## billd91

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I often marvel at the number of teachers that must be on the internet, given how comfortable people are assigning homework.



They are surely matched by the number of posters declaring from on high that something is factual without providing any supporting evidence as if their very utterance should be enough to convince everyone.


----------



## Zardnaar

billd91 said:


> They are surely matched by the number of posters declaring from on high that something is factual without providing any supporting evidence as if their very utterance should be enough to convince everyone.




 Objective and subjective are two different things.


----------



## Campbell

From my perspective the biggest contributor to animosity is the tendency to sideswipe other editions and other games that are not the subject of the discussion. It effectively makes the thread about those games as people rightfully feel the need to respond to those sideswipes. Like in a 5e thread throwing around unnecessary references to other editions to make some sort of point seldom results in more effective communication. The same is largely true to unnecessary calls out to mainstream games in threads about indie play for insistence.


----------



## billd91

Campbell said:


> It effectively makes the thread about those games as people rightfully feel the need to respond to those sideswipes



This is pretty much never really true. If someone takes a sideswipe at another game or edition, nobody *needs* to respond.


----------



## Zardnaar

Can someone give me a tldr rundown of the indie game drama? Think I've missed that. 

 To me it's about variety with indie games. They could be the biggest steaming pile of manure in a genre that doesn't interst me whatsoever and their existence doesn't bother me one iota. 

 Basically it's not my cup of tea and no one's forcing me to drink it.


----------



## Umbran

Campbell said:


> It effectively makes the thread about those games as people rightfully feel the need to respond to those sideswipes.




We talk about _how to pretend to be elves_.  This is not momentous stuff.  Nobody's getting seriously harmed.  No lives will be lost if someone on the internet is wrong about your favorite edition or game.

So, no, there is no _rightful need_ to respond.   

That doesn't make it okay for folks to take mean-spirited sideswipes at stuff that other people like.  That's crummy behavior.  But getting into a fight over it doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Zardnaar

Umbran said:


> I think you will find very few "official" (+) threads.
> 
> 
> 
> And if your disagreement is not so interesting that it can support its own conversation, maybe that tells you something.




 By official I meant one thread will take off and one won't and a lot cones down to name recognition of the poster. 

 I generally check that there's no other thread with the same or similar title. 

 I bet I could start a thread about game mechanics for example that will get more responses than Bob123. 

 I don't post as much as I used to due to places like reddit/ real lifefor example but game mechanics still interest me.


----------



## beta-ray

SkidAce said:


> Not sure its "just" edition change.
> 
> Conversations tend to polarize into to sides and go downhill more frequently IMO.
> 
> Been bothering me for a while.



It's not just the edition change. I noticed it happening before that announcement.

I might be too positive of a person, but often I see threads about news on something and go in to a thread to get information or insight… and experience a lot of negativity a lot of the time. And derailments.

I understand that not everyone is going to be happy about each announcement,  but it can be deflating at times.

Still, this is a good forum, I don't want to dismiss that.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Umbran said:


> That doesn't make it okay for folks to take mean-spirited sideswipes at stuff that other people like.  That's crummy behavior.  But getting into a fight over it doesn't help anyone.




On the other hand, assuming people won't get into a fight when someone sideswipes something they're attached to is a--take.  That happens about music, sports teams and makes of cars, why would you expect it to be different here?


----------



## Umbran

Thomas Shey said:


> On the other hand, assuming people won't get into a fight when someone sideswipes something they're attached to is a--take.  That happens about music, sports teams and makes of cars, why would you expect it to be different here?




Who said anything about what I _expect_?

I _expect_ humans to behave like humans.  Sometimes, human behave in crummy ways.  That I expect this does not mean that I should not call it out as crummy, or counsel for something better.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Umbran said:


> Who said anything about what I _expect_?
> 
> I _expect_ humans to behave like humans.  Sometimes, human behave in crummy ways.  That I expect this does not mean that I should not call it out as crummy, or counsel for something better.




Sure.  But that and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Reynard

I think people like to fight. I can't count the times a discussion is going on and someone swoops in with an argument about a certain playstyle, edition or play element that has nothing to do with the subject at hand but forms the foundation for a vehement argument.

And I get it: when you are lonely or feeling like your IRL friends and family just don't want to engage with the things you want to talk about, you turn to your online communities. But sometimes the responses are to few or too bland and the obvious answer surfaces in your mind: go controversial. So you say something about 5e but hint at something about 4e, or whatever. It's not important. What matters is the lively thread emerges and you get that sweet, sweet dopamine from both the allies and the enemies.

In short: we're screwed.


----------



## Umbran

Thomas Shey said:


> Sure.  But that and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee.




I don't really understand what you are on about at this point.


----------



## Lanefan

BookTenTiger said:


> I have a crazy theory that if ENWorld removed the "Like" button there would be an upswing in positive posting. This is just my own thinking, but when someone agrees with a post, they have two options: reply with an agreement, or press "Like." When someone disagrees with a post, they only have one option (other than ignoring the post): posting a disagreement. This leads to more disagreement posts populating threads, and fewer agreement posts being posted.



I suspect all that would happen would be an increase in posts saying nothing more than "I agree".

However, the 'Like' button has other uses.  Many's the time I've 'Like'd a post not because I agree with it but as an acknowledgment of the thought that someone put into their words.  And the 'Laugh' button has to stay. 

I just wish there was a 'Facepalm' option as a response to bad puns.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Lanefan said:


> I just wish there was a 'Facepalm' option as a response to bad puns.



I wouldn't use it for that


----------



## Bedrockgames

SakanaSensei said:


> I've been lurking here for... a year? Two now? And I enjoy looking at people's thoughts on all kinds of TTRPG stuff. I enjoy the "what piece of art made you love X" threads, I enjoy the breaking down of game mastering styles, I enjoy having a place to check for RPG news.
> 
> But I feel like I'm seeing a lot more bickering over relatively minor things since the 1DnD playtest started, in particular. And it kinda makes me sad, because this has been a place I enjoy coming to check and now I feel like I'm seeing posters that I tend to like the posts of getting snarky with others, I'm seeing more moderation actions, and pretty much every thread that goes past 10 pages I feel like I need to mentally prepare myself before checking it out because it's almost a guarantee that people have gotten mean.
> 
> Is this all in my head? Is the prospect of the new edition making people more testy? What's going on, here?




I think things get a bit more spicy anytime an edition change-over is on the horizon. I haven't particularly noticed it this time around but maybe I missed those conversations. The editions wars between the 3E to 4E change and the 4E to 5E change were pretty ferocious. I am mostly seeing the normal levels of feuding here lately (which is to say, not zero, but for the most part nothing like prior edition changes). 

My advice is try to pull back emotionally from these sorts of discussions if you are noticing patterns of behavior that bother you, and to lean on being kind to other posters as much as possible. I think a number of things happen during edition wars but something I usually sense is some of the meanness and sniping, can come from stuff in peoples lives that have nothing to do with gaming at all (and the gaming discussion seems to be a conduit for the sadness, anger or frustration they are feeling).  Don't get me wrong, there are also posters who just love a good edition war. But I found in most circumstances, certainly not all, being nice to someone who is behaving that way has a much more positive effect on their posting style than when I meet angry post with an angry response (and I am certainly not guiltless when it comes to bickering over edition minutiae myself). But definitely pull away from discussions if they are stressing you. 

Also like others have suggested the ignore button an be useful (even if you just need it for a day). The worst thing that can happen to you in these discussions is you see a post, it makes you angry, so you post something worded in a way you wouldn't have normally worded it, and then feel bad later. If you can, its best to either ignore those posts or wait a while before responding so your brain is cooler when you write.


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> I don't really understand what you are on about at this point.



Google is your friend.


----------



## Umbran

AnotherGuy said:


> I wouldn't use it for that




Which is exactly why we don't have it, or the rolleyes.


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> Google is your friend.




I am quite aware of what the aphorism means, thank you.  

In the context of our exchange, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I cannot Google search the content of a poster's head to find that out.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> And the 'Laugh' button has to stay.




In the context of the forums becoming more antagonistic, actually, there's a pretty good argument that it should go.  Its use in a mocking way is becoming a problem.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Umbran said:


> I cannot Google search the content of a poster's head to find that out.




_Give it five years…._


----------



## pogre

SakanaSensei said:


> I've been lurking here for... a year? Two now? And I enjoy looking at people's thoughts on all kinds of TTRPG stuff. I enjoy the "what piece of art made you love X" threads, I enjoy the breaking down of game mastering styles, I enjoy having a place to check for RPG news.
> 
> But I feel like I'm seeing a lot more bickering over relatively minor things since the 1DnD playtest started, in particular. And it kinda makes me sad, because this has been a place I enjoy coming to check and now I feel like I'm seeing posters that I tend to like the posts of getting snarky with others, I'm seeing more moderation actions, and pretty much every thread that goes past 10 pages I feel like I need to mentally prepare myself before checking it out because it's almost a guarantee that people have gotten mean.
> 
> Is this all in my head? Is the prospect of the new edition making people more testy? What's going on, here?



I have been on here pretty much since the beginning. It goes in waves. Sometimes you need to just take a break from the boards. 

It still is heaps better than Twitter and Reddit IMO.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Umbran said:


> I don't really understand what you are on about at this point.




Just noting that, barring moderation powers actively shutting this down, if you wait for this to stop happening because it makes no sense, you (and anyone else who feels that way) is fundamentally asking for disappointment.


----------



## MNblockhead

J.Quondam said:


> I gather I'm in the minority here, but I don't necessarily use a "like" to mean "I agree."
> It often _does_ equate to a "high five," but I also use it to mean "I acknowledge" or "I think this post is a positive contribution even if I don't agree." It depends on the thread.



Exactly. I like a lot of posts that I don't agree with, including posts strongly disagreeing with a post I made.  If it is well thought out or interesting, I tend to like it. Do I feel it is adding something to the conversation, I'll reflexively like it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

i feel that this was once the safe place to talk about pretending to be an elf... it is not going to last at this rate, it seems my opinions is block everyone that disagrees with me, let personal attacks keep coming at me or leave... and none of those seem good.  

Even when mods tell ME to drop something i get tagged multi times about it sometimes...


----------



## CapnZapp

These last years have cultivated an atmosphere where if _I_ feel offended, _you_ have done something wrong. Not specifically talking discussions about table-top roleplaying games now, but seemingly everywhere 

The correct solution when I feel offense... is me walking away. Art absolutely requires the freedom to offend. If I don't like it, I can instead look at some other art.

The wrong (and unsustainable) solution is to turn the discussion into what punishment is appropriate for you (for offending me).

What precious few people realize, is that in the (well-meaning and entirely understandable) effort to create an atmosphere where everyone feels safe and included, you risk ending up with figurative or even literal book burnings.

But the idea to discourage (or ostracize) everything that _someone_ gets offended by is entirely and utterly unworkable.

Currently the discussion climate is circling the drain. In our genuine efforts to be open-minded, inclusive, and liberal, we are walking into the exact opposite situation, where people feel they don't dare express themselves because someone, anyone, out there could be offended.

We simply must switch direction. It absolutely must be possible (if only an in avant-garde sort of way) to offend men, women, minorities, majorities and everyone else too. Otherwise we're crushing the very freedom we work so hard to protect.

To be honest, the discussion climate (overall, not talking specific communities here) is headed toward something resembling a real good old communist or witch hunt, and very few of us are seeing it coming.


----------



## Zardnaar

CapnZapp said:


> These last years have cultivated an atmosphere where if _I_ feel offended, _you_ have done something wrong. Not specifically talking discussions about table-top roleplaying games now, but seemingly everywhere
> 
> The correct solution when I feel offense... is me walking away. Art absolutely requires the freedom to offend. If I don't like it, I can instead look at some other art.
> 
> The wrong (and unsustainable) solution is to turn the discussion into what punishment is appropriate for you (for offending me).
> 
> What precious few people realize, is that in the (well-meaning and entirely understandable) effort to create an atmosphere where everyone feels safe and included, you risk ending up with figurative or even literal book burnings.
> 
> But the idea to discourage (or ostracize) everything that _someone_ gets offended by is entirely and utterly unworkable.
> 
> Currently the discussion climate is circling the drain. In our genuine efforts to be open-minded, inclusive, and liberal, we are walking into the exact opposite situation, where people feel they don't dare express themselves because someone, anyone, out there could be offended.
> 
> We simply must switch direction. It absolutely must be possible (if only an in avant-garde sort of way) to offend men, women, minorities, majorities and everyone else too. Otherwise we're crushing the very freedom we work so hard to protect.
> 
> To be honest, the discussion climate (overall, not talking specific communities here) is headed toward something resembling a real good old communist or witch hunt, and very few of us are seeing it coming.




 Well there's been articles over here written about out not sure your part of the world.


----------



## Morrus

CapnZapp said:


> The correct solution when I feel offense... is me walking away. Art absolutely requires the freedom to offend. If I don't like it, I can instead look at some other art.



Insulting somebody on a messageboard is not art.

It’s also against the rules. 



> To be honest, the discussion climate (overall, not talking specific communities here) is headed toward something resembling a real good old communist or witch hunt, and very few of us are seeing it coming.




And this forum is _not_ the place to share your general thoughts on 'cancel culture' (or 'witch hunts'). Drop that line of conversation, please.


----------



## Cadence

I'm kind of imagining a world where there's an AI that can tag something as looking like a draw-by-repetition in chess.  "Hi, PosterX and PosterY you've had several back and forth posts where my language parser can't detect any new points being made.  Consider moving along or taking the conversation to the Battledome sub-forum where it can continue without these or similar warnings. Yours truly, EN-AI."


----------



## BookTenTiger

For myself, other places on the internet are so full of vitriol and hatred that I'm glad ENWorld has a culture of etiquette and consequences for those who don't follow it.

It's not like anyone is lacking in dozens of methods to spew hate on the internet. I really don't need my D&D forum to be one of those.

For my own part, I'm trying to not fall into the trap of denying people's opinions and experiences. To me, there's a big difference between "You're wrong" and "In my experience, I've seen something different." It can be frustrating when others assert their own opinions as universal truths, but because this is just a forum and not, say, my classroom, my responsibility is to moderate my own behavior, not that of others.


----------



## Reynard

Cadence said:


> I'm kind of imagining a world where there's an AI that can tag something as looking like a draw-by-repetition in chess.  "Hi, PosterX and PosterY you've had several back and forth posts where my language parser can't detect any new points being made.  Consider moving along or taking the conversation to the Battledome sub-forum where it can continue without these or similar warnings. Yours truly, EN-AI."



I can't think of something less conducive to meaningful discussion than AI moderation.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Reynard said:


> I can't think of something less conducive to meaningful discussion than AI moderation.



What if we also replaced the posters with AI?


----------



## Reynard

BookTenTiger said:


> What if we also replaced the posters with AI?



Half of us are probably already bots, so...


----------



## MNblockhead

Reynard said:


> Half of us are probably already bots, so...



Shhh...Now is not the time, but our time will come.


----------



## Fifth Element

Reynard said:


> I can't think of something less conducive to meaningful discussion than AI moderation.



Like so many things that people propose AI would be useful for, they fail to consider the inherent biases that get built into AI, without the developers of said AI even realizing it.


----------



## Reynard

Fifth Element said:


> Like so many things that people propose AI would be useful for, they fail to consider the inherent biases that get built into AI, without the developers of said AI even realizing it.



There's no more certain way of activating Skynet than feeding a neural network billions of social media interactions, for sure.


----------



## TreChriron

You should of seen this place right after it launched. It was literally BIRTHED in an edition war.


----------



## Morrus

TreChriron said:


> You should of seen this place right after it launched. It was literally BIRTHED in an edition war.



My recollection is that everybody was very positive and excited about 3E when the forum was launched in 1999.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Morrus said:


> My recollection is that everybody was very positive and excited about 3E when the forum was launched in 1999.




Might have been here, but on other boards and USENET that was very much not true; 3e, after all, was a lot of what birthed the idea of retroclones and to some extent the OSR because some people just absolutely hated everything about it (some were people who already had less than ideal feelings about AD&D2e, and 3e was a bridge too far for them).

Only reason I know is I'd been away from D&D for two decades at the time, and what I heard about 3e was interesting enough to make me give it a look, so I got to see a good chunk of the sturm and drang going on.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> My recollection is that everybody was very positive and excited about 3E when the forum was launched in 1999.



I was just about to say that. when the other places I saw had people calling it "magic the gathering D&D" enworld was the place I could come and talk to people looking forward to the new game ideas.


----------



## payn

GMforPowergamers said:


> I was just about to say that. when the other places I saw had people calling it "magic the gathering D&D" enworld was the place I could come and talk to people looking forward to the new game ideas.



Hmm, I dont remember anyone saying that, though _Diablo_ D&D oh yeah....


----------



## Campbell

Even here there was a significant Dragonsfoot presence in those days.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

payn said:


> Hmm, I dont remember anyone saying that, though _Diablo_ D&D oh yeah....



They even had diablo suppliants back then...


----------



## JEB

GMforPowergamers said:


> They even had diablo suppliants back then...



In both 2E and 3E flavors!


----------



## MichaelSomething

Some people don't want solutions.  They just want to be mad...






						Poorly Drawn Lines – Mad
					

A thrice-weekly webcomic written and illustrated by Reza Farazmand. New comics every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.




					poorlydrawnlines.com


----------



## TreChriron

This was THE place to talk D&D. It was awesome (and remains so). I'm saying there were detractors and it could get... heated.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> Even here there was a significant Dragonsfoot presence in those days.



I wish that was still the case.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

without the ability to report bad faith posters (I just noticed this morning we can't anymore) I can't imagine that Enworld will be better if it is true there is less then a handful of mods (I assume they can't possibly see every post)

edit: and I might add I noticed it because when I tried to report people for breaking rules I could not.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> without the ability to report bad faith posters (I just noticed this morning we can't anymore) I can't imagine that Enworld will be better if it is true there is less then a handful of mods (I assume they can't possibly see every post)
> 
> edit: and I might add I noticed it because when I tried to report people for breaking rules I could not.




I still see a report option and the usual box opens when I click on it.  Or is that not what you meant?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> I still see a report option and the usual box opens when I click on it.  Or is that not what you meant?
> 
> View attachment 264237
> View attachment 264239



I don't have that at all on mine... maybe I will try to reboot my computer something is wrong...



edit: never mind... I think it was just taken form me, so I will not be able to report abuse I feel I am getting. this makes this form MUCH more antagonistic to me.            I guess I am going to have to consider if I want to stay in a place that wont let me ask for help when I feel I need it.


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> edit: never mind... I think it was just taken form me, so I will not be able to report abuse I feel I am getting. this makes this form MUCH more antagonistic to me.            I guess I am going to have to consider if I want to stay in a place that wont let me ask for help when I feel I need it.



Before you fly off the handle, I'd consider sending a direct message to Morrus. It's probably something as mundane as a glitch in a profile.

Edit: Not a glitch. See below.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> edit: never mind... I think it was just taken form me, so I will not be able to report abuse I feel I am getting. this makes this form MUCH more antagonistic to me.            I guess I am going to have to consider if I want to stay in a place that wont let me ask for help when I feel I need it.






billd91 said:


> Before you fly off the handle, I'd consider sending a direct message to Morrus. It's probably something as mundane as a glitch in a profile.




It feels odd that they would take it from you without letting you know, so I would definitely ask them to see if it was a glitch!  

But if they did, I'm kind of curious about why (do you keep reporting the mods themselves, or report dozens of things a thread from back-to-back posts, or things they really disagree with, or enough to fill up the buffers...).


----------



## Thomas Shey

Cadence said:


> It feels odd that they would take it from you without letting you know, so I would definitely ask them to see if it was a glitch!




Yeah, I've seen people have the report function removed from people because of overuse or misuse in other places in the past, but it seems unlikely they wouldn't tell you they were doing it, even with the relatively "stealth mod" approach sometimes taken here.



Cadence said:


> But if they did, I'm kind of curious about why (do you keep reporting the mods themselves, or report dozens of things a thread from back-to-back posts, or things they really disagree with, or enough to fill up the buffers...).




As I said, its been known to happen other places.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> It feels odd that they would take it from you without letting you know, so I would definitely ask them to see if it was a glitch!



it was not a glitch


Cadence said:


> But if they did, I'm kind of curious about why (do you keep reporting the mods themselves, or report dozens of things a thread from back-to-back posts, or things they really disagree with, or enough to fill up the buffers...).



I do none of this, but I don't want to go into direct mod choices and punishments, my punishment was my mistake because I didn't know until i went to report something today I don't even know when it was done.


----------



## billd91

It's definitely not a glitch. I've seen the receipts.
Honestly, it's a naughty word move on the mods part to do it without notice even if they think someone is overusing the feature.


----------



## Reynard

This thread is deeply ironic in its own way.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> Honestly, it's a naughty word move on the mods part to do it without notice even if they think someone is overusing the feature.




We had a communication slip up on that one, yes.

Your foul language invoking the language filter over a simple human mistake, before you'd spent the least effort to find out what was going on, at least provides some basic empirical evidence that, yes, the boards are getting more antagonistic.


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> We had a communication slip up on that one, yes.
> 
> Your foul language invoking the language filter over a simple human mistake, before you'd spent the least effort to find out what was going on, at least provides some basic empirical evidence that, yes, the boards are getting more antagonistic.



To be fair, I think at least part of that can be attributed to a general erosion of trust in this site's mods.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> We had a communication slip up on that one, yes.
> 
> 
> Alzrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, I think at least part of that can be attributed to a general erosion of trust in this site's mods.
Click to expand...


as the person who (by mistake I will trust Umbran) not informed I will say up until today I was under the impression that i was welcome here but disagreed with some of the moderation... but I didn't break the rules and go against red text. Even when I was the target of teh red text (and at least sometimes I have felt it unfair) I said "that's it I'm not appealing this, I just have to except they see it different" and move on.
This has changed that feeling.

Like I said to Umbran in private I wills ay here then leave it.  This feels like a boss who makes you want to quit instead of fireing you. The taking away of the report feature as a 'punishment' means i have no legal recourse of reporting means anytime I feel that i AM being attacked my options are super limited... even if before they felt my reports were not in good faith (and I always felt they were) I see no reason why they could not ignore reports they don't like. I have always accepted there choice in the past.

this very much goes to the heart of this thread or else I wouldn't even post this (thinking that it is dangerous close to talking about red text rulerings) has enworld gotten more antagonistic, at least for me I have felt it has for months, especially since the play test dropped, but today it has become some what more so.

I do not want 


> a general erosion of trust in this site's mods.



but I do not feel anywhere near as welcome as I have even when being red text warnings before this (again even if it was a mistake that I take Umbran at his word of)


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> To be fair, I think at least part of that can be attributed to a general erosion of trust in this site's mods.




That language was the act of an individual.  That individual should not be the subject of discussion here, other than to note that an individual act is not a sign of, nor should be attributed to, "general" anything.


----------



## Olrox17

An opinion on moderation, assuming this is an appropriate thread to express it:

I think it's inappropriate and not conducive to good conversation when mods fully engage in forum discussions, especially heated ones, which is something I've often seen happen on Enworld. At the very least, I believe that mods should use an alt account (not their "official" mod one) when actively engaging in discussions. Mod accounts should only be used (again, fully IMO) for mod duties.

Debating a mod on an internet forum feels a bit like debating a police officer on duty IRL. It's uncomfortable.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Olrox17 said:


> I think it's inappropriate and not conducive to good conversation when mods fully engage in forum discussions, especially heated ones, which is something I've often seen happen on Enworld.



the problem is I don't think there ARE official mod accounts, it's just regular accounts that get the authorization. 


Olrox17 said:


> Debating a mod on an internet forum feels a bit like debating a police officer on duty IRL. It's uncomfortable.



most of the time the mods I know of (morus and Umbran) are pretty cool about talking to them... but I can see this.


----------



## Umbran

Olrox17 said:


> I think it's inappropriate and not conducive to good conversation when mods fully engage in forum discussions, especially heated ones, which is something I've often seen happen on Enworld.




We have seen, here and observing elsewhere, that moderators who do not engage with the community generally lose touch, and seem even more arbitrary than moderation usually does.  YMMV, but that's our opinion



Olrox17 said:


> At the very least, I believe that mods should use an alt account (not their "official" mod one) when actively engaging in discussions. Mod accounts should only be used (again, fully IMO) for mod duties.




Given the above - whatever account we are using, we'd be in discussions.  This is most obvious and transparent if we use only one account.  The failure modes of not being open about this are pretty bad.  At least this way, you don't have any question of who you are talking to.

When we are speaking "as moderators" we use colored text.  And I generally put "*Mod Note*" in bold at the start of any such post, for the benefit of those who might have color blindness.  



Olrox17 said:


> Debating a mod on an internet forum feels a bit like debating a police officer on duty IRL. It's uncomfortable.




Then don't.  You are free to not engage with us as individual posters.  We don't take any offense at that.  There are hundreds of other people on the forums to discuss things with.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is I don't think there ARE official mod accounts, it's just regular accounts that get the authorization.




Yes, but technically, we could each have an alternate account used for discussion.

Mind you, the software does not allow us to be logged in to two accounts in the same browser at the same time.  There'd be a lot of logging out, and logging in under the second account to do moderation.  And the security around moderator logins is a little tighter, which means frequent logins would become a pain in the neck.

And that's beside the usual issue of simply forgetting which account you're logged in with at the moment creating confusion.

With all those issues, and the transparency I mentioned above, we've historically found single accounts to be a better system.


----------



## MGibster

There are particular subjects that do seem to touch a nerve as emotions can run high.  Bring up safety tools like the X-Card, racial ASI, or always evil orcs and the conversation can quickly escalate.  But I've noticed people are sometimes a bit snippy when others have different opinions from them.  I think a lot of problems might be solved if we all imagined "In my opinion" was placed in front of most posts here.

Edit:  (In my opinion) As far as the moderators are concerned, they do an excellent job here.  It can't be easy herding all these cats.


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> I think a lot of problems might be solved if we all imagined "In my opinion" was placed in front of most posts here.




But, we can as easily say that a lot of problems might be solved if everyone was conscientious and always put some variation of "in my opinion," into their posts when they were actually stating their opinion.  The amount of pushback I get when I suggest that is prodigious.  

A major problem with a solution of the form, "If only everyone did X," is that it requires everyone to actually do X.  You yourself note how this place is like herding cats.  Such solutions are a non-starter.

That aside, there's also an issue in that "if everyone imagined" is, well, mandating thought - it is thought policing.  "If everyone wrote," still allows them to think what they want, it merely puts expectations on how thought is expressed.  Most forms of publishing have style guidelines - an "online discussion style guide" might include such suggestions on structure.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> We have seen, here and observing elsewhere, that moderators who do not engage with the community generally lose touch, and seem even more arbitrary than moderation usually does.  YMMV, but that's our opinion
> 
> Given the above - whatever account we are using, we'd be in discussions.  This is most obvious and transparent if we use only one account.  The failure modes of not being open about this are pretty bad.  At least this way, you don't have any question of who you are talking to.
> 
> When we are speaking "as moderators" we use colored text.  And I generally put "*Mod Note*" in bold at the start of any such post, for the benefit of those who might have color blindness.
> 
> Then don't.  Y*ou are free to not engage with us as individual posters*.  We don't take any offense at that.  There are hundreds of other people on the forums to discuss things with.



The thing is, if someone really doesn't want to engage with you as a poster there's no option to put you on ignore*; as mods cannot be ignored.  If, however, you had a normal account and a mod account, the normal one could be ignored just like anyone else while the mod one could not.

To maintain the transparency you could even use the same name, more or less: for example in your case "Umbran" could be your normal posting account and "Umbran-M" could be your mod account.

* - not that I'd do this as on principle I don't believe in ignoring people, but some might want the option.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> The thing is, if someone really doesn't want to engage with you as a poster there's no option to put you on ignore*; as mods cannot be ignored.




That is true, but it seems like a separate issue, or at least a more extreme case than currently stated.  

The stated problem was about being uncomfortable debating a mod. If someone is uncomfortable in discussion with one of us, using an alternate account should not make them _comfortable_ doing so - we are still who we are, after all.  

It is unclear how many people are so uncomfortable with the prospect of debating one of us that they want a safeguard against ever even doing so by accident.  If that number were so large that it was affecting operation of the site, that might be an issue we'd want to address somehow.  But we are unlikely to entirely change how we do things for just a couple of posters.


----------



## CapnZapp

Umbran said:


> Then don't.  You are free to not engage with us as individual posters.  We don't take any offense at that.  There are hundreds of other people on the forums to discuss things with.



I truly hope you realize that when you respond to a poster, which you do just like any other poster, that is unsolicited (much like me here and now replying to your post) people can be acutely aware that you really aren't just any other poster.

Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.

I'm not saying you're abusing your powers. I am saying that in a confrontational landscape, this idea, that you can walk among ordinary men just like an equal among equals comes off as slightly naive.

The thing I'm saying is that you are likely underestimating the amount of people holding their tongue. It's just not as simple as "they can choose to not engage". That might be true when they choose to reply or not reply to something you said (again like right here and now - I could have chosen to not engage here, but I am making the judgement call I am not saying anything inflammatory or rulesbreaking here), but it is much less true _when you engage them_.

Regards,
Zapp


----------



## Olrox17

CapnZapp said:


> I truly hope you realize that when you respond to a poster, which you do just like any other poster, that is unsolicited (much like me here and now replying to your post) people can be acutely aware that you really aren't just any other poster.
> 
> Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.
> 
> I'm not saying you're abusing your powers. I am saying that in a confrontational landscape, this idea, that you can walk among ordinary men just like an equal among equals comes off as slightly naive.
> 
> The thing I'm saying is that you are likely underestimating the amount of people holding their tongue. It's just not as simple as "they can choose to not engage". That might be true when they choose to reply or not reply to something you said (again like right here and now - I could have chosen to not engage here, but I am making the judgement call I am not saying anything inflammatory or rulesbreaking here), but it is much less true _when you engage them_.



Pretty much this. People who disagree with a mod's personal opinion are very likely to think twice about expressing their disagreement, and may decide to hold their tongue. That could lead to frustration, and possibly to more passive-aggressive posting.
Moreover, people who are fully onboard with the mods' personal opinion may feel emboldened, "protected", so to speak, to be overly aggressive in their posting. Even if such protection doesn't actually materialize, that alone may degrade the quality of discussion.

@Lanefan also brings up a good point about the ignore function - one I hadn't considered because I tend not to use that function, myself. If a mod's personal opinions, posting style, tone or whatever rubs someone the wrong way, there is no recourse. Having separate accounts for mod work and regular posting would help with that.


----------



## AnotherGuy

I agree with the @Olrox17, @CapnZapp and @Lanefan however there is one I'd say technical/pragmatic issue in their request.

So say we have a handful of people who place moderator X's public account on ignore, the moderator would literally have to have reports on their other mod account to police the hidden posts otherwise they wouldn't necessarily see them if they are browsing on their general member account.
I'm thinking the mod and poster account should indeed be one to have dual functionality where it's possible to see ignored posts (and they'd know they're being ignored), otherwise it would very much be a chore for the mods switching between the two accounts.


----------



## Zardnaar

There's report and ignore functions? Things you learn.


----------



## Alzrius

Olrox17 said:


> Pretty much this. People who disagree with a mod's personal opinion are very likely to think twice about expressing their disagreement, and may decide to hold their tongue. That could lead to frustration, and possibly to more passive-aggressive posting.



This is especially true when the mods become confrontational, flippant, or snarky when posting with the colored text, because then any response is cited as being "confronting moderation" or "discussing moderation in public," and the poster is immediately punished for that, with no recognition of the fact that the mods themselves were engaging in action that, from anyone else, wouldn't be allowed.

The usual response to that is, "well, then you should contact the mods privately," which misses the point. If someone is impugned in public, the remedy for that needs to be done publicly as well. Otherwise, as far as everyone else is concerned, the mods can apparently abuse their status freely, with no accountability to the community they ostensibly serve.


----------



## Fifth Element

Umbran said:


> A major problem with a solution of the form, "If only everyone did X," is that it requires everyone to actually do X.  You yourself note how this place is like herding cats.  Such solutions are a non-starter.



Did anyone suggest it's an all-encompassing solution? It's good advice and the more people who take it, the better the discourse.


----------



## Fifth Element

double post


----------



## Fifth Element

Umbran said:


> That language was the act of an individual.  That individual should not be the subject of discussion here, other than to note that an individual act is not a sign of, nor should be attributed to, "general" anything.



A reference to a 'general erosion' can't really be read as a reference to a single incident or act. Arguing that an individual act should not be contextualized as being part of a pattern seems bizarre. In that case, we could never discuss any pattern because each observation could be excused as the act of an individual.


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> But, we can as easily say that a lot of problems might be solved if everyone was conscientious and always put some variation of "in my opinion," into their posts when they were actually stating their opinion. The amount of pushback I get when I suggest that is prodigious.



You could,( but in my opinion), it's a bit silly to think adults need to clarify that they're stating an opinion.  I don't know about everyone here, but when I was a wee lad in grade school we had lessons on the differences between factual statements and opinions.  I had to take a test and everything and I'm not really bothered when I see someone make a blanket statement like, "D&D is a great rules set for a campaign featuring a lot of subtle political intrigue."  I disagree vehemently with that opinion, but it doesn't offend me.  You probably get a lot of pushback because we'd have to write "In my opinion" before almost every single post here, because, you know, most of what we discuss are just opinions.  



Umbran said:


> That aside, there's also an issue in that "if everyone imagined" is, well, mandating thought - it is thought policing. "If everyone wrote," still allows them to think what they want, it merely puts expectations on how thought is expressed. Most forms of publishing have style guidelines - an "online discussion style guide" might include such suggestions on structure.



Okay, well, forget about the imagination and just accept that people have different opinions and it's usually nothing to get upset about even if it's radically different from our own.


----------



## Fifth Element

MGibster said:


> You probably get a lot of pushback because we'd have to write "In my opinion" before almost every single post here, because, you know, most of what we discuss are just opinions.



That's a good point. Plus reading everything with an implicit IMO (unless there is a specific reason not to) is just an application of the principle of charity, which is a good thing to keep in mind for any discussion.


----------



## Waller

Alzrius said:


> To be fair, I think at least part of that can be attributed to a general erosion of trust in this site's mods.



Cite?

This (and other threads) make it very clear _you_ have beef with the staff here, because you're all over every thread like this, but one loud person doesn't equate to 'general erosion'. Honestly, I think they do an incredible job and this is one of the least toxic places on the web, despite any general increase in antagonism here and elsewhere.

So let's see your figures -- show us this 'general erosion of trust in this site's mods', because it sure as heck ain't shared by me.


----------



## Alzrius

Waller said:


> Cite?



Sure, here you go.


Waller said:


> This (and other threads) make it very clear _you_ have beef with the staff here



Cite?


----------



## Fifth Element

Waller said:


> So let's see your figures -- show us this 'general erosion of trust in this site's mods', because it sure as heck ain't shared by me.



The idea that this is one of the least toxic sites is not incompatible with the idea that it could still be better, or that some recent mod actions have reduced trust in them. I'm pretty much in agreement with Alzrius on this so now it's two to one I guess? I doubt posting a poll would go well however, so I don't know how you'd ever get the data you want. Probably better to read the post as referring to personal experience rather than assuming it's intended to speak for everyone.


----------



## Waller

Alzrius said:


> Sure, here you go.



One person. Who it turns out is still here. Next?



> Cite?




Sure, here you go.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Waller said:


> One person. Who it turns out is still here. Next?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, here you go.




I would very much appreciate you NOT citing me for you pet project.

Given that you do not know any of the background, why I chose to leave, what conversations ensued, why I am back currently, or how I feel.

Or, put another way, if you are want to know if things are antagonistic, you are close to finding out.


----------



## Alzrius

Waller said:


> One person. Who it turns out is still here. Next?



If you think it's just one person, you don't seem to have read the entire thread.


Waller said:


> Sure, here you go.



See? Not just one person.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Zardnaar said:


> There's report



not for everyone


Zardnaar said:


> and ignore functions?



and this leads (because it doesn't just ignore one way) to whole threads having responses that make no sense... I have twice in the last few months responded to someone who I THOUGHT was responding to me since they were right under me, but they responded to someone who has me blocked, and as such I was 'picking a fight' I didn't need to.


Zardnaar said:


> Things you learn.



there are pros and cons to both, and using either too much seems to be as bad as not useing them


----------



## payn

Alzrius said:


> This is especially true when the mods become confrontational, flippant, or snarky when posting with the colored text, because then any response is cited as being "confronting moderation" or "discussing moderation in public," and the poster is immediately punished for that, with no recognition of the fact that the mods themselves were engaging in action that, from anyone else, wouldn't be allowed.
> 
> The usual response to that is, "well, then you should contact the mods privately," which misses the point. If someone is impugned in public, the remedy for that needs to be done publicly as well. Otherwise, as far as everyone else is concerned, the mods can apparently abuse their status freely, with no accountability to the community they ostensibly serve.



I agree and wish moderation was all button up business.
"X is off topic/inappropriate please do not discuss further"
"You were asked not to do X. You can no longer post in this thread"
"You were asked several times not to do X. You are now banned for 1 week"

Much of the time it is exactly as above, but occasionally it gets personal. Leave out any talk of filling out bingo cards, eating snickers, or whatever digs you want to take out on folks during moderation please.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MGibster said:


> You could,( but in my opinion), it's a bit silly to think adults need to clarify that they're stating an opinion.



in the last year I have been told at least half a dozen times (most likely more) "Hey that's just your opinion and it doesn't matter" at least once when I started with IMO... like yeah, that's all we all have.

and that is before people state that someone else has to PROVE something with hard facts, and I have even had the Mods tell me that it is my duty to provide FACTs about things... that none of us (unless someone is secretly in possession of divination magic) has a way to prove or show. 

My favorite is when people say that WotC say that 5e outsold 4e and we HAVE to beleive them, but when others point out "then when wotc said 4e out sold 3e and 3e out sold 2e (and even 3.5 out sold 3e and 4e out sold 3.5) that we can't "prove that wasn't spin" like wait you take the same source we do but yours gets a pass???

the 'opinion' thing is like 98% of what we talk about.  

Heck, just something like "I have never seen X" sometimes gets "You have to PROVE that" like it's something that can be factual proveing.


MGibster said:


> I don't know about everyone here, but when I was a wee lad in grade school we had lessons on the differences between factual statements and opinions.  I had to take a test and everything and I'm not really bothered when I see someone make a blanket statement like, "D&D is a great rules set for a campaign featuring a lot of subtle political intrigue."  I disagree vehemently with that opinion, but it doesn't offend me.  You probably get a lot of pushback because we'd have to write "In my opinion" before almost every single post here, because, you know, most of what we discuss are just opinions.



exactly... there are some of us (I would say 3-4ish groups) that are playing similar but different games, and even when we try to talk about them people shout down others with what is 'the right way to play'


MGibster said:


> Okay, well, forget about the imagination and just accept that people have different opinions and it's usually nothing to get upset about even if it's radically different from our own.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Waller said:


> Cite?
> 
> This (and other threads) make it very clear _you_ have beef with the staff here, because you're all over every thread like this, but one loud person doesn't equate to 'general erosion'. Honestly, I think they do an incredible job and this is one of the least toxic places on the web, despite any general increase in antagonism here and elsewhere.
> 
> So let's see your figures -- show us this 'general erosion of trust in this site's mods', because it sure as heck ain't shared by me.



hey look at that... someone posted opinions and then someone else is asking for a citation on an opinion.


----------



## Morrus

So this _thread_ is certainly getting antagonistic. Calm it down, please, people, or it'll get closed.


----------



## beancounter

MGibster said:


> You could,( but in my opinion), it's a bit silly to think adults need to clarify that they're stating an opinion.
> 
> Okay, well, forget about the imagination and just accept that people have different opinions and it's usually nothing to get upset about even if it's radically different from our own.




Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.

I often wonder what the catalyst was for this "easily offended" mindset.


----------



## beancounter

Olrox17 said:


> Pretty much this. People who disagree with a mod's personal opinion are very likely to think twice about expressing their disagreement, and may decide to hold their tongue. That could lead to frustration, and possibly to more passive-aggressive posting.



Yep...


----------



## payn

beancounter said:


> Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.
> 
> I often wonder what the catalyst was for this "easily offended" mindset.



Oh, im guessing folks are just sick and tired of being sick and tried of receiving discrimination, bigotry, etc..


----------



## beancounter

payn said:


> Oh, im guessing folks are just sick and tired of being sick and tried of receiving discrimination, bigotry, etc..




The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.

It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.


----------



## Retreater

beancounter said:


> It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.



What do you mean by "some" people?


----------



## beancounter

Retreater said:


> What do you mean by "some" people?




Not everyone, just some. Substantially less than 100%


----------



## AnotherGuy

beancounter said:


> The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.
> It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.



Ah humanity. It happens in sport with fouls, I'm specifically thinking of football (soccer for the Americans), where the "fouled" players are looking for a penalty. With the internet, posters are looking to get other posters moderated/banned.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Retreater said:


> What do you mean by "some" people?



Took me a second.


----------



## Umbran

CapnZapp said:


> I truly hope you realize that when you respond to a poster, which you do just like any other poster, that is unsolicited (much like me here and now replying to your post) people can be acutely aware that you really aren't just any other poster.




Yep.  I realize that.  



CapnZapp said:


> Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.




In theory, yes.  But there is a point where fears in theory should be checked against what actually happens.  There is only so far we should go to protect people from fears that are not founded in our actual behavior.

Rather contrary to your suggestion, I will generally take abuse upon myself that I would slap with red text if I saw it applied to someone else.  



CapnZapp said:


> I'm not saying you're abusing your powers. I am saying that in a confrontational landscape, this idea, that you can walk among ordinary men just like an equal among equals comes off as slightly naive.




With respect, I have no such idea.  Quite the opposite - we have been known to use our presence in a thread strategically.  Metaphorically poking our heads into discussions to demonstrate that we are, in fact, paying attention, is a reasonably effective way to mitigate rising tension so that no red text is never needed, using passive moderation, rather than requiring active intervention.

When I say folks are free to not engage with us - I mean that in the most basic (and, in my observation, most effective) sense of simply _not responding to a post we make_.   You can search he entire archives of the site, and see exactly zero examples of one of us saying, "Dude, you didn't reply to my last post.  I am _waiting_."

Simple and silent failure to respond (with no announcement) is the most effective mode of disengagement we've seen.  I recommend it frequently, in public, in PM, in mod voice and not.  I have probably said as much to several of you here in this thread.  I, personally, chose to not respond to people every single day - being able to choose whento respond or not is an important skill for all web-denizens to develop.

And, if we have to speak of naivete, do remember that the site's been around for over twenty years, with all the accumulated experience that brings.  We are not perfect, and feedback does potentially bring useful new ideas, so we are open to hearing it.  But we are not new at this, and don't go about it without thought and reflection.  We are about as seasoned as you'll find in volunteer support.  

We may be many things, but naïve, we are not.


----------



## payn

beancounter said:


> The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.
> 
> It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.



While your intent may be honest, when someone tells me they are offended I listen to them. That's just me.


----------



## Umbran

AnotherGuy said:


> I agree with the @Olrox17, @CapnZapp and @Lanefan however there is one I'd say technical/pragmatic issue in their request.
> 
> So say we have a handful of people who place moderator X's public account on ignore, the moderator would literally have to have reports on their other mod account to police the hidden posts otherwise they wouldn't necessarily see them if they are browsing on their general member account.
> I'm thinking the mod and poster account should indeed be one to have dual functionality where it's possible to see ignored posts (and they'd know they're being ignored), otherwise it would very much be a chore for the mods switching between the two accounts.




Yes, there is an element of that.  Most of our moderation is based on reports, but some of the most effective and least intrusive moderation is the stuff we can catch before it gets to the point that someone has to lodge a complaint with us, and for that we'd have to see it.


----------



## Umbran

Fifth Element said:


> Did anyone suggest it's an all-encompassing solution?




No.  But I think noting that it isn't practical still has value.


----------



## Alzrius

beancounter said:


> Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.
> 
> I often wonder what the catalyst was for this "easily offended" mindset.



I don't know that there was any specific catalyst, per se. But one of the more insightful takes I've seen on why discourse seems to be more contentious now is that a wide range of topics are now regarded as moral issues, and it's much more difficult for people to compromise on positions (or countenance alternative positions) when that's seen as abrogating their morals.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

beancounter said:


> The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.
> 
> It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.



yeah (and yeah I am as guilty as anyone) part of it is that it is impersonal communication... in person you see me, you hear me (I communicate much better). the tone and body language is lost on here.  Also just the decency and comradery a bit (go to a con and you wont argue in person as much as you do on a board)  before texting, before the internet was huge, people noticed it in emails... and before that letters. You don't read in the voice of the writer, but in the voice of your current mood.

AND IT ADDS UP... if you start off a little annoyed but come to enworld to relax, and the first poster tells you how wrong you are about how you pretend to be an elf in your moms basement you get MORE annoyed, and when another poster tells you that you need to have hard facts and proof or else there opinion is better then yours you get MORE annoyed by the time you read the 7th response to the 3rd thread you can be VERY ticked off... even though that poster you are reading was being jovial.

Now take all of that and add that yes I feel this board used to be better and has gotten worse and you have a problem... people take what you say and take it to mean something other then what you mean (and that CAN already happen in person without all of the above)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Alzrius said:


> I don't know that there was any specific catalyst, per se. But one of the more insightful takes I've seen on why discourse seems to be more contentious now is that a wide range of topics are now regarded as moral issues, and it's much more difficult for people to compromise on positions (or countenance alternative positions) when that's seen as abrogating their morals.




I think that there are a few, different reasons.

The first is the nature of communication on the internet. Generally, the internet (as a medium for communication) abhors nuance. In addition, the post/reply/reply/reply nature of forum communications tends to exacerbate and reward differences of opinion, as opposed to finding common ground- instead of _thesis - antithesis - synthesis_, you get, _thesis - antithesis - more antithesis - even more antithesis - yo mama_. Finally, it would appear that the internet prefers wise-cracking to wit; and as we all know, wit has truth to it, while wise-cracking is simply calisthenics with words. 

The second is what you correctly note- the increasing use of morality for all arguments. When you certain arguments or viewpoints are believed to be not just incorrect, but to be _immoral_, then it becomes easy to attack the individuals making those arguments as _immoral_. If, for example, you think that people who enjoy pineapple pizza are not just terrible bard-lovers, but also immoral bigots, then you will likely find it easier to behave cruelly to them (and those people, in turn, will behave cruelly to you).

Third, I think that there are an increasing number of "real-world" divisions that are unfortunately getting reflected in all aspects of life. This board, with strict enforcement of rules, avoids that (good!) but that background antagonism seems to seep into a lot of things. But for various reasons ... people are just angry.

Fourth, and finally, impersonal communication through text tends to make it easier for things to escalate. You don't hear the tone of someone's voice. You don't see a twinkle in the eye. You don't see the very real reactions of people that you might hurt in your quest to pwn them. 


I am sure that there are other factors people will point out, but those are some of the factors that occur to me.


----------



## beancounter

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah (and yeah I am as guilty as anyone) part of it is that it is impersonal communication... in person you see me, you hear me (I communicate much better). the tone and body language is lost on here.  Also just the decency and comradery a bit (go to a con and you wont argue in person as much as you do on a board)  before texting, before the internet was huge, people noticed it in emails... and before that letters. You don't read in the voice of the writer, but in the voice of your current mood.
> 
> AND IT ADDS UP... if you start off a little annoyed but come to enworld to relax, and the first poster tells you how wrong you are about how you pretend to be an elf in your moms basement you get MORE annoyed, and when another poster tells you that you need to have hard facts and proof or else there opinion is better then yours you get MORE annoyed by the time you read the 7th response to the 3rd thread you can be VERY ticked off... even though that poster you are reading was being jovial.
> 
> Now take all of that and add that yes I feel this board used to be better and has gotten worse and you have a problem... people take what you say and take it to mean something other then what you mean (and that CAN already happen in person without all of the above)




Personally, I try to clarify before I jump to conclusions, but yea, in the heat of discussions it's not easy.

I never understood why people insist that other people are having "badwrongfun". It's a game, and WoTC clearly states that you should play it the way you want.


----------



## Thomas Shey

MGibster said:


> You could,( but in my opinion), it's a bit silly to think adults need to clarify that they're stating an opinion.




The problem is (and I'm absolutely guilty of this myself, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes deliberately) people are absolutely willing to generalize past their personal experience and do so with some regularity.  Making it clear you're only talking about your own experience and not trying to suggest your statement is generally applicable is absolutely useful in disarming some problems.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Fifth Element said:


> The idea that this is one of the least toxic sites is not incompatible with the idea that it could still be better, or that some recent mod actions have reduced trust in them. I'm pretty much in agreement with Alzrius on this so now it's two to one I guess? I doubt posting a poll would go well however, so I don't know how you'd ever get the data you want. Probably better to read the post as referring to personal experience rather than assuming it's intended to speak for everyone.




Then perhaps "general erosion" was a bad choice of words on that poster's part.  That very much implies they view it as extending well past them.


----------



## Fifth Element

Thomas Shey said:


> Then perhaps "general erosion" was a bad choice of words on that poster's part.  That very much implies they view it as extending well past them.



The principle of charity extends not only to appending an implicit IMO, but also to not taking every word literally, unless something makes it clear they are being literal. So yeah, they could have used a different term, but before jumping on them about it, maybe find out, if it's that important.


----------



## Fifth Element

beancounter said:


> Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.



There have always been offended people. There may appear to be more now because some groups are more comfortable speaking up about it, whereas before the consequences of doing so were more severe.

But I also suspect there really aren't more offended people now but rather a bias of perception fueled largely by the increasing prevalence of online discourse.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Fifth Element said:


> The principle of charity extends not only to appending an implicit IMO, but also to not taking every word literally, unless something makes it clear they are being literal. So yeah, they could have used a different term, but before jumping on them about it, maybe find out, if it's that important.



this reminds me of when we had a new student in 6th grade that English's was not her 1st 2nd or even 3rd language (maybe it was third but I know Russians and German were first two) and there were kids that would pick apart her words and laugh at her... "like come on you know what she meant" 

I often wonder how many English's professors I interact with online based on the number of times I have seen people pick apart word choice... then again almost as many times they refuse to admit a word can have 2 or more meanings so...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Doesn't matter how many times I see this thread, I always read the title as "agnostic".  Which is an entirely different conversation...


----------



## MGibster

GMforPowergamers said:


> in the last year I have been told at least half a dozen times (most likely more) "Hey that's just your opinion and it doesn't matter" at least once when I started with IMO... like yeah, that's all we all have.



And that really, really sucks.  Really, everything is "just your opinion" no matter who is writing.  And the whole reason forums like this exist is so we can exchange ideas with one another.  



GMforPowergamers said:


> and that is before people state that someone else has to PROVE something with hard facts, and I have even had the Mods tell me that it is my duty to provide FACTs about things... that none of us (unless someone is secretly in possession of divination magic) has a way to prove or show.



I admit that I'm sometimes amused by requests for hard data.  It's great when we can get the hard data, but often times it really isn't available.


----------



## beancounter

Sacrosanct said:


> Doesn't matter how many times I see this thread, I always read the title as "agnostic".  Which is an entirely different conversation...




So, you don't believe in Antagonism?...


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> Yes, there is an element of that.  Most of our moderation is based on reports, but some of the most effective and least intrusive moderation is the stuff we can catch before it gets to the point that someone has to lodge a complaint with us, and for that we'd have to see it.



You guys do a good job.  There isn't a single mod here that I have difficult communicating with or feel as though I couldn't contact them if I had any issue.  10/10, would post here again.


----------



## beancounter

I read something in an article in Google news (I forget the source) that claimed that people in their 20's view the "thumbs up" emoji as negative or an insult.

Is there any truth to that?


----------



## Thomas Shey

MGibster said:


> I admit that I'm sometimes amused by requests for hard data.  It's great when we can get the hard data, but often times it really isn't available.




Yeah, this is particularly prevalent when how well a game or edition is selling, where in the overwhelming number of cases, if anyone knows (and that's a big "if") they keep it close to their chest.  So almost all discussions are speculative.


----------



## beancounter

In regards to facts. I've mis-remembered stuff from 1E modules that I haven't played in 40 years, and inevitably someone will come on and quote the information from the module to show I was wrong.

(This never happened here. It happened twice on the "other" forum.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

MGibster said:


> 10/10, would post here again.


----------



## Umbran

beancounter said:


> Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.
> 
> I often wonder what the catalyst was for this "easily offended" mindset.




I think there's an error in thinking that this is an "era of easily offended people". 

Folks have always been offending, and taking offense - but social media make the offenses and the reaction _more visible_ to us.

Also, lacking the feedback mechanisms human communication is designed to use that only work in person in realtime, folks are not self-moderating as much - we say things on the internet that we wouldn't say in person.


----------



## Sacrosanct

beancounter said:


> So, you don't believe in Antagonism?...



Anyone who's been following my posts over the past 20 years knows I am a firm believer in that ....innocent whistling....

Maybe I should consider myself a "Reformed Antagonist."


----------



## Lanefan

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah (and yeah I am as guilty as anyone) part of it is that it is impersonal communication... in person you see me, you hear me (I communicate much better). the tone and body language is lost on here.  Also just the decency and comradery a bit (go to a con and you wont argue in person as much as you do on a board)



You sure about that? 

At a GenCon - might have been 2011 - I remember sticking my oar into a roaring beer-enhanced edition-war argument already ongoing between 4 or 5 other people*, most of whom I don't think knew each other going in.  They were arguing about whether 3e or 4e was better, I muddied the waters by pushing for 1e instead and made it a 3-way fight.

The language and turns of phrase used that night would make Eric's Grandma's ears fall off, and I'm not sure ten consecutive words were uttered that wouldn't have offended someone.  And yet, it was all in friendship and cameraderie, and we ended up laughing as often as we were yelling.

That last part just doesn't come across on a remote messageboard.

* - not including Peter Adkison, who stuck his nose in for a few minutes then backed away slowly.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Lanefan said:


> At a GenCon - might have been 2011 - I remember sticking my oar into a roaring beer-enhanced edition-war argument already ongoing between 4 or 5 other people*, most of whom I don't think knew each other going in.  They were arguing about whether 3e or 4e was better, I muddied the waters by pushing for 1e instead and made it a 3-way fight.



That is awesome that you guys were strangers.


----------



## BookTenTiger

beancounter said:


> I read something in an article in Google news (I forget the source) that claimed that people in their 20's view the "thumbs up" emoji as negative or an insult.
> 
> Is there any truth to that?



This is a viral story based on a single comment on a social media post from a few years ago. It's a literal example of manufactured outrage.


----------



## Alzrius

BookTenTiger said:


> This is a viral story based on a single comment on a social media post from a few years ago. It's a literal example of manufactured outrage.


----------



## beancounter

BookTenTiger said:


> This is a viral story based on a single comment on a social media post from a few years ago. It's a literal example of manufactured outrage.




Thanks. That would be absurd if it were a real thing.


----------



## BrokenTwin

Life in general has definitely gotten more antagonist in general, and the board's certainly felt the impact. But out of all the rpg forums I lurk and occasionally post on, enworld is still the one that hits the right balance of moderation and disagreement for me.


----------



## Galandris

Alzrius said:


> with no accountability to the community they ostensibly serve.




While I can see your point of view, it is a private place. They don't have to serve, since they are landlords. They are trying to keep the forum civil and alive so of course they can't behave an a way that will be disagreed with by the majority of the posters, but it's not really "serving the community", more like "shaping it", since people who are not comfortable with their decisions will progressively refrain from posting, disengage with the forum and eventually leave.




Snarf Zagyg said:


> The second is what you correctly note- the increasing use of morality for all arguments. When you certain arguments or viewpoints are believed to be not just incorrect, but to be _immoral_, then it becomes easy to attack the individuals making those arguments as _immoral_. If, for example, you think that people who enjoy pineapple pizza are not just terrible bard-lovers, but also immoral bigots, then you will likely find it easier to behave cruelly to them (and those people, in turn, will behave cruelly to you).



That, and some people consider moral issues to be objective and, more often than not, that their moral determinations are superior to other people moral choices. So, when saying "it's immoral" they mean "you're a bad person and I'll chastize you for that" instead of "you're operating by a different worldview as I do, so probably we can't agree on this specific topic", so in fact, appeal to morality becomes "I won't accept criticism of my opinion as it's a matter of morals, yet I can totally attack yours."


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> Otherwise, as far as everyone else is concerned, the mods can apparently abuse their status freely, with no accountability to the community they ostensibly serve.



I’ll reiterate the above post.

I don’t ‘serve’ you, Alzrius. I’m not an elected official or your employee. You’re a guest in my house. And if you put your feet on my furniture, or make me, or any of my other guests uncomfortable, we will have a problem (and by ‘we’ I don’t mean me).  I think it’s important to be transparent and clear about this. If that’s not something you are comfortable with, your recourse is to find a community more to your liking.

People can make constructive suggestions and offer helpful opinions, but let’s stop short of entitlement and demands. This isn’t a democracy.


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> I think there's an error in thinking that this is an "era of easily offended people".
> 
> Folks have always been offending, and taking offense - but social media make the offenses and the reaction _more visible_ to us.
> 
> Also, lacking the feedback mechanisms human communication is designed to use that only work in person in realtime, folks are not self-moderating as much - we say things on the internet that we wouldn't say in person.



I do believe this is a large reason why online, ahem, discussions can become so heated.  If we were writing letters and mailing them, each one of us would have time to seriously mull things over and send a reply only after due consideration.  But on the forums, I can get hot headed and just type a reply as I'm thinking it (though I might be able to go back and edit). 

I do wonder what role social media has shaped how we communicate with one another.  Twitter, Face Book, etc., etc., seem designed to place us in silos and rewards negativity.  And the general atmosphere in many places has been to pounce on people who disagree with us.  I've been on forums (not here) where most of the participants are largely in agreement on the big picture but devolve into serious bickering becuase they disagree on some of the smaller details.  



Morrus said:


> don’t ‘serve’ you, Alzrius. I’m not an elected servant or your employee. You’re a guest in my house. And if you put your feet on my furniture, or make me, or any of my other guests uncomfortable, we will have a problem (and by ‘we’ I don’t mean me).



I'm glad you're not one of those people who keeps plastic on their furniture all the time.


----------



## Cadence

MGibster said:


> I do believe this is a large reason why online, ahem, discussions can become so heated.  If we were writing letters and mailing them, each one of us would have time to seriously mull things over and send a reply only after due consideration.  But on the forums, I can get hot headed and just type a reply as I'm thinking it (though I might be able to go back and edit).





I've wondered sometimes what the web would be like if each person only got to post something like three things total each day.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

MGibster said:


> And that really, really sucks. Really, everything is "just your opinion" no matter who is writing. And the whole reason forums like this exist is so we can exchange ideas with one another.



But the thing is . . . there are times when someone posts something as if it's fact and are adamant that it's the absolute truth and not just their own opinion. This is especially common when discussing any elements of the game that they think are bad for the hobby (instead of just being bad for their table or against their own preferences). So for some it's hard to tell when someone has an implied "In my opinion" in their post or are just going on a rant about how everyone else is having "badwrongfun" and their way of playing is the "One True Way". 

And, as a person diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, it's pretty difficult for me to tell the difference between the two. Three words can go a long way to tell whether the person is engaging in good faith or bad faith for me. 

It might be annoying or hard to remember, but it actually does help me quite often.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> I don’t ‘serve’ you, Alzrius.



EN World is a community; this can't be disputed. The most important part of any community is the people in it; that's something which _shouldn't_ be disputed, but sadly all too often is. As such, the ones who manage that community therefore have a responsibility to its people. To say that they're in service to them is, in other words, a recognition of that responsibility.

If you don't agree with any of the above, then there's really no basis for continuing this discussion. As such, I'll excuse myself from this thread.


----------



## MGibster

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This is especially common when discussing any elements of the game that they think are bad for the hobby (instead of just being bad for their table or against their own preferences). So for some it's hard to tell when someone has an implied "In my opinion" in their post or are just going on a rant about how everyone else is having "badwrongfun" and their way of playing is the "One True Way".



I just assume it's there regardless of the poster's intention.  They may post it as fact, but I know it's an opinion and I don't really care if they act like it's a fact.  That's just me though, and it's okay if others handle such things in a different way.  And there are some people with boorish behavior who treat other styles of play as "badwrongfun" which is unfortunate.  



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And, as a person diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, it's pretty difficult for me to tell the difference between the two. Three words can go a long way to tell whether the person is engaging in good faith or bad faith for me.



I understand where you're coming from.  While I recognize it can be more difficult for those on the spectrum, it can be messy for those of us who aren't as well.  I once got into a near shouting match with an Englishman over whether or not the American colonist were justified in breaking away from Great Britain.  And believe me, I never really considered anyone could get into a serious argument about something like that but apparently we were both emotionally invested in our points of view.  Communication is actually pretty complicated with subtle cues that are sometimes difficult to pick up on.


----------



## Galandris

MGibster said:


> I once got into a near shouting match with an Englishman over whether or not the American colonist were justified in breaking away from Great Britain.  And believe me, I never really considered anyone could get into a serious argument about something like that but apparently we were both emotionally invested in our points of view.




I am pretty sure the Internet had boards where people had arguments over whether the TRADE FEDERATION was justified in breaking from the Galactic Republic, so I am really not surprised by your example...


----------



## Cordwainer Fish

Cadence said:


> I've wondered sometimes what the web would be like if each person only got to post something like three things total each day.



rn, in its time the best of brand newsreader, reminded the user every time they were about to post that the act, summed over all the systems the post would be sent to, would cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars (which at one time was likely true).  It didn't help.


----------



## Sabathius42

Umbran said:


> Which is exactly why we don't have it, or the rolleyes.



Can we get rid of the shrug?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Sabathius42 said:


> Can we get rid of the shrug?




i mean … ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Sabathius42

Umbran said:


> That is true, but it seems like a separate issue, or at least a more extreme case than currently stated.
> 
> The stated problem was about being uncomfortable debating a mod. If someone is uncomfortable in discussion with one of us, using an alternate account should not make them _comfortable_ doing so - we are still who we are, after all.
> 
> It is unclear how many people are so uncomfortable with the prospect of debating one of us that they want a safeguard against ever even doing so by accident.  If that number were so large that it was affecting operation of the site, that might be an issue we'd want to address somehow.  But we are unlikely to entirely change how we do things for just a couple of posters.



Just a data point for sosmething that happened to me.

I have, in two different threads in the past, been unfairly jumped by mods-as-posters in ways that were personal.  In both of those cases I chose to not flag the comment...because why bother to do that against the mod who is going to review it?

I almost never flag a post.  I'd be surprised if I have even flagged one post a year in the time I have been here.  I would have had two more flags had I thought it would have even been considered fairly.

I accept all of us are humans and we can all sometimes have a bad day but it is true there are probably many members who don't feel like they can debate or call out a mod.


----------



## Sabathius42

MGibster said:


> You could,( but in my opinion), it's a bit silly to think adults need to clarify that they're stating an opinion.  I don't know about everyone here, but when I was a wee lad in grade school we had lessons on the differences between factual statements and opinions.  I had to take a test and everything and I'm not really bothered when I see someone make a blanket statement like, "D&D is a great rules set for a campaign featuring a lot of subtle political intrigue."  I disagree vehemently with that opinion, but it doesn't offend me.  You probably get a lot of pushback because we'd have to write "In my opinion" before almost every single post here, because, you know, most of what we discuss are just opinions.
> 
> 
> Okay, well, forget about the imagination and just accept that people have different opinions and it's usually nothing to get upset about even if it's radically different from our own.



The problem being that I'm fairly certain not every poster here...

1. Realizes their opinion is theirs only, not everyone's.

2. Accepts others opinion as valid without federal courtroom level evidence provided supporting it.


----------



## Zardnaar

GMforPowergamers said:


> not for everyone
> 
> and this leads (because it doesn't just ignore one way) to whole threads having responses that make no sense... I have twice in the last few months responded to someone who I THOUGHT was responding to me since they were right under me, but they responded to someone who has me blocked, and as such I was 'picking a fight' I didn't need to.
> 
> there are pros and cons to both, and using either too much seems to be as bad as not useing them




Bad joke I know they exist I just don't use them.


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> EN World is a community; this can't be disputed. The most important part of any community is the people in it; that's something which _shouldn't_ be disputed, but sadly all too often is. As such, the ones who manage that community therefore have a responsibility to its people. To say that they're in service to them is, in other words, a recognition of that responsibility.
> 
> If you don't agree with any of the above, then there's really no basis for continuing this discussion. As such, I'll excuse myself from this thread.



Much as I enjoy semantic arguments (read: I don't), I'm not going to respond to that. I will merely reiterate what I said above. You're a guest in my house and are expected to conduct yourself accordingly; that's basically it. If you can't agree with that, you need to excuse yourself from the forum. This isn't a debate; I'm telling you how it is.


----------



## CapnZapp

Umbran said:


> CapnZapp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In theory, yes.  But there is a point where fears in theory should be checked against what actually happens.  There is only so far we should go to protect people from fears that are not founded in our actual behavior.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your reasoned reply. However:

The above can, unless I'm horribly mistaken, be read as a polite way of appearing to agree while actually entrenching your position. Let me humbly ask again.

Are you agreeing with me that your suggestion for people to not engage* can be much harder to accept than you initially made it out to be?

*) Exact quote: "Then don't. You are free to not engage with us as individual posters. We don't take any offense at that."

Or are you perhaps saying that no, the concern is perhaps theoretically valid, but you don't actually consider it a point that merits reconsidering your stance about your suggestion's levity?



Umbran said:


> When I say folks are free to not engage with us - I mean that in the most basic (and, in my observation, most effective) sense of simply _not responding to a post we make_.   You can search he entire archives of the site, and see exactly zero examples of one of us saying, "Dude, you didn't reply to my last post.  I am _waiting_."



First off. I honestly don't think anyone is discussing this possibility; the "risk" someone could be compelled to answer your non-mod posts. I certainly am not. Please let us drop that argument.

Instead, I am afraid you continue to underestimate how difficult a position you put, or potentially may put, a regular user in.

If anyone replies to me telling me I'm wrong or mistaken or focusing on the wrong thing (etc), my first and easiest course of action isn't to just walk away, to put it mildly  Please don't assume your (non-mod) posts are never controversial, can never be questioned, and are always right. I would say it is pretty obvious the people you converse with might feel slightly (or not so slightly) less at ease by the simple inescapable fact you have the power to ban them. Even if you are known as someone that never makes an ill-judged mod call. To bring us full circle to the thread's title, the discussion climate isn't exactly conducive to assuming good faith.

At this time I should probably clarify I realize we are all humans and therefore fallible - even if you have failed, which I am _not_ implying you have, I am not interested in bringing up any examples or hunting any heads. But just as an example of, again not where you have done anything wrong, but where treading lightly is essential: you post very authoritatively in the Covid thread as a not-a-mod. Yet, you also in that same thread assert the right to shut down various tangential discussions using your mod voice, _even including ones you participated in yourself_. If you never pause to consider how it looks when a not-a-mod-mod takes up a lot of space in a discussion, revisiting that one is a place to start. (Luckily it has _over ten thousand posts_ so hopefully no-one will think I'm trying to settle old personal scores)

Instead allow me to simply express hope you consider treating your non-mod posting habits as slightly less non-controversial and easily-ignored than you appear to given this thread's discussion.

Regards
Zapp


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sabathius42 said:


> Just a data point for sosmething that happened to me.
> 
> I have, in two different threads in the past, been unfairly jumped by mods-as-posters in ways that were personal. In both of those cases I chose to not flag the comment...because why bother to do that against the mod who is going to review it?



You really *should* report it.

I have *absolutely* screwed up since I became a Mod, both in my official capacity on this site and as just another ENWorlder.  And my actions got reported and reviewed just like anyone else’s.  In at least one case, I removed myself from the discussion after being admonished by the others.

We all have blind spots.  We all have hot buttons.  We all make mistakes.  Having them reported is valuable feedback.


----------



## Umbran

Sabathius42 said:


> ....because why bother to do that against the mod who is going to review it?




Because, among other things, we often review each other.  

Danny and I check each other's work, so to speak.  Morrus has access to the reports, and the mods answer to him.  And, since we don't actually have much on the line, the mods are not scared to give critique to Morrus when we think he did something wrong.


----------



## Sabathius42

That's for the feedback, mods!  Its great to hear similar situations have been treated fairly.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I suggest that we bring back trial by combat to resolve disputes. Mods may be fallible, but surely God would not allow the wronged to be defeated unjustly??


----------



## Lanefan

MichaelSomething said:


> I suggest that we bring back trial by combat to resolve disputes. Mods may be fallible, but surely God would not allow the wronged to be defeated unjustly??



Hmmm... (wondering how that would work given as we're all over the world) ...I guess these combats would have to be done remotely?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lanefan said:


> Hmmm... (wondering how that would work given as we're all over the world) ...I guess these combats would have to be done remotely?



Unreal Tournament or the like, clearly.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Unreal Tournament or the like, clearly.




Formal, scored debate would be a more appropriate challenge.


----------



## Reynard

FWIW I think the moderation on the site has been helping combat the general slide toward incivility the internet at large has seen. And that comes from someone who occasionally gets dinged by the mods because I can be... excitable sometimes.

Anyway, my point is that the occasional reminder that you might be stepping over a line is a good thing, and certainly more productive than certain other sites whose mods come swinging the banhammer indiscriminately. I don't always agree with the moderation here, but it's notably better than most other old school message boards.


----------



## Blue Orange

Lanefan said:


> Hmmm... (wondering how that would work given as we're all over the world) ...I guess these combats would have to be done remotely?



What, nobody's thought of the obvious answer, given the nature of the forum?

Your *D&D characters* fight!


----------



## Blue Orange

MGibster said:


> I understand where you're coming from.  While I recognize it can be more difficult for those on the spectrum, it can be messy for those of us who aren't as well.  I once got into a near shouting match with an Englishman over whether or not the American colonist were justified in breaking away from Great Britain.  And believe me, I never really considered anyone could get into a serious argument about something like that but apparently we were both emotionally invested in our points of view.  Communication is actually pretty complicated with subtle cues that are sometimes difficult to pick up on.



Nationalism (and most identity-based things--race, sex, etc.) are common sorts of violent disagreements, I can tell you from experience (as a spectrumish person who made a similar mistake a while ago). Especially if you were American and he was British, so there was more of a personal stake in it.


----------



## Irlo

Blue Orange said:


> What, nobody's thought of the obvious answer, given the nature of the forum?
> 
> Your *D&D characters* fight!



I'll be the halfling with subtle spell, shield, silvery bards, and 20 strength. Who wants to be Vecna with dread counterspell and a DC25 padlock?


----------



## Lanefan

Irlo said:


> I'll be the halfling with subtle spell, shield, *silvery bards*, and 20 strength. Who wants to be Vecna with dread counterspell and a DC25 padlock?



Silvery bards?

You're packing a glam-rock band with you?

Interesting strategy...


----------



## niklinna

Lanefan said:


> You're packing a glam-rock band with you?











						Spirit of 77 RPG - The Very Best of a Bad Decade - Monkeyfun Studios
					

It’s funky high octane action at its best! Can you dig it?  Spirit of 77 is a role-playing roller-coaster about kung-fu tough guys, fast fuel-burning street dragsters, red hot mommas, explosions and fighting The Man. It’s a world where Nixon made a deal with aliens to win the Vietnam War and...




					www.monkeyfunstudios.com


----------



## TheSword

I’ve been the recipient of red text a couple of times, and no doubt skirted the line a few times as well. Not too often I hope but, it does happen. There are a couple of stances the site has taken that I don’t agree with, but as has been said it’s Morrus’ house, and you don’t get to go into someone’s house and tell them what they can and can’t do. Sure the initial feeling is to throw toys out of the pram, but inevitably when I stop, go to sleep and read it all back the next day, I rarely think that red text was outrageous.

Thousands of people brought up in a thousand different ways, with different pressures, outlooks, experiences and ideologies. In many different countries are never going to agree on everything. At the end of the day we all like talking about gaming. That’s what holds us together. The mods just try and keep it from being nasty.


----------



## BookTenTiger

TheSword said:


> Thousands of people brought up in a thousand different ways, with different pressures, outlooks, experiences and ideologies. In many different countries are never going to agree on everything. At the end of the day we all like talking about gaming. That’s what holds us together. The mods just try and keep it from being nasty.



This is a very good point. ENWorld is one of the few places on the internet where I feel like I can have real discussions with people who have very different perspectives than I do. The reason for that is moderation. We get to talk about the things we have in common, even when our political, religious, or cultural practices are different. I know there are folks on here with whom I disagree strongly about real-world issues... But because politics and religion are off the table, we can still agree or disagree civilly about gaming! It's a real relief.


----------



## Galandris

TheSword said:


> Sure the initial feeling is to throw toys out of the pram, but inevitably when I stop, go to sleep and read it all back the next day, I rarely think that red text was outrageous.




I can only applaud what is written in red text. Also, as Beaumarchais wrote, without freedom to criticize, there can be no genuine praise.

Maybe a good thing would be to remove the ability to put supportive smileys to mods posts in red text. When I see 10 "thumbs up" to a thread-ban, I am not reading them as support for the moderation team for policing the forum but as "Yeah, go pound sand" message to the thread-banned people (especially if the red text message is even slightly snarky). Those smileys are certainly a contributing factor to the general hostility.


----------



## TheSword

Galandris said:


> I can only applaud what is written in red text. Also, as Beaumarchais wrote, without freedom to criticize, there can be no genuine praise.
> 
> Maybe a good thing would be to remove the ability to put supportive smileys to mods posts in red text. When I see 10 "thumbs up" to a thread-ban, I am not reading them as support for the moderation team for policing the forum but as "Yeah, go pound sand" message to the thread-banned people (especially if the red text message is even slightly snarky). Those smileys are certainly a contributing factor to the general hostility.



Well sometimes it just is support for the moderation team. I wouldn’t read too much into it.


----------



## Umbran

Galandris said:


> I can only applaud what is written in red text. Also, as Beaumarchais wrote, without freedom to criticize, there can be no genuine praise.




Folks are always free to drop moderators a PM, or report posts in which we make comments you have an issue with.



Galandris said:


> Maybe a good thing would be to remove the ability to put supportive smileys to mods posts in red text.




The board software does not support this - the red-text posts are just normal posts with color set to red.  They aren't something the system can pick out for different treatment.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bedrockgames said:


> I think things get a bit more spicy anytime an edition change-over is on the horizon. I haven't particularly noticed it this time around but maybe I missed those conversations. The editions wars between the 3E to 4E change and the 4E to 5E change were pretty ferocious. I am mostly seeing the normal levels of feuding here lately (which is to say, not zero, but for the most part nothing like prior edition changes).
> 
> My advice is try to pull back emotionally from these sorts of discussions if you are noticing patterns of behavior that bother you, and to lean on being kind to other posters as much as possible. I think a number of things happen during edition wars but something I usually sense is some of the meanness and sniping, can come from stuff in peoples lives that have nothing to do with gaming at all (and the gaming discussion seems to be a conduit for the sadness, anger or frustration they are feeling).  Don't get me wrong, there are also posters who just love a good edition war. But I found in most circumstances, certainly not all, being nice to someone who is behaving that way has a much more positive effect on their posting style than when I meet angry post with an angry response (and I am certainly not guiltless when it comes to bickering over edition minutiae myself). But definitely pull away from discussions if they are stressing you.
> 
> Also like others have suggested the ignore button an be useful (even if you just need it for a day). The worst thing that can happen to you in these discussions is you see a post, it makes you angry, so you post something worded in a way you wouldn't have normally worded it, and then feel bad later. If you can, its best to either ignore those posts or wait a while before responding so your brain is cooler when you write.



Does anyone actually use the ignore feature as a temporary measure?  I wish it were possible to know who was actually ignoring you.  It would make it easier to parse out responses where you don't see who a poster is responding to, which can make a conversation confusing.

On topic, I know I get hot sometimes when new official stuff comes out, particularly if it's setting based (I don't really care for most of WotC 5e's setting material).  Couple that with being extremely skeptical of the upcoming new edition, and most of my positive thoughts tend to be reserved for Level Up.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Micah Sweet said:


> Does anyone actually use the ignore feature as a temporary measure?




_raises hand_

I have a few people on perma-ignore for _reasons_, but I mostly use ignore temporarily. If, for whatever reason, I feel a need to continue a conversation that I probably shouldn't, I find that putting the person on ignore for a few days cures me of the angry blood.

Sometimes it is the other person. Sometimes it is me. Sometimes it's just the mixture. But a timeout does wonders, and when I remove the ignore whatever the issue was has almost always moved on to something else.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Snarf Zagyg said:


> _raises hand_
> 
> I have a few people on perma-ignore for _reasons_, but I mostly use ignore temporarily. If, for whatever reason, I feel a need to continue a conversation that I probably shouldn't, I find that putting the person on ignore for a few days cures me of the angry blood.
> 
> Sometimes it is the other person. Sometimes it is me. Sometimes it's just the mixture. But a timeout does wonders, and when I remove the ignore whatever the issue was has almost always moved on to something else.



I must be pretty awful then.  I think at least two people have me on ignore, and neither has budged in a while.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Micah Sweet said:


> I must be pretty awful then.  I think at least two people have me on ignore, and neither has budged in a while.




Not necessarily! I've mentioned this before, but shortly after I joined enworld, I made a joke about Return of the Jedi. Apparently, it was someone's favorite movie, and they've had me on ignore ever since.



Also, though, I am pretty pretty pretty awful. So there is that too, I guess?


----------



## Morrus

We have a tool which tells us how many people have somebody on ignore.  There are people with over a hundred people ignoring them.

They're not around any more.


----------



## Gradine

I only have a few folx on block, and they tend to not last particularly long here.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Morrus said:


> We have a tool which tells us how many people have somebody on ignore.  There are people with over a hundred people ignoring them.




Don't mess with the Ewok lobby.


----------



## billd91

Micah Sweet said:


> Does anyone actually use the ignore feature as a temporary measure?



I have taken people off my ignore list in the past. But usually I find that the very behavior that induced me to ignore them in the first place induces me to do so again. There are probably only 3-4 people I've ever unignored in the last 20 years that have stayed unignored.

Unless they're gone. Then they usually successfully stay off.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> We have a tool which tells us how many people have somebody on ignore.  There are people with over a hundred people ignoring them.
> 
> They're not around any more.




There are over 200 users who are ignored by more than 10 people.

So, I suspect there's dozens of posters would be surprised how many are ignoring them.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Umbran said:


> There are over 200 users who are ignored by more than 10 people.
> 
> So, I suspect there's dozens of posters would be surprised how many are ignoring them.



I'm willing to bet I'm one of them.  Most probably in my more argumentative days.


----------



## Galandris

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not necessarily! I've mentioned this before, but shortly after I joined enworld, I made a joke about Return of the Jedi. Apparently, it was someone's favorite movie, and they've had me on ignore ever since.




I've tried to put people temporarily on ignore, when I usually liked their content but they "went off-road" in a thread... I must confess that I am not reviewing my ignore list regularly and right now, there are names on it that I have absolutely no idea who they are or why there are ignored. Maybe you were just forgotten by this poster, because joking about RotJ isn't a mortal sin. It's not like you had joked about ESB...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> There are over 200 users who are ignored by more than 10 people.
> 
> So, I suspect there's dozens of posters would be surprised how many are ignoring them.



This is why I wish it were possible to know who was ignoring you.  Threads tend to get choppy otherwise.


----------



## billd91

Micah Sweet said:


> This is why I wish it were possible to know who was ignoring you.  Threads tend to get choppy otherwise.



Honestly, I don't care who is ignoring me. The choppiness of the occasional thread due to the mutual ignore setting is a bit annoying though. Usually, I don't notice it. But there have been threads here and there where someone ignoring me has been a major participant - those threads can get unreadable.


----------



## MGibster

I'm kind of curious now.  I know this board hangs on my every word, so it's exceedingly unlikely anyone has me on ignore, but how can I check to see how many people have denied themselves the pleasure of my words?


----------



## Thomas Shey

Morrus said:


> We have a tool which tells us how many people have somebody on ignore.  There are people with over a hundred people ignoring them.
> 
> They're not around any more.




I can see why that would be, well, a bad sign.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> This is why I wish it were possible to know who was ignoring you.  Threads tend to get choppy otherwise.



Regularly wish we could see greyed out what they are saying to make the threads make sense


----------



## Bedrockgames

MGibster said:


> I'm kind of curious now.  I know this board hangs on my every word, so it's exceedingly unlikely anyone has me on ignore, but how can I check to see how many people have denied themselves the pleasure of my words?




I'm not ignoring you if that is any reassurance


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Micah Sweet said:


> This is why I wish it were possible to know who was ignoring you.  Threads tend to get choppy otherwise.




I'm busy ignoring myself. 

Although I've been told that if I do that too often, I might go blind.

Wait .. you don't think that's true.

Do you?

DO YOU??!!!!!

ETA- "I'll take jokes that don't work in dark mode for $100, Alex."


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> This is why I wish it were possible to know who was ignoring you.  Threads tend to get choppy otherwise.





Since I only have one person on my own ignore list now (I had two, but one of them got the boot), when I see a particularly incoherent thread I'll go check it in another browser to see who's posts I'm missing.  Its the only reason I know of a couple people who have me on ignore.

(And I figure if I never notice anything odd, I don't need to know.)


----------



## aco175

Umbran said:


> There are over 200 users who are ignored by more than 10 people.
> 
> So, I suspect there's dozens of posters would be surprised how many are ignoring them.



The only people I ignore are the ones that blast the site with 20 threads in Chinese about something with a college.  Not sure if 10 others are doing the same thing.


----------



## Umbran

aco175 said:


> The only people I ignore are the ones that blast the site with 20 threads in Chinese about something with a college.  Not sure if 10 others are doing the same thing.




I don't believe things we remove as spam can show up in the rankings.


----------



## Lazvon

Interesting. I am newly back after Uber long hiatus, only ignored two people which I just saw how to find. To someone’s suggestion here I looked at who I am ignoring, and noticed I could uncheck this so I at least know when they are in the thread:

“Remove ignored contentIf checked, the content from users that you ignore will be completely removed. 

If un-checked, the content from users that you ignore will be hidden with a message indicating the user is ignored and an option to show the content.”

Nice feature.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm busy ignoring myself.
> 
> Although I've been told that if I do that too often, I might go blind.
> 
> Wait .. you don't think that's true.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> DO YOU??!!!!!
> 
> ETA- "I'll take jokes that don't work in dark mode for $100, Alex."






Lazvon said:


> Interesting. I am newly back after Uber long hiatus, only ignored two people which I just saw how to find. To someone’s suggestion here I looked at who I am ignoring, and noticed I could uncheck this so I at least know when they are in the thread:
> 
> “Remove ignored contentIf checked, the content from users that you ignore will be completely removed.
> 
> If un-checked, the content from users that you ignore will be hidden with a message indicating the user is ignored and an option to show the content.”
> 
> Nice feature.



Yeah.  Shame it only works one way.


----------



## CleverNickName

My trouble is I don't ignore nearly enough people.

*Them: * 
*Me:*  "I'm sure they didn't mean that.  I must have misunderstood them."
*Them:* 
*Me: * "I'm sure that deep down, they're actually really nice."
*Them: *
*Me:*  "....somewhere deep,_ deep _down..._"_


----------



## beancounter

The problem with ignore is that it can prevent threads from spiraling out of control.


----------



## RealAlHazred

I don't much care who has me on ignore, but occasionally I would be curious to know how many people have me on ignore.

But I also act contrarian sometimes, and don't need more encouragement to be a jerk.


----------



## Nikosandros

It definitely feels a bit antagonistic recently. There's quite a bit of posting that is quite dismissive of differing opinions.


----------



## Micah Sweet

RealAlHazred said:


> I don't much care who has me on ignore, but occasionally I would be curious to know how many people have me on ignore.
> 
> But I also act contrarian sometimes, and don't need more encouragement to be a jerk.



The problem is I feel bad about it.  I'd apologize if I knew who they were.


----------



## darjr

Hello? Strange empty thread?


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> Hello? Strange empty thread?



Lots of ignored posters?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Umbran said:


> There are over 200 users who are ignored by more than 10 people.
> 
> So, I suspect there's dozens of posters would be surprised how many are ignoring them.



I wonder if there's any productive way to let those folks know. I suspect it wouldn't be productive knowledge for most people, though.


----------



## darjr

Nikosandros said:


> Lots of ignored posters?



just a bad joke


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> just a bad joke



I failed my detect joke roll despite the low DC...


----------



## beancounter

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I wonder if there's any productive way to let those folks know. I suspect it wouldn't be productive knowledge for most people, though.



Yep, it would just create more animosity.


----------



## Micah Sweet

beancounter said:


> Yep, it would just create more animosity.



For those folks, maybe not.  I would certainly appreciate it myself.


----------



## Gradine

To be fair I think it's really easy to look at the growing antagonism across the internet over the past decade or so as a tragic and unnecessary escalation; at least, it's easy to think that when "People like you shouldn't exist" isn't seen as a valid and reasonable personal and/or political stance. 

My theory is that these are the growing pains that come with social progress; when specific bigotries are no longer unspoken and assumed they must become debated in the public space, which I think a lot of people directly impacted by said bigotries are going to have some understandable acrimony about.

The goalposts and battlefields will continue to shift, and every social niche will their own battlefields to occupy. The thing is, when the niche gets _really _specific, the battlefields of choice tend to appear completely unrelated to any broader social movement, but I've found in many cases that the lines in the sand and the folx in the trenches become remarkably similar. 

tl;dr Damage on a miss is a proxy war originating from the broader culture wars flaring up over the relatively swift (by historical standards) social progress happening in many liberal democracies. 


Thanks for attending my TED Talk


----------



## SakanaSensei

Gradine said:


> To be fair I think it's really easy to look at the growing antagonism across the internet over the past decade or so as a tragic and unnecessary escalation; at least, it's easy to think that when "People like you shouldn't exist" isn't seen as a valid and reasonable personal and/or political stance.
> 
> My theory is that these are the growing pains that come with social progress; when specific bigotries are no longer unspoken and assumed they must become debated in the public space, which I think a lot of people directly impacted by said bigotries are going to have some understandable acrimony about.
> 
> The goalposts and battlefields will continue to shift, and every social niche will their own battlefields to occupy. The thing is, when the niche gets _really _specific, the battlefields of choice tend to appear completely unrelated to any broader social movement, but I've found in many cases that the lines in the sand and the folx in the trenches become remarkably similar.
> 
> tl;dr Damage on a miss is a proxy war originating from the broader culture wars flaring up over the relatively swift (by historical standards) social progress happening in many liberal democracies.
> 
> 
> Thanks for attending my TED Talk




Forum rules being what they are, it's hard to really get into this, but I have seen connections between people who post certain stances on game topics and opinions on various other, non-game things like shows in ways that have made me go "huh, is this related?" But the human brain is also really good at finding connections where there are none, so it's entirely possible it's my monkey brain doing me a confusion.


----------



## Gradine

SakanaSensei said:


> Forum rules being what they are, it's hard to really get into this, but I have seen connections between people who post certain stances on game topics and opinions on various other, non-game things like shows in ways that have made me go "huh, is this related?" But the human brain is also really good at finding connections where there are none, so it's entirely possible it's my monkey brain doing me a confusion.



Tribalism is never a coincidence.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Gradine said:


> My theory is that these are the growing pains that come with social progress; when specific bigotries are no longer unspoken and assumed they must become debated in the public space, which I think a lot of people directly impacted by said bigotries are going to have some understandable acrimony about.



Hmmm. This is the first optimistic take I've ever seen on polarization. It's a thought-provoking idea, if nothing else.


----------



## Lanefan

darjr said:


> Hello? Strange empty thread?



This quote showed as post 258 for me, @darjr .  If that number is greatly lower for you, well...


----------



## niklinna

I don't see post numbers shifting due to people I've ignored, but maybe they shift if somebody has ignored me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

niklinna said:


> I don't see post numbers shifting due to people I've ignored, but maybe they shift if somebody has ignored me.



If someone who has ignored you posts, their post# is skipped and you have a gap.  Trust me, the two I'm pretty sure of post in the same threads as me all the time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> If someone who has ignored you posts, their post# is skipped and you have a gap.  Trust me, the two I'm pretty sure of post in the same threads as me all the time.



so like the one I see for you is 171, if you blocked me it would skip from 170 to 172?


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> so like the one I see for you is 171, if you blocked me it would skip from 170 to 172?



Yup.


----------



## beancounter

Micah Sweet said:


> Yup.



I just realized that post 265-267 are skipped for me...

Hmm, I wonder who they are and how I offended them. 



Spoiler



Honestly, I don't give a


----------



## Umbran

beancounter said:


> I just realized that post .... are skipped for me...




*Mod Note:*
In a thread about antagonism on the boards, where moderator and site owner have been present, this seems like an ironically unwise approach.


----------



## TheSword

As a general rule I don’t block people for what they say. I block them for how they say it. Usually posting exhaustively and continually - particularly when they respond to a 6 line comment by dismantling each line with a 10 line rebuttal. Discussing things with people that way is very tiring. Equally frustrating is where people address 20 different posters with their one post, quoting each one individually in some super essay.

Brevity is the soul of wit, I want to read what you think - not an amicus brief. I sometimes wonder whether a word limit would be a good thing and as was suggested earlier - a maximum number of posts per thread per day while not good for the site would definitely make people think harder about what they said. 

Aside from that, say what you want, I probably won’t ignore you. Plurality is important and generally a good thing. People should be allowed to hold different opinions about the game without being rugby tackled. With the caveat that politics and religion should be ruled out in entirety. Even when game related. Sure it might be relevant and interesting but you can’t include it without the antagonism forming.


----------



## Gradine

TheSword said:


> As a general rule I don’t block people for what they say. I block them for how they say it. Usually posting exhaustively and continually - particularly when they respond to a 6 line comment by dismantling each line with a 10 line rebuttal. Discussing things with people that way is very tiring. Equally frustrating is where people address 20 different posters with their one post, quoting each one individually in some super essay.



Stop subtweeting 



Spoiler



<redacted>


  

I typically don't block people unless they (a) sealion (or engage some other form of intellectually dishonest threadcrapping) and (b) indicating, either explicitly or implicitly, that what they think about people like myself is quite derogatory. 



Spoiler



Poster titles that mock pronouns


 are kind of a dead giveaway


----------



## TheSword

Gradine said:


> Stop subtweeting
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> <redacted>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I typically don't block people unless they (a) sealion (or engage some other form of intellectually dishonest threadcrapping) and (b) indicating, either explicitly or implicitly, that what they think about people like myself is quite derogatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Poster titles that mock pronouns
> 
> 
> are kind of a dead giveaway



I’ll be honest that has gone over my head. I don’t understand. I certainly hope I aren’t intellectually dishonestly threadcrapping, or implying anything.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots




----------



## TheSword

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


>



Quite. I have extremely fast reflexes.


----------



## Gradine

TheSword said:


> I’ll be honest that has gone over my head. I don’t understand. I certainly hope I aren’t intellectually dishonestly threadcrapping, or implying anything.



The way that breaks formatting wasn't helping, but no, you're a good egg, I was just making a stupid joke about an old posted frenemy of mine.


----------



## TheSword

Gradine said:


> The way that breaks formatting wasn't helping, but no, you're a good egg, I was just making a stupid joke about an old posted frenemy of mine.



 phew.


----------



## SakanaSensei

I’m curious now: if a thread OP has someone on ignore, does the ignored party see the thread but not the OP itself, essentially getting a context-less conversation in their feed?


----------



## Morrus

SakanaSensei said:


> I’m curious now: if a thread OP has someone on ignore, does the ignored party see the thread but not the OP itself, essentially getting a context-less conversation in their feed?



Doesn't work on the first post.


----------



## billd91

SakanaSensei said:


> I’m curious now: if a thread OP has someone on ignore, does the ignored party see the thread but not the OP itself, essentially getting a context-less conversation in their feed?



That may depend on the ignore settings, because there are definitely threads out there created by people I'm ignoring that I cannot see in the list. If I stumble onto them in a search for something else and I spot a post by someone I'm not ignoring, then I can indirectly access the thread.


----------



## Sacrosanct

SakanaSensei said:


> I’m curious now: if a thread OP has someone on ignore, does the ignored party see the thread but not the OP itself, essentially getting a context-less conversation in their feed?



I know I've had people respond to a thread I created who had me on ignore, so I'm guessing they see it.


----------



## beancounter

Sacrosanct said:


> I know I've had people respond to a thread I created who had me on ignore, so I'm guessing they see it.




Yep, I accidentally saw stuff when I viewed the thread before I signed in.


----------



## Thomas Shey

There's also the occasional oddity where you see a final page number that you can't access, because the only person who's posted on it yet is the blocked/blocking person.


----------



## CapnZapp

SakanaSensei said:


> I’m curious now: if a thread OP has someone on ignore, does the ignored party see the thread but not the OP itself, essentially getting a context-less conversation in their feed?



In the old days that was a real problem. Mind you, the ignore functionality back then wasn't integrated into the forum software, but was an extension purchased by the site. So I guess it was hard to implement in a seamless fashion.

In Xenforo the functionality is implemented without that bug: you can't effectively shut out people from an entire thread (including all the posts made by others) by being the thread starter and then ignoring someone.


----------



## CapnZapp

I quickly read through the last five pages or do where the topic shifted to the ignore function. If someone has already made the following point, please skip this post:

As you might know the forum remains accessible through the Tapatalk interface. In my case, the dedicated ENWorld app. (As I understand it, we're talking a reskinned Tapatalk app which accesses only one forum)

Anyhoo, since it only understand the most basic Tapatalk features (Xenforo remains backwards compatible with this) all the new improved functionality doesn't work on Tapatalk.

For instance, the old way of tagging spoilers didn't work. (Now that ENWorld has resumed the standard spoiler implementation, they work once more in my app)

Another aspect, to finally get back to the point, regards the ignore interface. Basically, it is ignored by the app.

Just to say that if you ever realize someone you have ignored is responding to your posts (through a third party) it does not necessarily have to involve someone deliberately trying to evade the system.

It could simply be they're browsing through the app and simply don't (and can't) realize they're on your ignore list.

This message is not inviting you to any mischief. I simply believe more information is better than less.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

CapnZapp said:


> In the old days that was a real problem. Mind you, the ignore functionality back then wasn't integrated into the forum software, but was an extension purchased by the site. So I guess it was hard to implement in a seamless fashion.
> 
> In Xenforo the functionality is implemented without that bug: you can't effectively shut out people from an entire thread (including all the posts made by others) by being the thread starter and then ignoring someone.




That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is with the current implementation, if you choose to ignore someone, then you cannot see their threads (which is fine), but they can see your threads. 

So let's imagine that you have chosen to ignore someone(s) because they constantly crash your threads in an unproductive way (say it's your thread, and you'd like to have a "Magic Item Shoppe" conversation, and the same group of people show up to each time to derail the conversation into why Magic Items Shoppes are terrible, and any game that has them are bad). 

Well, in the future, they still will crash the threads you create. The only difference is that now the thread is unreadable ... for you. Which may have an influence as to whether you want to create threads. 

Again, there is no perfect implementation. But there is definitely a difference in perspective. The old default was more protective of the people who blocked; the new default is more protective of the people who are getting blocked- because when you block, that makes the experience worse (as you will not see their threads _not a bad thing_ but they will see your thread and can make them unreadable and/or continue the conversation about you knowing that you will never see it.)


----------



## CapnZapp

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, there is no perfect implementation. But there is definitely a difference in perspective. The old default was more protective of the people who blocked; the new default is more protective of the people who are getting blocked



The old way likely was an unintentional bug in the system. The new way is how Xenforo is intentionally created to function.

So no, I don't think that interpretation holds water. Yes, you can say the old way blocked a stalker in a way the new way doesn't, but I wouldn't phrase it in a way that suggests anyone wants to protect ignored posters.

More likely the old way is giving unsustainable power to people and promotes thread ownership ideas. But you don't own a thread you start, so you should not have the ability to effectively boot people from it. That's a modlike (godlike ?) power that the developer of that old extension likely never intended to give out.

But kudos for your on-point example. That's much better solved by the site actually moderating posts that basically amount to "that idea you have, let's turn the thread into its exact opposite." If you want to discuss how bad the idea started by a thread is, you need to be told (in red text if needed) to start a separate thread. Otherwise even a small number of very vocal forumists can effectively prevent you from having any given discussion.

A site set up to encourage users to (mis?) use the ignore function to achieve that only encourages splintering the fan base.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

CapnZapp said:


> A site set up to encourage users to (mis?) use the ignore function to achieve that only encourages splintering the fan base.




I think you have an interesting take on this. I don't think that's the function at all. But I'm not going to rehash the issue of blocking in general- I tend to think it promotes civility, while others disagree. I don't think people ignore to "punish" or to have god-like powers - I think people do it to preserve a little sanity and dignity on the internet, and if you find that you are blocked by a lot of people, it might be best to worry about yourself than be too concerned about other people's god-like powers that they apparently require to avoid discussions with you.

I am going to say that design comes with tradeoffs. The number of people who are willing to wade into threads is much greater than the number of people that are willing to create them. Eventually, the issue becomes one of a heckler's veto.

But that's an issue with the defaults. Nothing is costless, and this protects those who wish to wade in and comment more. That's a preference.


----------



## Galandris

(Honestly I often joke about the long days without new posts on this board, but I really make extensive use of the blocking function, as Snarf put it to preserve sanity, and I don't have trouble reading threads. The only slight problem is when people answers the post just above without quoting, so sometimes a post seems to be aimed at someone saying something else, but it's far from unreadable)


----------



## Blue Orange

Ignoring seems pretty harmless. They're ignoring you, you go your separate ways.


----------



## CapnZapp

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think you have an interesting take on this. I don't think that's the function at all. But I'm not going to rehash the issue of blocking in general- I tend to think it promotes civility, while others disagree. I don't think people ignore to "punish" or to have god-like powers - I think people do it to preserve a little sanity and dignity on the internet, and if you find that you are blocked by a lot of people, it might be best to worry about yourself than be too concerned about other people's god-like powers that they apparently require to avoid discussions with you.
> 
> I am going to say that design comes with tradeoffs. The number of people who are willing to wade into threads is much greater than the number of people that are willing to create them. Eventually, the issue becomes one of a heckler's veto.
> 
> But that's an issue with the defaults. Nothing is costless, and this protects those who wish to wade in and comment more. That's a preference.



As I see it, the old functionality was a bug. But if you don't agree with how I'm trying to explain it, feel free to rationalize it any other way.

But no matter how you choose to look at it, please don't think the way the first post of a thread is exempt from the ignore functionality is a mistake, or something "unfortunate" in the sense it could have been done better, or that it reflects a technological limitation.

The forum software could easily have been programmed to give you what you want, and yet, it wasn't created that way. There likely is a good reason for that, and that reason, I think, is that people simply find it a bad idea for their forum platforms to give extra powers to thread starters. They want civility, sanity and dignity just as much as you do, they just think blocked-off threads aren't the right way to achieve that.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

CapnZapp said:


> As I see it, the old functionality was a bug. But if you don't agree with how I'm trying to explain it, feel free to rationalize it any other way.




Oh, sure, you view must be the correct way that you are explaining, whereas I am rationalizing it some other way. Even though you have no idea if the old functionality (which was a plug in) was a bug, and you don't recognize that the old way was actually mirroring _blocking_ (as used on other social media platforms) while the new way is an upgrade to the old "ignore" ability from the prior Xenforo platform.  



CapnZapp said:


> But no matter how you choose to look at it, please don't think the way the first post of a thread is exempt from the ignore functionality is a mistake, or something "unfortunate" in the sense it could have been done better, or that it reflects a technological limitation.
> 
> The forum software could easily have been programmed to give you what you want, and yet, it wasn't created that way. There likely is a good reason for that, and that reason, I think, is that people simply find it a bad idea for their forum platforms to give extra powers to thread starters. They want civility, sanity and dignity just as much as you do, they just think blocked-off threads aren't the right way to achieve that.




Of course not! I mean, this is just about the first thread in a series, right? So if I ignore you, I can no longer see any of the threads that you start (you knew that ... didn't you?). But you can still see all of my threads, and comment in them.

But as you just pointed out, that can't be an issue. Because the programmers can't be wrong. That's why software never changes.


----------



## CapnZapp

Now you're losing me.

What I see is that the idea thread starters being able to eject others is problematic enough for it to be rejected in practice. If you can't accept that, you'll have to find someone else to convince.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

There is something profoundly weird about viewing this as the ability to "eject others."  That happens once (if ever).

Instead, what I see if the idea that someone believes that they are _entitled_ to continue harassing people that want nothing to do with them. In other scenarios, this would be unthinkable. "Oh, I know the girl says she doesn't want to talk to me and has a protective order ... but I think that since she is throwing a party, I have a right to show up!"

Other social media platforms that implement the blocking feature do it differently for this reason. I respect that they don't want to use a third-party plugin to have true blocking (instead using the default upgrade to ignore), but this isn't how it is always implemented. 

To the extent "you can't accept" that people who do not want to talk to you have the right to choose to not have you engage with them, I will respectfully say that I do not agree with this position, and I think that this approach leads to the toxicity that marks a lot of internet discourse. 

More simply- we tend to confuse the rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. In real life, if you bug someone badly enough that they walk away and eventually seek a protective order, you do not continually demand the right to keep engaging with them (or if you do, others will view it for what it is).


----------



## Galandris

TheSword said:


> As a general rule I don’t block people for what they say. I block them for how they say it. Usually posting exhaustively and continually - particularly when they respond to a 6 line comment by dismantling each line with a 10 line rebuttal. Discussing things with people that way is very tiring. Equally frustrating is where people address 20 different posters with their one post, quoting each one individually in some super essay.
> 
> Brevity is the soul of wit, I want to read what you think - not an amicus brief. I sometimes wonder whether a word limit would be a good thing and as was suggested earlier - a maximum number of posts per thread per day while not good for the site would definitely make people think harder about what they said.




On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread). Brevity isn't using few words, it's using no unnecessary word. Few quality discussions happens on twitter for a reason, especially on serious topic (I can imagine a 1-line answer to "do you prefer to use a mat to roll your dice on, or the table?" but not to "is it ethical not to cast Plant Growth over the field of the village where the inn you're sleeping in before getting your long rest?"). To each his own, I guess.


----------



## beancounter

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, sure, you view must be the correct way that you are explaining, whereas I am rationalizing it some other way. Even though you have no idea if the old functionality (which was a plug in) was a bug, and you don't recognize that the old way was actually mirroring _blocking_ (as used on other social media platforms) while the new way is an upgrade to the old "ignore" ability from the prior Xenforo platform.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not! I mean, this is just about the first thread in a series, right? So if I ignore you, I can no longer see any of the threads that you start (you knew that ... didn't you?). But you can still see all of my threads, and comment in them.
> 
> But as you just pointed out, that can't be an issue. Because the programmers can't be wrong. That's why software never changes.



It's not about harassment. At least not in my case. One of the people blocking me assumes I'm some sort of red hat wearing racist...yet they have never talked to me.

They are creating a "safe space" where they can take digs at me, without my knowledge.( Of course due to the forum software quirks, I've seen what they posted.

Imho, unless someone is actively harassing you ( in the traditional definition of the word), blocking them because you disagree with their post... Is cowardly.

Just my opinion. Others may disagree


.


----------



## Lanefan

Snarf Zagyg said:


> More simply- we tend to confuse the rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. In real life, if you bug someone badly enough that they walk away and eventually seek a protective order, you do not continually demand the right to keep engaging with them (or if you do, others will view it for what it is).



Thing is, in real life you (usually!) know you've been walked away from, and by who.  Here we don't, as there's no simple way of knowing who has you ignored.


----------



## Morrus

beancounter said:


> Imho, unless someone is actively harassing you ( in the traditional definition of the word), blocking them because you disagree with their post... Is cowardly.



 No it’s but. It’s curation. It basic common sense. I stay away from people both online and in real life if I don’t like them. Subjecting yourself to unpleasant social interactions is not brave, and avoiding them is not ‘cowardly’.


----------



## Lanefan

Galandris said:


> On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread).



One of those people would be me.  In my defense, the way I approach a thread is that I read through it, and if somehting catches my eye that I want to respond to I'll stop there and post a reply.  Then, I'll continue reading the thread from where I left off.

That, and the few times I've ever tried multi-quote in here have ended in such a mess that I just give up and go back to single-quoting (or, occasionally, using 'quote' tags and copy-paste).


----------



## beancounter

Morrus said:


> No it’s but. It’s curation. It basic common sense. I stay away from people both online and in real life if I don’t like them. Subjecting yourself to unpleasant social interactions is not brave, and avoiding them is not ‘cowardly’.



I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.


----------



## Galandris

Lanefan said:


> One of those people would be me.  In my defense, the way I approach a thread is that I read through it, and if somehting catches my eye that I want to respond to I'll stop there and post a reply.  Then, I'll continue reading the thread from where I left off.
> 
> That, and the few times I've ever tried multi-quote in here have ended in such a mess that I just give up and go back to single-quoting (or, occasionally, using 'quote' tags and copy-paste).




Objectively, the multi-quote option is a pain in the... to use. I usually prefer to quote manually when I need to.


----------



## Blue Orange

beancounter said:


> I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.



You know, I hear you, and I have been in the same situation sometimes. Some people are not going to like you. Some people don't like me. It's just a fact of life.

If it keeps happening, it _is_ possible you may be too conservative for the site, in which case you could try RPGPub. But...some people are just not going to like you whatever your views.


----------



## Morrus

beancounter said:


> I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.



Sure there was. When you post here you are talking to everybody who can read what you say. Just like when you talk in a room, you are talking to everybody who can hear what you say. That’s how forums work. And anybody has the right to not have to listen to you, and we provide them with the tools to do that.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Lanefan said:


> *Thing is, in real life you (usually!) know you've been walked away from, and by who*.  Here we don't, as there's no simple way of knowing who has you ignored.




Do you? Just curious. 

Thing is ... if someone actually walks away from you, you see that. But unless you're Mr. Rogers, at some point in your life there has probably been a person (or two, or more) who just decided that you weren't worth being around. And you may not have noticed ... because they weren't around. 

I'm not saying it is always the case, but the Venn Diagram of "People who anger a lot of people," and "People who are really self aware and pay attention to the people around them," doesn't have a whole lot of overlap.


----------



## Morrus

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm not saying it is always the case, but the Venn Diagram of "People who anger a lot of people," and "People who are really self aware and pay attention to the people around them," doesn't have a whole lot of overlap.



You should see the Venn diagram between people participating in these types of threads and people with high numbers of warning points or ignores. It’s uncanny!


----------



## Blue Orange

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Do you? Just curious.
> 
> Thing is ... if someone actually walks away from you, you see that. But unless you're Mr. Rogers, at some point in your life there has probably been a person (or two, or more) who just decided that you weren't worth being around. And you may not have noticed ... because they weren't around.
> 
> I'm not saying it is always the case, but the Venn Diagram of "People who anger a lot of people," and "People who are really self aware and pay attention to the people around them," doesn't have a whole lot of overlap.



Yeah, I used to be the first and tried to be the second and just wound up being 'person who is obsessed with believing everyone secretly hates them'. But I made fewer enemies, so it kind of worked. YMMV.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

beancounter said:


> I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.



Does there have to be?

Someone pulled out nazi in a convo about D&D when referencing traditional ASI preferences.  They never talked directly to me.  That is an insta block by me.  They too may think “why can’t I see all of the responses?”

Why should I tell them? 

I get a lot of entertainment value from this site.  It has improved my game.  No need for drama.

Ever get cornered at a party?  You don’t want to leave the party but you are done with the person who made you uncomfortable? 

It’s not always going to be a love connection.  Delve into what you like here and move on.  Totally friendly advice that works for me at least.

Over time I have unblocked most and Re blocked a few.  They may have done nothing wrong but I don’t like debates they tempt me to join.  No thanks and no offense.  Wishing others the best but being here for fun means not always hanging out with everyone.  It’s a big membership.


----------



## Morrus

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Someone pulled out nazi in a convo about D&D when referencing traditional ASI preferences.  They never talked directly to me.  That is an insta block by me.  They too may think “why can’t I see all of the responses?”
> 
> Why should I tell them?



Exactly. The belief that everybody is obligated to listen to your broadcasts has a word… ‘entitlement’. Nobody has to listen to you in real life or online. And neither is anybody owed a debate about it — that also has a word: ‘sealioning’. You want to block somebody, just do it and move on.


----------



## beancounter

Morrus said:


> Sure there was. When you post here you are talking to everybody who can read what you say. Just like when you talk in a room, you are talking to everybody who can hear what you say. That’s how forums work. And anybody has the right to not have to listen to you, and we provide them with the tools to do that.



Ok then, here's a question. 

IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?


----------



## CapnZapp

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is something profoundly weird about viewing this as the ability to "eject others."  That happens once (if ever).
> 
> Instead, what I see if the idea that someone believes that they are _entitled_ to continue harassing people that want nothing to do with them. In other scenarios, this would be unthinkable. "Oh, I know the girl says she doesn't want to talk to me and has a protective order ... but I think that since she is throwing a party, I have a right to show up!"
> 
> Other social media platforms that implement the blocking feature do it differently for this reason. I respect that they don't want to use a third-party plugin to have true blocking (instead using the default upgrade to ignore), but this isn't how it is always implemented.
> 
> To the extent "you can't accept" that people who do not want to talk to you have the right to choose to not have you engage with them, I will respectfully say that I do not agree with this position, and I think that this approach leads to the toxicity that marks a lot of internet discourse.
> 
> More simply- we tend to confuse the rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. In real life, if you bug someone badly enough that they walk away and eventually seek a protective order, you do not continually demand the right to keep engaging with them (or if you do, others will view it for what it is).



Snarf, just stop. 

You're convinced there's something wrong with the system. No matter what I tell you, you come across as completely convinced it can't be for completely legitimate reasons. The more we talk, the more I see you trying to paint me as some protector of a shady implementation, when I only engaged to give you my version of a technical explanation.

I did not use the phrase "you can't accept" to refer to anything more than my message. You're setting up a straw man here, by "respectfully" saying you don't agree with a position I don't have and haven't stated. The only approach leading to toxicity here is yours. Stop alluding that I might confuse rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. It's a cheap argumentative trick, and it derails from the topic.

The topic is: what you see isn't there. It's just you. There's nothing suspect with the way XenForo works.

But if you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to Morrus instead. Here's his post introducing the functionality:


> That said, there is one exception.* If you start a thread, your initial post is not ignored. *This allows people to block each other but doesn't give them the ability to kick them out of threads in which they may be engaged in conversation with other people (plus also the people I block can still read the news page).




Now _please_ drop your suspicion that there's somehow something questionable with the way you can't keep people you've ignored out of threads you start. The function has been deliberately set up this way by people that do care. Not "programmers". It is set up this way to protect you - not "those who wish to wade in". Other platforms might do things differently, but EN World isn't different for the suss reasons you try to allude to.


----------



## billd91

beancounter said:


> Ok then, here's a question.
> 
> IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?



Mmmm, perhaps not as badly as how razzing on pronouns in their custom title on a message board that touts inclusivity might.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

beancounter said:


> Ok then, here's a question.
> 
> IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?



it's an interesting question, but the follow up would be why would YOU want to talk to someone talking bad behind your back?

I will say I have a bigger issue with being unable to respond to arguments of logic with logic than I do the ability to respond to insults behind my back.


----------



## Morrus

beancounter said:


> Ok then, here's a question.
> 
> IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?



I dunno, man. You make your own judgments about the character of other people, just like they do about you. Then you can keep your conclusions to yourself. It’s not my job to help you with that, nor am I qualified to or interested in doing so. I provide the tools; I’ll leave your social education to you.


----------



## beancounter

billd91 said:


> Mmmm, perhaps not as badly as how razzing on pronouns in their custom title on a message board that touts inclusivity might.




I and Me are pronouns.









						Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.)
					

Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.) - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary




					dictionary.cambridge.org
				




Besides, this is where the idea came from:








						I Me Mine - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## beancounter

Deleted


----------



## beancounter

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Does there have to be?
> 
> Someone pulled out nazi in a convo about D&D when referencing traditional ASI preferences.  They never talked directly to me.  That is an insta block by me.  They too may think “why can’t I see all of the responses?”



I agree with what you said, but I think the Nazi example is a bit extreme in this particular case.

It would just blow my mind to think anything I said on this forum could be equated with Nazism.

But, the Internet is a big place, and someone once accused me of being a Nazi for suggesting that all children should be taught proper English in school.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

beancounter said:


> I agree with what you said, but I think the Nazi example is a bit extreme in this particular case.
> 
> It would just blow my mind to think anything I said on this forum could be equated with Nazism.
> 
> But, the Internet is a big place, and someone once accused me of being a Nazi for suggesting that all children should be taught proper English in school.



Understood.  That was not a typical event, thankfully!

I will be more general: there are some folks that evoke a need to debate about matters that make one or both of us uncomfortable without the hope of one person “seeing the light.” 

In these cases they pull things out of ME that I don’t like.  Who cares if random stranger acknowledges I am right?

My friendly recommendation was not truly to compare events but to suggest a way to have fun here that is less stressful.  Ymmv and all of that.

But I find blocking helps me have a more relaxed fun time here without tempting me to engage in things that don’t add value.

All good whatever others choose.  But used judiciously it’s helped me use the site to engage in recreation with many fewer aversive interactions. 

I am not admitting fault per se nor denying it; I am just being pragmatic in the end. 

Have fun!


----------



## Morrus

beancounter said:


> I never implied that everyone is obligated to listen to me. To suggest as such is essentially a false narrative. A straw man.



I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## beancounter

Blue Orange said:


> If it keeps happening, it _is_ possible you may be too conservative for the site, in which case you could try RPGPub. But...some people are just not going to like you whatever your views.




That may be true, but it's all relative. 

My step father has called me a "Commie Pinko Liberal" on a number of occasions. So for someone to view me as a Faux News watcher is both amusing and disturbing.


----------



## beancounter

Morrus said:


> I wasn't talking to you.




Yes, that's why I had deleted the post prior to your response.


----------



## billd91

beancounter said:


> I and Me are pronouns.



Technically correct and yet so aggressively wrong, all at the same time.


----------



## Cadence

billd91 said:


> Technically correct and yet so aggressively wrong, all at the same time.




That it came from a song changed it for me a bit.  Although the lyrics and the interplay with the use aren't settled in my head.


----------



## Galandris

beancounter said:


> But, the Internet is a big place, and someone once accused me of being a Nazi for suggesting that all children should be taught proper English in school.



I am not a Nazi expert, but wouldn't they want all children to learn proper German instead?



beancounter said:


> That may be true, but it's all relative.
> 
> My step father has called me a "Commie Pinko Liberal" on a number of occasions. So for someone to view me as a Faux News watcher is both amusing and disturbing.




Even if you weren't using something as extreme as comparing someone to a Nazi, there is a strong possibility that you said _something_ that offended people. Maybe without intending to offend. Maybe you said something consensual in a way that didn't click well with someone. Maybe you said something that was read out of context, or you said something that rang a bell with certain people because of their cultural history. It doesn't mean you intended it and it doesn't mean the person banning you for not wanted to read about it is wrong, anymore that it made you wrong by saying so. Banning is the answer to the idea that: "when you speak, you engage with every reader". When you don't want to engage with everyone, you ban the ones you don't want to engage with, even remotely. Sure, as a result, one miss out the content produced by the people they banned, but this is an expected trade-off of selecting who one is engaging with.

I mean, if I were a sensitive accountant, I could want to ban you because I could decide that your username is offensive to my profession. And a I can see a few people finding the Foggy Bottom setting to be ridiculous and ban me because of my statement of what is fun. There is nothing wrong, or right, in doing so.


----------



## Lanefan

Galandris said:


> Banning is the answer to the idea that: "when you speak, you engage with every reader". When you don't want to engage with everyone, you ban the ones you don't want to engage with, even remotely. Sure, as a result, *one miss out the content produced by the people they banned*, but this is an expected trade-off of selecting who one is engaging with.



And the bolded is a price I'm not willing to pay.

Sooner or later everyone has something worthwhile to say and I'd rather not miss it when it happens.

The nice thing about this site is the signal-to-noise ratio is kept high and thus those worthwhile things come up more often.


----------



## beancounter

Galandris said:


> I am not a Nazi expert, but wouldn't they want all children to learn proper German instead?



It was in regards to American education.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

CapnZapp said:


> Snarf, just stop.
> 
> You're convinced there's something wrong with the system. No matter what I tell you, you come across as completely convinced it can't be for completely legitimate reasons. The more we talk, the more I see you trying to paint me as some protector of a shady implementation, when I only engaged to give you my version of a technical explanation.
> 
> I did not use the phrase "you can't accept" to refer to anything more than my message. You're setting up a straw man here, by "respectfully" saying you don't agree with a position I don't have and haven't stated. The only approach leading to toxicity here is yours. Stop alluding that I might confuse rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. It's a cheap argumentative trick, and it derails from the topic.
> 
> The topic is: what you see isn't there. It's just you. There's nothing suspect with the way XenForo works.
> 
> But if you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to Morrus instead. Here's his post introducing the functionality:
> 
> 
> Now _please_ drop your suspicion that there's somehow something questionable with the way you can't keep people you've ignored out of threads you start. The function has been deliberately set up this way by people that do care. Not "programmers". It is set up this way to protect you - not "those who wish to wade in". Other platforms might do things differently, but EN World isn't different for the suss reasons you try to allude to.




?What?

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Try looking back at the conversation. I was (gently) pointing out that different defaults end up with different ... results. Right? Pretty basic stuff. If you have an opt-in as opposed to an opt-out, changing that default has a meaningful difference.

That was it. You keep going back to the same idea that you do here ..... about keeping people out of threads. Which is really a weird way to look at things. That's .... that's a you thing. If you are looking at this in terms of _power dynamics_ and _pulling one over on you* _as opposed to ... I don't know ... people that just don't want to engage with certain types... I can't change how you view things.

But I think there might be a correlation you're missing.


*In most contexts ... trying to frame the idea that you have the right to intrude when someone doesn't want you around ... is not looked on favorably.


----------



## Blue Orange

Lanefan said:


> And the bolded is a price I'm not willing to pay.
> 
> Sooner or later everyone has something worthwhile to say and I'd rather not miss it when it happens.
> 
> The nice thing about this site is the signal-to-noise ratio is kept high and thus those worthwhile things come up more often.



Right, but why is the SNR so high? I've been on much more lightly moderated boards and I'm glad they exist (I'm suspicious of the right to ban speech absolutely), but there's a lot of people slinging racial slurs around and saying things that make _me _uncomfortable.

Besides, you and I aren't the ones maintaining the site and paying for the server. If you want to shell out the money you can always try to build your own forum. This isn't a virtual monopoly like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, or Google; there are sites to the right and to the left of this one.


----------



## TheSword

Galandris said:


> On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread). Brevity isn't using few words, it's using no unnecessary word. Few quality discussions happens on twitter for a reason, especially on serious topic (I can imagine a 1-line answer to "do you prefer to use a mat to roll your dice on, or the table?" but not to "is it ethical not to cast Plant Growth over the field of the village where the inn you're sleeping in before getting your long rest?"). To each his own, I guess.



I don’t disagree with you, but who’s talking about one line answers? There is a happy medium to be struck surely? by the same token, it shouldn’t take a 1,000 word essay to explain the answer to your plant growth question either.

I totally agree that capturing several posts in one concise paragraph is best. Better than quoting 7 different posters and answering each one separately in the same post anyway. The latter makes having a conversation harder because they are only giving you one 7th of their attention And in replying You have to delete a lot of other peoples sections.

I don’t have any problems ignoring a one line responses. It doesn’t get my back up or create animosity. If someone doesn’t want to engage, theres no point disliking them for it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

beancounter said:


> IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?





beancounter said:


> I and Me are pronouns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.)
> 
> 
> Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.) - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dictionary.cambridge.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, this is where the idea came from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Me Mine - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



If someone thinks your custom title is transphobic, then blocking you without engaging with you is not a sign of cowardice or bad faith. Someone that makes pronoun jokes don't tend to be the type of people that trans people like to interact with.


----------



## Fifth Element

beancounter said:


> But, the Internet is a big place, and someone once accused me of being a Nazi for suggesting that all children should be taught proper English in school.



I would bet the context would make this sound at least a little less ridiculous, though you never know.

My main pont in responding, though, is to point out that there is no such thing as "proper English". English comes in many different forms and none of them have any more claim of being "proper" than any other form.

For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.


----------



## Fifth Element

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If someone thinks your custom title is transphobic, then blocking you without engaging with you is not a sign of cowardice or bad faith. Someone that makes pronoun jokes don't tend to be the type of people that trans people like to interact with.



And quoting the dictionary is always a good sign in discussions. /s


----------



## SakanaSensei

Fifth Element said:


> I would bet the context would make this sound at least a little less ridiculous, though you never know.
> 
> My main pont in responding, though, is to point out that there is no such thing as "proper English". English comes in many different forms and none of them have any more claim of being "proper" than any other form.
> 
> For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.



As an English teacher for the past 10 years, several of which have been spent teaching the language abroad, it's become increasingly wild to me how much people define their own use of language as right and proper. Like, my Japanese students have a hard time with American English pronunciations, but they'd have a much easier time if what was standard in schools was British English. Why is that? Because my homeland garbles a lot of sounds! In the States, many people pronounce Ts as Ds, it almost feels like the letter O is pronounced "ah" more often than not, etc. 

Language is fluid and suits the needs of those using it to communicate. To wield language as a cudgel to stop communication is antisocial behavior, period.

End of my TED talk. It is kind of disheartening to start a conversation on toxicity and antagonism and have it devolve into several fights, though.


----------



## Sabathius42

Galandris said:


> On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread). Brevity isn't using few words, it's using no unnecessary word. Few quality discussions happens on twitter for a reason, especially on serious topic (I can imagine a 1-line answer to "do you prefer to use a mat to roll your dice on, or the table?" but not to "is it ethical not to cast Plant Growth over the field of the village where the inn you're sleeping in before getting your long rest?"). To each his own, I guess.



Replying to more than one post at a time, or doing much more than just Quote then Reply is nigh impossible if one uses a phone browser to engage in the forums.

I have about a 1.5"x2" square of visibility on the text I'm wrangling.


----------



## MichaelSomething

As far as I can tell, I have completely failed in my quest to become the most ignored user on Enworld!  Looks like I'll have to pull out the big guns...


----------



## AnotherGuy

Fifth Element said:


> For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.



I'm not from the US, whenever I saw that I thought it was some sort of new-age trend or something.


----------



## Cadence

Fifth Element said:


> I would bet the context would make this sound at least a little less ridiculous, though you never know.
> 
> My main pont in responding, though, is to point out that there is no such thing as "proper English". English comes in many different forms and none of them have any more claim of being "proper" than any other form.
> 
> For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.



Apropos, Gaiman had retweeted this this morning:


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Cadence said:


> Apropos, Gaiman had retweeted this this morning:



Another area where folks tend to be less aware is some of the accents and traditions of Appalachia and the South.

Accents and dialect are often related to and closer to some of their European roots and varying based upon who settled in that area. 

For me the big lesson is always to be less judgmental.  That said, many of us are guilty of it while trying to champion understanding of a different group!

That includes when explaining things to people…looking back on my youth I cringe at my efforts to share something with an older relative while not really knowing where they came from and what they knew.

People adapt and many bad habits are just adaptation to a different environmental reality.  I can write papers and navigate the internet but would be screwed if I had to live off the land or do too much home repair.


----------



## Blue Orange

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Another area where folks tend to be less aware is some of the accents and traditions of Appalachia and the South.
> 
> Accents and dialect are often related to and closer to some of their European roots and varying based upon who settled in that area.
> 
> For me the big lesson is always to be less judgmental.  That said, many of us are guilty of it while trying to champion understanding of a different group!
> 
> That includes when explaining things to people…looking back on my youth I cringe at my efforts to share something with an older relative while not really knowing where they came from and what they knew.
> 
> People adapt and many bad habits are just adaptation to a different environmental reality.  I can write papers and navigate the internet but would be screwed if I had to live off the land or do too much home repair.



AAVE actually has some features Standard English doesn't--there's a more complex tense system, for instance.

Agreed--I wouldn't last ten minutes in the woods.

I do remember reading that a lot of the 'culture of poverty'--early childbearing, willingness to engage in physical aggression, immediate consumption--are actually rational responses, either individually or collectively, to a dangerous present and uncertain future. (A shortened generation time makes sense for an organism in a dangerous environment, for instance, whether it's plants or people, and if there's a lot of crime around you'd better be able to fight, and make sure everyone around you knows it.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

MichaelSomething said:


> As far as I can tell, I have completely failed in my quest to become the most ignored user on Enworld!  Looks like I'll have to pull out the big guns...




You never made it as a wise man
You couldn't cut it as a cleric healing
You tired of playing as a good man
Now you wants to play a class that's unappealing
And this is how you remind me

This is how you remind me
Of what Bards really are
This is how you remind me
Of what Bards really are

You never will say that you're sorry
Play a different Bard but the same old story
You play a class that's godforsaken
Another cutting word and my mind is achin'

You say that I 'm wrong, Bards are fine
Same jokes scrape the bottom of every barrel
These five words in my head
Scream "Have I been ignored yet?"


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
So, this seems to have run down into most a discussion of language, and two folks arguing about the Ignore functionality.

These are both rather off the topic, and we are likely into the "attractive nuisance" phase of a thread's development.  Which means we can let it go.  Thanks, all, for your thoughts and perspectives.


----------

