# Ask an OTTer



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Hello all!

Recently a discussion I had with a member got me thinking about a few things.  You see, I'm an OTTer and there's more people like me running around here, too.  Apparently we've rubbed some folks the wrong way and I think that may be due to some simple misunderstanding.  We were so used to talking to each other and others where we previously posted that we popped in here not thinking about our ... unique approach to civil internet discourse.  Many of us had quite a few posts (I had over 35k, for example) and didn't really stop to think about the fact that very few people here had seen _any _of them.  And since we can come off as sort of ... abrasive even though that's not the intent, well, maybe it's a decent idea to give any interested Enworlders the opportunity to ask any questions about us they may have.  So here's a thread for that if there's anyone interested.  If not, meh.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

I have a question! 

Is it true that you're a sanitation engineer?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2013)

I appreciate the civility of this post, but I don't have any questions. I just won't engage you guys as long as you continue to come off as abrasive. I'll generally just speak out against you guys as posters, when other people bring it up. I might also occasionally report posts, too, if they come off as trolling (teasing "teehees" at mods, etc.), as I feel that it detracts from the quality of this site.

If you've got questions for us, feel free to ask.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Why so serious? It is just the internet. No kittens will esplode and no butt will split open causing terrible pain if people aren't serious. Honestly, people seem too sensitive about inconsequential stuff. For serious stuff I have my job, for everything else there is he interwebz.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I have a question!
> 
> Is it true that you're a sanitation engineer?




No.

/shifty



JamesonCourage said:


> I appreciate the civility of this post, but I don't have any questions. I just won't engage you guys as long as you continue to come off as abrasive. I'll generally just speak out against you guys as posters, when other people bring it up. I might also occasionally report posts, too, if they come off as trolling (teasing "teehees" at mods, etc.), as I feel that it detracts from the quality of this site.
> 
> If you've got questions for us, feel free to ask.




I do have a question: Why the need to speak out against us if you've decided not to engage us?  That hardly seems fair.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why so serious?



I've quite enjoyed the civil discourse that this site offers most of the time. I can get not-so-serious stuff anywhere else. EN World has made this place unique in that regard among RPG sites, as far as I can tell, considering how many posters it has. I'd like to keep that atmosphere.



Zombie_Babies said:


> I do have a question: Why the need to speak out against us if you've decided not to engage us? That hardly seems fair.



Well, I speak out against a lot of things that I have a problem with, even if I don't engage with the problem. People do this all the time. Speaking to a boss, the police, a manager, etc. I don't think that's unfair.

And, to be fair, I did offer to answer your questions, if you had any, and I did reply to your OP.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I do have a question: Why the need to speak out against us if you've decided not to engage us?  That hardly seems fair.



Or why not just ignore this thread instead of making a list that can be taken as inflammatory?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I've quite enjoyed the civil discourse that this site offers most of the time. I can get not-so-serious stuff anywhere else. EN World has made this place unique in that regard among RPG sites, as far as I can tell, considering how many posters it has. I'd like to keep that atmosphere.



Civil=serious? How amusing. Was it intentional?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I speak out against a lot of things that I have a problem with, even if I don't engage with the problem. People do this all the time. Speaking to a boss, the police, a manager, etc. I don't think that's unfair.




It _is _unfair whether you like it or not.  You've decided to actively try and get us in trouble rather than communicate your issues to us in an effort to either understand us or get us to conform more closely to what you're used to.  That's not fair and it's unfair to us both.  



> And, to be fair, I did offer to answer your questions, if you had any, and I did reply to your OP.




You did.  However, this thread was about questions people on your end may have because it seems there's no small amount of issue taken with us that's gone largely unaddressed.  It seems ya'all would appreciate some change or other and I've offered an open ear.  I'm simply trying to get this into the open air and outside of the playground politics it's currently relegated to.  If we're all truly adults looking for real civil conversation then it's high time we had some, don't you think?  Lurking in the shadows offering only the occasional 'tut' and press of the report button isn't going to solve anything.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Civil=serious? How amusing. Was it intentional?



The amusement wasn't. I was more answering the spirit of the question. "Why so serious?" didn't strike me as a particularly useful question, so I basically answered "why do you act the way you do?" instead.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Or why not just ignore this thread instead of making a list that can be taken as inflammatory?



To answer the OP's civil question, with honesty and civility of my own.



Zombie_Babies said:


> It _is _unfair whether you like it or not. You've decided to actively try and get us in trouble rather than communicate your issues to us in an effort to either understand us or get us to conform more closely to what you're used to. That's not fair and it's unfair to us both.



If I see people I think are misbehaving in a store, I don't feel it's unfair to tell an employee, rather than talk to the people myself. I'll let the store handle how to proceed. I'm taking that same mindset to this site: if I think posters are out of line, I just report them to the mods, rather than try to self-police. I've been admonished once (years ago) for playing moderator; I now avoid doing that.

Also, most posters aren't up for any sort of criticism of their posts. The OP was pretty civil, and expressed that you guys might come off as abrasive. In the spirit of civil discourse, I thought I'd give my thoughts on it. The OP seemed more receptive to this sort of thing than normal. If that's not the case, I'll likely bow out of the thread soon enough.


Zombie_Babies said:


> You did. However, this thread was about questions people on your end may have because it seems there's no small amount of issue taken with us that's gone largely unaddressed. It seems ya'all would appreciate some change or other and I've offered an open ear. I'm simply trying to get this into the open air and outside of the playground politics it's currently relegated to. If we're all truly adults looking for real civil conversation then it's high time we had some, don't you think? Lurking in the shadows offering only the occasional 'tut' and press of the report button isn't going to solve anything.



Well, I was kind of hoping it would solve something, but I'd definitely prefer civil discourse, yes. Which probably means questions for posters going both ways, like what will hopefully be happening in this thread.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> If I see people I think are misbehaving in a store, I don't feel it's unfair to tell an employee, rather than talk to the people myself. I'll let the store handle how to proceed. I'm taking that same mindset to this site: if I think posters are out of line, I just report them to the mods, rather than try to self-police. I've been admonished once (years ago) for playing moderator; I now avoid doing that.




This isn't a store, though.  You're not going to get punched in the face for saying something out of turn.  

By the way, I'm not asking anyone play at being a mod, I'm simply asking that we talk about what we can talk about.Remember, we're new here and we come from a very different place.  We're not gonna understand the culture if people don't engage and they'll never understand us either.  



> Also, most posters aren't up for any sort of criticism of their posts. The OP was pretty civil, and expressed that you guys might come off as abrasive. In the spirit of civil discourse, I thought I'd give my thoughts on it. The OP seemed more receptive to this sort of thing than normal. If that's not the case, I'll likely bow out of the thread soon enough.




I'm the OP.    Hmm ... maybe this is just another culture difference.  



> Well, I was kind of hoping it would solve something, but I'd definitely prefer civil discourse, yes. Which probably means questions for posters going both ways, like what will hopefully be happening in this thread.




Solve something how?  Honestly curious - I was told earlier that some seem to hope that we'll be forced to only deal with ourselves until we become bored enough to make a mistake that the mods find big enough to excise us from the site completely.  Yes, someone actually told me that.  That's not your aim, is it?  It doesn't appear so.  But that's the sort of thing I'm trying to work against with this thread (and I thank you for your participation).  As you can see it's not as though people are giving us much of a chance.

EDIT: That actually brings a question for you to mind: What sort of people post here?  I mean, we take all sorts of poo for our posting style and yet it seems perfectly acceptable to plenty of folks here to actively try to get people removed from the site and to do so clandestinely.  To me, that's a lot crappier behavior than anything we've exhibited.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why so serious?




I can catch this one:  It isn't serious.  It is respectful. There's a difference.

EN World operates on the basic principle that reasonable discussion (our basic goal) cannot happen without a modicum of respect between the speakers.  

Out on the internet, there are a whole lot of people who are more than happy to spend their time making fun of others, trolling, and generally being jerks.   There are enough of such people that you cannot expect folks to assume you aren't one.  You have to demonstrate it by how you behave, by showing that respect.

Unfortunately, how some of you guys have chosen to interact, to those who don't know you, is indistinguishable from the usual form of disrespectful internet jerkitude.

Maybe, among established friends, that form of interaction can be acceptable.  But it will generally fail with folks who are strangers.  You won't get away with it among the general populace here until after you've spent effort showing that really, you're an okay dude.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It _is _unfair whether you like it or not.  You've decided to actively try and get us in trouble rather than communicate your issues to us in an effort to either understand us or get us to conform more closely to what you're used to.  That's not fair and it's unfair to us both.




Dude, gently, please.  This thread will absolutely fail if you engage in this way.

In order to work, this has to be a "ask a question, get an honest answer" thread.  If it becomes the "argue and browbeat people about how their answer was wrong" thread, all you'll do is create acrimony, rather than work through issues.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> EDIT: That actually brings a question for you to mind: What sort of people post here?




Just normal people.  Folks who like civil conversation.  Folks who like being treated with respect.



> I mean, we take all sorts of poo for our posting style and yet it seems perfectly acceptable to plenty of folks here to actively try to get people removed from the site and to do so clandestinely.  To me, that's a lot crappier behavior than anything we've exhibited.




There's nothing "clandestine" about it.  He's just using the normal operating procedure.  We have the "Report a Post" function for a reason.  

We specifically ask users to report posts they find problematic.  It is up to the moderation staff to judge if it is acceptable, rather than the individual user.  We have found, over the years, that allowing two sides to beat the metaphorical snot out of each other in disagreements to be detrimental to the site - issues become battles of egos, and in text those battles never end.  So, we ask folks to not start the battle in the first place.

There is nothing at all sneaky or underhanded about it.  This is just our policy, and we are quite public about it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I can catch this one:  It isn't serious.  It is respectful. There's a difference.
> 
> EN World operates on the basic principle that reasonable discussion (our basic goal) cannot happen without a modicum of respect between the speakers.
> 
> ...



That is pretty much how I am in real life. Co-workers call me weird. My sister says to her kids "say hello to uncle weirdo". It is not a question of being on the internet or not. I'm actually more mild here, no baby rape jokes or shared anecdotes about sleeping with a sleep walker. Hehehe.

People need to understand that being playful or silly is not trolling or disrespectful. It is just being playful or silly. I understand that a mod button gives a sense of entitlement that people do not have in real life, suddenly they have the right to be offended and have "justice". Except people shouldn't expect to be able to standardize people according to their preferences. We are all different and this is in part what makes the interwebz interesting. 

If people find me abrasive, they can ignore me and I shouldn't be harassed with people reporting anything they do not like.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Dude, gently, please.  This thread will absolutely fail if you engage in this way.
> 
> In order to work, this has to be a "ask a question, get an honest answer" thread.  If it becomes the "argue and browbeat people about how their answer was wrong" thread, all you'll do is create acrimony, rather than work through issues.




dood, that _was _gentle.  Seriously bro, all I did was make my point and I did so without any undue rage or exaggeration of emotion or accusation or ... anything.  Can you tell me what, exactly, was the problem with what I said or how I said it?  I honest to whatever god you believe in haven't the first clue.  

I believe I've been as open as I said I'd be so far.  I'm willing to listen and have.  Hell, that's the_ entire point_ of this exercise.  That doesn't mean I can't disagree with someone and voice that dissent, however.  If you notice I even explained how I believed that what I said was unfair was unfair to _both _parties.  Cuz it is.



Umbran said:


> Just normal people.  Folks who like civil conversation.  Folks who like being treated with respect.




Well that respect thing - as we've gone over before - is a two way deal.  I had just written an elaboration but I deleted it.  This isn't the place.  Suffice it to say some people here are not behaving respectfully toward us and, well, nobody here seems to care too much about it.  What ya'all say you want and what ya'all act like you want are two different things.  Oh, that 'ya'all' is a general ya'all - some of y'ins are quite nice and fun to talk to.



> There's nothing "clandestine" about it.  He's just using the normal operating procedure.  We have the "Report a Post" function for a reason.
> 
> We specifically ask users to report posts they find problematic.  It is up to the moderation staff to judge if it is acceptable, rather than the individual user.  We have found, over the years, that allowing two sides to beat the metaphorical snot out of each other in disagreements to be detrimental to the site - issues become battles of egos, and in text those battles never end.  So, we ask folks to not start the battle in the first place.
> 
> There is nothing at all sneaky or underhanded about it.  This is just our policy, and we are quite public about it.




And that's fair and no it's not clandestine.  However, when someone comes out and says 'I'ma gonna ignore ya' and then _doesn't_, well, that is shady.  Basically if you want to ignore me, ignore me. 

Grr ... again with elaboration better suited to another venue.  Short, vague form: Some people here say one thing and do another.

Now, does anyone have any questions?  I know things got bogged down for a bit but, well, whatever.  Ask away if you feel like it.  I'm willing to answer and I'm sure the others are as well even in the face of ... the rest of this stuff.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 5, 2013)

What's an OTTer? Other than a semi aquatic mammal.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> What's an OTTer? Other than a semi aquatic mammal.




Great question!  An OTTer is one of us refugees from the WotC boards ... which isn't terrible explanatory.  Over there we had a favorite forum to hang out in - The Off Topic Tavern (OTT) cuz we didn't like talking about D&D constantly.  Anyhoo, we all sort of met, found we had the same sort of style and adopted the name OTTer as a descriptor.  There were more things we had, too, like the group that didn't exist, Resident Titles and HoT tags.  All, alas, are gone but the name.  I think we'll probably keep it forever.  It means a lot to us cuz we've been friends (and enemies) for a long time and a lot of posts.

EDIT: Crap, forgot something uber important: It sounds clique-y as hell, I know, but it wasn't.  To determine whether or not you were an OTTer we simply asked you if you felt like one.  If you did then welcome aboard.  Want a Resident Title?  Ask someone what they think we should call you or just give yourself one.  Want a HoT tag?  Same process - we didn't care.  The entire point, really, was to get a ton of different viewpoints out of a group of people that posted in a similar manner and liked to talk about the same sort of stuff.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

As I should not have attempted to address the concerns in the halloween thread, this thread may or may not be a better venue.

I have no doubt that whatever I bring up will seem hypocritical.  For whatever reason, older members of the forum can get away with some of these things.  I don't think its intentional bias, but we do get a little more slack IF WE"RE CAREFUL.

Please consider this as my take on how I avoid trouble on EN World.  The post examples I might make would be perfectly fine somewhere else.  I do better when I follow them, than when I don't.

A lot of the risky subjects is religion and politics.  Once a post smells like a jab at one of these, your chance of getting a warning go up.

Personally, I avoid words like liberal or conservative as most people recognize them as substitutes for political parties, which tends to get into politics. there's almost no need to ever say 'only a liberal/conservative would think that" or anything in that vein.

Calling things by the proper name instead of slang is also a good idea.  I can't say Jap when talking about the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  I need to spell it out, to afford the proper respect as somebody else may take offense.  hence why I might think using "guberment" is a slight against the governmental body it was substituted in for.  this might seem trivial, but somebody asked me to stop using the term Wallet Rape on here, and I did, even though I didn't like it.

It's also bad form around here to argue with the red or orange text of a Mod.  they use those colors to signify they are Moddding, and not discussing.  It's equally bad for somebody after that to keep jabbing at the Moddee.  So if the Mod tells you to stop cheesing, it's bad for for me to chime in afterward about how bad you are for cheesing.

Best practice after recieving a mod post is to post an apology (and try not to explain your previous reasoning, that never works well), or to resume discussion of the original topic under new behavior.  Posting any kind of laughter message after getting a mod implies you don't respect the warning or that you're posts that others took seriously were really a joke you were playing.  That's trolling, and it's not good to look like that.

Another rule of thumb is to leave bad arguments in their respective threads.  I can disagree strongly with Umbran in one thread, while agreeing with him in another.  Treat each thread (as best you can) like Las Vegas.  that gets hard at times, especially when one thread seems related to another.  If you've only got a negative point to bring in from the other thread, leave it behind or you'll bring the bad taste with it.

In an oppositional argument, try to acknowledge a valid point the other side makes.  EN World is not debate team.  There's no score.  There's more honor in saying "while I still favor my position, you do raise a valid point in XYZ."  Nobody's ideas or values are perfect. We all have our little hypocrisies like hating messy sandwiches but liking sloppy joes.  To recognize the other side's point as significant shows that you are listening and considering new information, which on EN World is the better goal of having discussions about tricky topics.

Avoid demonstrating Oppositional Defiance behavior.  Posting in absolute opposition to somebody's well reasoned position makes discussion feel like a troll thread or arguing with a mad man.  Now I suppose in any argument, well reasoned or not is in the eye of the beholder.  And this is in the crux of why we avoid politics, because people polarize and just can't accept the other side.  It's a trap, so if you can detect you've fallen into it (one side or the other, backout respectfully).

Recognize expertise when it appears.  We have subject matter experts on here.  We have know-it-alls who actually do know a lot (I am one, but Umbran always knows more than me).  Everybody knows stuff, but experts really do know more.  Once an expert starts spouting their technobabble in the correct syntax, stop arguing with them about the quality of their facts.  It just ain't worth it, and honestly, they are usually right.  And by correct syntax, I mean they are talking like an expert in that subject would talk.  Once Danny the lawyer starts talking like a lawyer, assume what he's saying is correct enough for forum discussion purposes and move on to other points.  I know it can feel like losing a few ego points as if you're giving in to them, but the reality is an expert knows his material better, and the point should be learning what they know to shape your future dealings, not arguing them down.

Be prepared to lose the argument or change your mind.  I know I've seen somebody get mad that "I moved the goalposts", but the reality is, if somebody raises a reasonable number of valid points against my proposed viewpoint, I'm willing to change my mind.  My thread track record in here is chock full of "prove this idea is wrong" threads and I think I "lost" every one of them.  If all parties are so insistent that they need to convince the other, then nobody's actually going to change.  That pretty much makes discussion or raising points a useless activity.  I can't make you listen and change your mind, but I can accept some valid point of yours into your world view.

Another danger vector is Sarcasm.  it translates poorly into written text.  Even with the smilies.  Kind of like using the preface of "No offense, but" as it always leads to something offensive.  there's probably some people with the skill to use them at the right time, but for the majority, I'd steer clear as they don't add clarity to a post, given they inherently have a meaning different than the words used.

That's a lot of words.  If they are helpful, great.  If you think I'm picking on you, I apologize as that was not my intent.  If you think some other people don't follow them, well that's on them, not you.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 5, 2013)

Question:
Do OTTers generally prefer to argue rather than discuss? It does seem to me that some folks would, indeed, rather pick a fight for the hell of it rather than simply discuss a topic for better understanding. Is my impression of you correct, or am I misreading? (On a different forum, years ago, there was a clique who claimed the forum was their own personal Fight Club, and they were open and up front about it.)

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Question:
> Do OTTers generally prefer to argue rather than discuss? It does seem to me that some folks would, indeed, rather pick a fight for the hell of it rather than simply discuss a topic for better understanding. Is my impression of you correct, or am I misreading? (On a different forum, years ago, there was a clique who claimed the forum was their own personal Fight Club, and they were open and up front about it.)
> 
> Bullgrit



Truth is, we are very opiniated, but is arguing picking a fight? Does disagreeing mean you can't discuss a topic?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2013)

Sorry for the delay, I had errands to do before work.


Zombie_Babies said:


> This isn't a store, though.  You're not going to get punched in the face for saying something out of turn.



I'm not really afraid of that happening at the store most of the time, either. I'd still just tell an employee.


Zombie_Babies said:


> By the way, I'm not asking anyone play at being a mod, I'm simply asking that we talk about what we can talk about.Remember, we're new here and we come from a very different place.  We're not gonna understand the culture if people don't engage and they'll never understand us either.



I hope we can understand one another through a civil conversation, then.


Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm the OP.    Hmm ... maybe this is just another culture difference.



I meant "original post" and not "original poster", but yeah, I imagine there is a "culture difference" here. Nothing inherently wrong with that; there were "factions" within EN World long before you guys migrated over.


Zombie_Babies said:


> Solve something how?  Honestly curious



Mod warnings and potential bannings if the behavior wasn't curbed. I'll repeat myself, though: "but I'd definitely prefer civil discourse, yes." I just didn't see that as a reasonable option based on what I'd observed in this forum thus far.


Zombie_Babies said:


> As you can see it's not as though people are giving us much of a chance.



Well, I have no plans to adapt to your group's style of posting in other threads, so that might mean that we're an at impasse. I don't see how it improves discussion on this site. I like that some new articles are being brought up, but I'm not a fan of the posting style most of the time.


Zombie_Babies said:


> EDIT: That actually brings a question for you to mind: What sort of people post here?  I mean, we take all sorts of poo for our posting style and yet it seems perfectly acceptable to plenty of folks here to actively try to get people removed from the site and to do so clandestinely.  To me, that's a lot crappier behavior than anything we've exhibited.



*Shrug*

Personally, I don't mind when people I find disruptive get kicked out. In fact, I tend to support that action. It never seems fair to the people I see as disruptive, obviously. But really, I love the moderators here, and the job that they do. I support them, and Morrus' right to "censor" posts he doesn't like on his site. If it means more civil discourse, I'm all for it. If that makes me seem "crappy" to you, I'm not going to work to change your perception.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> People need to understand that being playful or silly is not trolling or disrespectful. It is just being playful or silly.



I do understand that. When people make up fake song lyrics about D&D stuff I skip over it, not report them. It's just silly, not disruptive.


goldomark said:


> I understand that a mod button gives a sense of entitlement that people do not have in real life, suddenly they have the right to be offended and have "justice".



Well, like I said, I usually do have this in real life; I just go tell an employee that I think people are being disruptive, and then I let the establishment deal with it. I basically do the same thing here.


goldomark said:


> Except people shouldn't expect to be able to standardize people according to their preferences.



There are many, many different mindsets on this site. I have no illusion that everyone must think like I do or be kicked off. What I don't want is the site to go down in quality (in terms of the ability to have a civil conversation) due to some posters. If I feel like anyone is violating that, I'll alert the mods, and move on. If it's just stuff I don't find interesting, or whatever, I'll just skip it. The uninteresting stuff dwarfs the reportable stuff, in my experience.


goldomark said:


> If people find me abrasive, they can ignore me and I shouldn't be harassed with people reporting anything they do not like.



If I think the site will go down in quality due to anyone's continued posting style, I'll report it. That's not harassment, to me. If someone is in a store and purposefully spilling food on the ground, I don't feel like I'm harassing them if I let a store clerk know about it.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why so serious? It is just the internet. No kittens will esplode and no butt will split open causing terrible pain if people aren't serious. Honestly, people seem too sensitive about inconsequential stuff. For serious stuff I have my job, for everything else there is he interwebz.



It is not just the internet when you go against someone's livelihood. When you start arguing with someone about a topic that doesn't even seem that important to you personally to the point where you start asking him for his credentials you cross a very big line into the real world. It becomes about his professional reputation. You have stated several times that you aren't being that serious. If that were true you would never have let it get to that point. It's not even a matter of you not knowing about it, since you could have asked him by private message. You didn't. Instead you decided to make it a part of your argument. You have to understand that there are lines of etiquette you do not cross that blithely. And no, it's not even a matter of people here white knighting someone, even though I do think he has earned that level of respect. It's basic manners. You do not take the argument into the real world if it's just supposed to be a fun discourse to you. Again, you could have asked him by private message and you didn't. You were being disrespectful. 

Just because you are on the internet doesn't mean you have to take the approach that 'it's just some guy on the internet'. If I go to a social gathering somewhere and there's someone I don't know that I start having a conversation about a topic of expertise with because the topic is interesting, and I disagree with him, I don't turn to the whole room and ask loudly "Is this guy even a [professional of said expertise]? What does he know?" I ask _him_. You don't automatically make it a public discussion of his merits.

On the topic of you being a troll. You said that you were intentionally trolling Circvs Maximvs. _You_ said that. Why should anyone assume that you are doing something else _here_? Was that you 'not being serious' (even though your behaviour on CM suggests it's exactly what you did do)? And the thing you said was: "I just wanna bait a asshle who is coincidentally Jewish." You are not making yourself look good.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

This is not something objective like food being spilled intentionally, opinions are subjective. There is a world of difference between the two and at some point, instead of harassing someone because you do not like what they say/think, you should just ignore them. 

I had my share of stalkers on the WotC boards with WotC mods closing their eyes on the matter. I am weary of harassment by reporting and I hope that because you are chummy with mods it will not be the case here. Althought I have my doubts.

Response to JC.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> It is not just the internet when you go against someone's livelihood. When you start arguing with someone about a topic that doesn't even seem that important to you personally to the point where you start asking him for his credentials you cross a very big line into the real world. It becomes about his professional reputation.



Whoa, let us not blow things out of proportion here. This site is anonymous and I have no credibility. His professional reputation is safe, I won't rape it. 

As for his credentials, yeah, I do not know him. That is a fact. Also, I know this might comes as a shock, but people can lie. That is also a fact. Just claiming something on the net doesn't mean that person is telling the truth. Especially with "expert" opinions. I've seen plenty of people who BS like they breathe. So call experts can invent stuff, they can lift stuff from wikipedia, etc. And even if they aren't lying, people can still question their expert judgement. I'm free do to so. 

The funny thing is that among OTTers we have a expert on a subject matter and people here still questioned his judgment on a matter related to his expertise this very week. His feelings were not hurt, but he is amused by argument that experts shouldn't be questioned. 



> You have stated several times that you aren't being that serious.



Indeed, I do not take debates personally. I believe my opinions and will defend them, but I do not get emotionally involved. This just a debate on the net, no need for drama, no seriousness needed. 



> If that were true you would never have let it get to that point.



What point?



> It's not even a matter of you not knowing about it, since you could have asked him by private message.



Ask what?



> You didn't. Instead you decided to make it a part of your argument.



Someone claiming something is true doesn't mean it is. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it is true. Wait... Umm... No... Umm... Yes, it is true. 



> You have to understand that there are lines of etiquette you do not cross that blithely.



I can question someone so called expertise. I am free to do that. 1) I won't shut up simply because someone declares himself an expert on something. 2) People are right, people are wrong, even experts, and non-experts can question them.



> And no, it's not even a matter of people here white knighting someone, even though I do think he has earned that level of respect. It's basic manners.



Ignore me if you think I am a barbarian or feel free to question what ever I say. I do not mind.



> You do not take the argument into the real world if it's just supposed to be a fun discourse to you. Again, you could have asked him by private message and you didn't. You were being disrespectful.



He brought it up in public, not me. 



> Just because you are on the internet doesn't mean you have to take the approach that 'it's just some guy on the internet'.



Have to? No. Can? Yes. 



> If I go to a social gathering somewhere and there's someone I don't know that I start having a conversation about a topic of expertise with because the topic is interesting, and I disagree with him, I don't turn to the whole room and ask loudly "Is this guy even a [professional of said expertise]? What does he know?" I ask _him_. You don't automatically make it a public discussion of his merits.



Not what I did. He claimed he was a lawyer, I said it wasn't enough to make his claim right. I didn't ask anyone else for his creditials, but a few people volonteered to white knight a grown man. I would think a lawyer would be able to defend himself.



> On the topic of you being a troll. You said that you were intentionally trolling Circvs Maximvs. _You_ said that. Why should anyone assume that you are doing something else _here_? Was that you 'not being serious' (even though your behaviour on CM suggests it's exactly what you did do)? And the thing you said was: "I just wanna bait a asshle who is coincidentally Jewish." You are not making yourself look good.



Have you seen that place? I was at two posts and I was already being harassed by hate mail. They get what they deserve. You are wrong to think this is the same here, but feel free to ignore me if I upset you.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Have you seen that place? I was at two posts and I was already being harassed by hate mail. They get what they deserve. You are wrong to think this is the same here, but feel free to ignore me if I upset you.



Again: why should anyone assume that you are doing something else here, when your behaviour here isn't visibly different?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Again: why should anyone assume that you are doing something else here, when your behaviour here isn't visibly different?



Read my mind. There is no other way.  

Altought I am open to your suggestions if you have a better way to know if people are trolling or not.


----------



## Jet Shield (Nov 6, 2013)

Goldo brings up an interesting point that, at least in part, helps explain some of the OTTer oddities.

You see, the OTTers suffered years of abuse on the WotC boards not just from posters, but from the mods. Completely innocent (and respectful) posts/threads would be deleted or locked without warning and bans handed out with no explanation given. Certain posters that were friends with certain mods would make incredibly inflammatory posts, often filled with blatant personal attacks, and anyone who dared to respond in any way would find themselves smacked with the banhammer. If you were foolish enough to report these personal attacks, you were as likely to get warned or banned yourself as to have anything done about the post in question. These aren't just imagined things. The posters responsible would often brag about it.

If the OTTers seem a little quick to raise their hackles, or growl, it's not at all surprising.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Truth is, we are very opiniated, but is arguing picking a fight? Does disagreeing mean you can't discuss a topic?




Well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 6, 2013)

I thought the OP was quite friendly if anything.

But I would beware the OTTers.  They will challenge your arguments, joke around with you, share interests with you and probably make fun of you.  Kind of like your friends.  (If you have any). They also hate football (soccer you idiots!). For which I bear upon them eternal hatred.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Have you seen that place? I was at two posts and I was already being harassed by hate mail. They get what they deserve.



I am repeating myself somewhat, but this should be made clear: many of the people there are people here. Many of the people here are people there. Usually with different screen names. The two places are different with a different mood and a different etiquette, but there is overlap between who the people you are talking to are. When someone here is offended (or even when someone at the Wizards boards is offended, since there is some overlap there as well) there is a chance it's also someone there.

Edit:

See, I'm beginning to think that the problem here is that you have been treating your personal circumstance as three isolated incidents (Wizards, ENW, CM), but in actuality you have been talking to the same people over and over again without realizing it and the whole thing has kept escalating.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not really afraid of that happening at the store most of the time, either. I'd still just tell an employee.



You are the exact type of person I would hate in real life. I can't stand people that don't have the balls to talk to me first about an issue before going to someone else.

Don't take this as a personal attack against you, it's just the way I feel in general about anyone that does that sort of thing. Part of it is just military culture. You always handle things at the lowest level possible. When issues escalate up the chain, things get stupid real quick. But more importantly, I just consider it disrespectful to go to a boss or cop or other authority figure (especially since some instances could affect a person's life/career) without at least attempting to address it with them first.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> I thought the OP was quite friendly if anything.
> 
> But I would beware the OTTers.  They will challenge your arguments, joke around with you, share interests with you and probably make fun of you.  Kind of like your friends.  (If you have any). They also hate football (soccer you idiots!). For which I bear upon them eternal hatred.



Soccer isn't real football!


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 6, 2013)

bone_naga said:


> Soccer isn't real football!



I respect your opinion but disagree with it.  My morning therapy session should alleviate most of the psychological harm you have caused me with your mean remark.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 6, 2013)

bone_naga said:


> Soccer isn't real football!




It's true.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> I am repeating myself somewhat, but this should be made clear: many of the people there are people here. Many of the people here are people there. Usually with different screen names. The two places are different with a different mood and a different etiquette, but there is overlap between who the people you are talking to are. When someone here is offended (or even when someone at the Wizards boards is offended, since there is some overlap there as well) there is a chance it's also someone there.



I know they are some of the same people. Doesn't change much of anything. If they mad at me for what I said over there and report me here, they are lame and it is harassment.



> Edit:
> 
> See, I'm beginning to think that the problem here is that you have been treating your personal circumstance as three isolated incidents (Wizards, ENW, CM), but in actuality you have been talking to the same people over and over again without realizing it and the whole thing has kept escalating.



Who was I on the WotC boards?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> I respect your opinion but disagree with it.  My morning therapy session should alleviate most of the psychological harm you have caused me with your mean remark.



How much did he charge you?


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 6, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> It's true.



You know I like football, I just like real football a little more.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> How much did he charge you?



Ask the squirrel.  I have not received a bill yet, I am sure it will be quite reasonabke.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 6, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> You know I like football, I just like real football a little more.




Yeah, everybody knows you like football, but I didn't know you liked _real_ football more than soccer.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> See, I'm beginning to think that the problem here is that you have been treating your personal circumstance as three isolated incidents (Wizards, ENW, CM), but in actuality you have been talking to the same people over and over again (snip).



in my case that would be true, as I post as Mr_Miscellany on the WotC forums, though nothing posted so far has surprised me except for Goldo apologizing and promising to behave in another thread.

It's been interesting to watch the transition. I hope that EN World brings out the best in the OTTers, because this site will be better for it.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 6, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Yeah, everybody knows you like football, but I didn't know you liked _real_ football more than soccer.



Chargers suck.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> this might seem trivial, but somebody asked me to stop using the term Wallet Rape on here, and I did, even though I didn't like it.



Okay, I’m curious, and I have to ask – what is wallet rape?







Janx said:


> Another rule of thumb is to leave bad arguments in their respective threads. I can disagree strongly with Umbran in one thread, while agreeing with him in another. Treat each thread (as best you can) like Las Vegas. that gets hard at times, especially when one thread seems related to another. If you've only got a negative point to bring in from the other thread, leave it behind or you'll bring the bad taste with it.



You know, this is good advice, but it seems that not all of you are on the same page, and some of you are giving confusing information. For example, Jonsey: 







jonesy said:


> I am repeating myself somewhat, but this should be made clear: many of the people there are people here. Many of the people here are people there. Usually with different screen names. The two places are different with a different mood and a different etiquette, but there is overlap between who the people you are talking to are. When someone here is offended (or even when someone at the Wizards boards is offended, since there is some overlap there as well) there is a chance it's also someone there.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> See, I'm beginning to think that the problem here is that you have been treating your personal circumstance as three isolated incidents (Wizards, ENW, CM), but in actuality you have been talking to the same people over and over again without realizing it and the whole thing has kept escalating.



Seems like you guys want us to leave the feelings and topics of each thread in that particular thread, but when it comes to your own behavior, it appears as if it is fine for you guys to drag how you feel on one site to another. That doesn’t seem fair to any future member, OTTers, or not.







Janx said:


> Recognize expertise when it appears. We have subject matter experts on here. We have know-it-alls who actually do know a lot (I am one, but Umbran always knows more than me). Everybody knows stuff, but experts really do know more. Once an expert starts spouting their technobabble in the correct syntax, stop arguing with them about the quality of their facts. It just ain't worth it, and honestly, they are usually right. And by correct syntax, I mean they are talking like an expert in that subject would talk. Once Danny the lawyer starts talking like a lawyer, assume what he's saying is correct enough for forum discussion purposes and move on to other points. I know it can feel like losing a few ego points as if you're giving in to them, but the reality is an expert knows his material better, and the point should be learning what they know to shape your future dealings, not arguing them down.



You know, I think that is good advice for everyone, not just OTTers. Because as Goldomark pointed out, we have our own experts on various topics. 


Janx said:


> That's a lot of words. If they are helpful, great. If you think I'm picking on you, I apologize as that was not my intent.



I don’t think anyone took it as you picking on them. We tend to have pretty thick skins. 







Janx said:


> If you think some other people don't follow them, well that's on them, not you.



That’s well and good, and it really would bother us if it wasn’t because the ones that do it are also reporting us for the same things they do.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> To answer the OP's civil question, with honesty and civility of my own.



Except that's not what you did.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 6, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> Chargers suck.




Steelers suck better.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> Ask the squirrel.  I have not received a bill yet, I am sure it will be quite reasonabke.



Exactly. I'm always reasonable. My prices...


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Seems like you guys want us to leave the feelings and topics of each thread in that particular thread, but when it comes to your own behavior, it appears as if it is fine for you guys to drag how you feel on one site to another. That doesn’t seem fair to any future member, OTTers, or not.



That is the opposite of what I said. I meant that when people are offended in one place one shouldn't take it for granted that moving to another or another one would not have to deal with the consequences of those people's feelings who occupy more than one place. The internet isn't a series of isolated cubicles with no information traffic between them, quite the opposite and sometimes the same people.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> That is the opposite of what I said. I meant that when people are offended in one place one shouldn't take it for granted that moving to another or another one would not have to deal with the consequences of those people's feelings who occupy more than one place. The internet isn't a series of isolated cubicles with no information traffic between them, quite the opposite and sometimes the same people.



I know it's the opposite of what you said. What you said is pretty much the opposite of what Janx said. Which is what I said. If I said _derp_ sarcastically, would you take it the wrong way?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I know it's the opposite of what you said. What you said is pretty much the opposite of what Janx said. Which is what I said. If I said _derp_ sarcastically, would you take it the wrong way?



No. What you said is the opposite of what I said. You quoted me as saying the opposite of what I said and then used it to say I was saying something opposite of Janx, when what I was saying was parallel to it. A different subject. Perspective. Type mismatch.

I don't what derp means non-sarcastically, so I can't even parse that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> No. What you said is the opposite of what I said. You quoted me as saying the opposite of what I said and then used it to say I was saying something opposite of Janx, when what I was saying was parallel to it. A different subject. Perspective. Type mismatch.



Nope.



> I don't what derp means non-sarcastically, so I can't even parse that.



Then sadly, your fusion powered sarcasm detector is _not_​ powerful enough.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Then sadly, your fusion powered sarcasm detector is _not_​ powerful enough.



That's exactly what it says. 

The second part is in italics. It's sarcasm.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> The second part is in italics. It's sarcasm.



Well then in that case, I am offended by your wanton use of sarcasm, and I expect an apology.

/Waits.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 6, 2013)

bone_naga said:


> You are the exact type of person I would hate in real life.



Okay? I think I'm okay with that.


bone_naga said:


> I can't stand people that don't have the balls to talk to me first about an issue before going to someone else.



It's not about balls. If I see people knocking stuff from a shelf onto the ground, I'm not going to try to tell them to knock it off. I'm going to let the people that run the store take care of it however they want to.


bone_naga said:


> Don't take this as a personal attack against you, it's just the way I feel in general about anyone that does that sort of thing. Part of it is just military culture. You always handle things at the lowest level possible. When issues escalate up the chain, things get stupid real quick. But more importantly, I just consider it disrespectful to go to a boss or cop or other authority figure (especially since some instances could affect a person's life/career) without at least attempting to address it with them first.



I agree, depending on the circumstances. If the people don't seem receptive, or if the people are out of control, or if it's understood that the protocol is that I shouldn't be trying to take care of things, or etc. etc. etc., then I'm not going to deal with it myself.

On the other hand, I do prefer to work things out via dialogue and civil discussion, as I've indicated -twice- in this thread. So if we can do that, either in real life or on the internet, then I'm down.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I had my share of stalkers on the WotC boards with WotC mods closing their eyes on the matter. I am weary of harassment by reporting and I hope that because you are chummy with mods it will not be the case here. Althought I have my doubts.



I don't plan to harass you. I also don't plan to change my behavior unless a mod asks me to.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't plan to harass you. I also don't plan to change my behavior unless a mod asks me to.



So you do not expect us to change cause all of you non-mods asked?


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

I would note that jonesy and i are not talking about the same thing.  I dont goto other rpg forums. 

So my recommendation was really to not bring bad mojo from one thread to the next.

If somebodys dogging you because of who you are somewhere else, thats badwrong of them.

Any trouble a post you do should be isolated to that thread.

Each thread should try to start over unless you eatablish a serial pattern of bad posting

Thats my view


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 6, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:
			
		

> And since we can come off as sort of ... abrasive even though that's not the intent, well, maybe it's a decent idea to give any interested Enworlders the opportunity to ask any questions about us they may have. So here's a thread for that if there's anyone interested.



Taking this opening post as offered, I asked a question. Although no one answered my question directly, the ongoing back-and-forth throughout this thread has essentially answered it indirectly.

And for the record: I don't post on the WotC or CM boards, even under a different name. So all I know about anyone here is what I know from what and how they post here, good or bad.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> That is pretty much how I am in real life. Co-workers call me weird.




Personal observation:  You don't come across as weird.  To be perfectly honest, to me, you come across more as crass and insensitive.  



> People need to understand that being playful or silly is not trolling or disrespectful.




No, they don't *need* to.  That may sound like a nitpick, but it might be an important point in terms of mindset.  There are thousands of EN World users, and our basic operation style has worked for over a decade.  The arrival of a few folks from the WotC boards does not create a "need" or onus for others to change how they approach things.   



> I understand that a mod button gives a sense of entitlement that people do not have in real life, suddenly they have the right to be offended and have "justice".




I'm sorry you see it that way.  To us, it is merely a valuable tool in creating a particular atmosphere. 



> Except people shouldn't expect to be able to standardize people according to their preferences.




Yes, but that means you don't get to standardize EN Worlders into people who accept your preferred style, either.  



> If people find me abrasive, they can ignore me and I shouldn't be harassed with people reporting anything they do not like.




That logic works if you only cheese off a couple of specific people.  And, in fact, if only a couple of specific people report your posts, then we usually tell them to go use the ignore list.  But, if we get reports from lots of different people, then it becomes more an issue that your style doesn't fit in with the rest of the place.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> I would note that jonesy and i are not talking about the same thing.  I dont goto other rpg forums.
> 
> So my recommendation was really to not bring bad mojo from one thread to the next.
> 
> ...



Yup, which is what I said, but Jonsey thought you said something else. I'm totally with you on this.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> It's not about balls.




Correct.  Because "having balls" is really about being brave.  Facing up to a real world bully is being brave, because that bully might punch you. But, in a mostly-anonymous internet discussion, there's nothing to be brave about, as nobody has any ability to harm anyone else, except by throwing mean words (ooh, scary!).  Without consequences, no bravery is required.

Here's an interesting point about the internet.  In the physical world, humans have a whole bunch of non-verbal cues and responses to manage and prevent personal clashes.  In the virtual world, the majority of those cues aren't present.  Egos clash, but the common mechanisms to resolve one way or another aren't there.  So, with neither party having any real power in the situation, the clash just continues, often perpetually, often carrying over as a personal grudge from thread to thread.

We've found that our method usually breaks that pattern, by bumping the issue to someone who does have some ability to end the clash, one way or another. 

Or, if you need to, you can think about moderator action as being the consequence that drives resolution of conflicts.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Okay? I think I'm okay with that.
> 
> It's not about balls. If I see people knocking stuff from a shelf onto the ground, I'm not going to try to tell them to knock it off. I'm going to let the people that run the store take care of it however they want to.
> 
> ...



Your response is entirely too reasonable and therefore offends me. What happened to the WotC days of a good 50% of threads devolving into trolling/flaming?

Anyway, that makes more sense, that just wasn't what I gathered from your earlier posts. But returning to the topic of forum posts rather than RL scenarios, especially in the context of Umbran's post on the handling of reports, wouldn't it make more sense to at least make it known to the poster that you have a problem with him before reporting him? Or just add him to your ignore list and move on? Sometimes people are just rude and insensitive by nature (or choice) but sometimes it really is unintentional.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Truth is, we are very opiniated, but is arguing picking a fight? Does disagreeing mean you can't discuss a topic?




I think that around here, we note a distinction between discussion and argument.

In a discussion, the basic goal is to explore and exchange ideas - discussion involves both give and take.

In an argument, the basic goal for each person is to press their ideas on others - the speaker has no intention or desire to take anything.

If you are absolutely convinced that you are correct, and your purpose is to show how the other guy is wrongity-wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce, to not budge, to defeat or dismiss anything the other person says, you're in an argument.  On the internet, arguments are not very constructive.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Depends, if I question what he hold to be true it is an exploration of ideas.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Depends, if I question what he hold to be true it is an exploration of ideas.




Note I said explore *and* exchange, give *and* take.  Merely questioning another's correctness does not mean *you* exchange or explore anything - if you don't plan on accepting what the other person says might be correct, you probably aren't in a discussion by the way we use the terms here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Personal observation:  You don't come across as weird.  To be perfectly honest, to me, you come across more as crass and insensitive.



I've been told I'm going straight to hell too! 

While we are at telling what the other projects, you really are arrogant when you post. It doesn't make you charming or sound respectful. I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't also a moderator who is telling me to be more charming.



> I'm sorry you see it that way.  To us, it is merely a valuable tool in creating a particular atmosphere.



 It should apply to all. You wrote this in this thread (post#78 )







> Sure. And, in taking on someone like, say Danny, who is well versed on the subject and can continue such a discussion quite civilly *until the other side is well and truly shown to be a troll, ignorant, or deficient in reasoning power*, they don't do themselves any favors.





You sent me a warning for insulting another member, because I said I didn't know him and he could be lying. Did you moderate yourself for indirectly saying I we were trolls, ignorant or mentally challenged? Did you know that really insulted some of us? To me it seems like a double standard, one for you one for others, and that reporting is determined by who wrote what and not what was written. Same below.

You moderated me for making a joke about PMS Avenger from the Mystery Men trailer (1:10) and Wonder Woman, saying it didn't belong here.

While you wrote this (post#18) in this thread: 







> the Daryl Dixon Estrogen Brigade



. You said it is not meant to be disparaging, but it really is. Did you give yourself a warning? Did anyone report you? If I would have said it wasn't meant to be disparaging, would it have been ok too?

To me it sounds like moderation is a tool used by some people against other people they do not like. It also sounds like you sometimes forget you are a moderator when you post.

Maybe you think that I'm over reating, but moderation was horrible on the WotC boards. The experience here so far was not encouraging.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Note I said explore *and* exchange, give *and* take.  Merely questioning another's correctness does not mean *you* exchange or explore anything - if you don't plan on accepting what the other person says might be correct, you probably aren't in a discussion by the way we use the terms here.



If people are willing to accept I am correct too, I have no problem with that.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Maybe you think that I'm over reating, but moderation was horrible on the WotC boards. The experience here so far was not encouraging.



That's an understatement.

Guys, while I don't agree with everything Goldo says or how he says it, this much is definitely true, so just keep that in mind if this comes across as overly nitpicky or rules-lawyering or anything like that. We spent far too long dealing with really bad and inconsistent moderation that sometimes left us scratching our heads, the mods themselves would never comment on their moderation, and customer service had a default answer of "please read our really vague CoC that we never really elaborate on and every mod seems to interpret differently and the mod is always right".


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

bone_naga said:


> Your response is entirely too reasonable and therefore offends me. What happened to the WotC days of a good 50% of threads devolving into trolling/flaming?
> 
> Anyway, that makes more sense, that just wasn't what I gathered from your earlier posts. But returning to the topic of forum posts rather than RL scenarios, especially in the context of Umbran's post on the handling of reports, wouldn't it make more sense to at least make it known to the poster that you have a problem with him before reporting him? Or just add him to your ignore list and move on? Sometimes people are just rude and insensitive by nature (or choice) but sometimes it really is unintentional.




Part of how EN World "better" than WotC is that we don't suffer rude or insensitive posts or people.  Sure, we all post insensitive or rude things, but a scan of the breadth of the regulars are that overall, the post quality is higher.

If somebody's making every topic a political dig (like that one guy who got perma banned), that is EXACTLY the result we want to see.

It's not my job to charge another human being with poor conduct.  It's the authority.  My job is to raise the issue to the authority and let them review the situation with less of my baggage coloring the review than if I attempt to tackle the issue myself.

Consider this the form of governance we have here at EN World.  It's a Morrusocracy. I've been happy hear since this site was before this site was officially called EN World when Eric Noah ran it.


If the mods do their job well, they deal with the really bad offenses singularly, or with the individual if they are seeing a high rate of reporting across all the users.

That's one of the benefits of calling the cops versus dealing with it yourself.  If I confront Mr. BadPoster, the authorities don't know about it.  But if 20 people report Mr. BadPoster, they can see if it's just one badly worded post, or if the guy is being jerk across the whole board.  the former can be dealt with a warning, and in some ways isn't a big deal because if a person did get carried away, naturally 20 people will report it.  The latter is what usually gets a dude banned, and the Report button tied to a reporting metric is how the mods know who the problem users are.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Part of how EN World "better" than WotC is that we don't suffer rude or insensitive posts or people.  Sure, we all post insensitive or rude things, but a scan of the breadth of the regulars are that overall, the post quality is higher.
> 
> If somebody's making every topic a political dig (like that one guy who got perma banned), that is EXACTLY the result we want to see.
> 
> ...



You seem like a reasonable person, and your advice is generally pretty good. I think you do a good job of explaining what the social norms on this site are, or what people would like them to be. unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what others do. That seems to be the problem It makes it harder for others to acclimate to the environment if they are presented with a set of rules that aren't the ones being followed by everyone, you know what I mean?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Snipped a bunch of really nicely put and well considered information




Sorry about the massive snip - it was a lot of text that I agree with for the most part.  I just wanted to acknowledge it and thank you for taking the time to really make an effort to reach us.  There are some things I could debate with you there - some things that, IME, actually work out a li'l differently than you explain - but overall it was a nicely written piece of advice.  Thank you.  Despite how some people have treated me here so far it's people like you that make me think this place could work out.  



Bullgrit said:


> Question:
> Do OTTers generally prefer to argue rather than discuss? It does seem to me that some folks would, indeed, rather pick a fight for the hell of it rather than simply discuss a topic for better understanding. Is my impression of you correct, or am I misreading? (On a different forum, years ago, there was a clique who claimed the forum was their own personal Fight Club, and they were open and up front about it.)
> 
> Bullgrit




Bull, I saw you posted something after this so first let me apologize for not answering sooner.  I was dealing with an oil change and a damned dead battery.  

Ok, here we goes: Honestly?  It depends.  For the most part we're an opinionated bunch (who typically do not agree with one another ... er, it's almost half of us and the other half) that has honed our online debate skills among real online friends ... which is something we sometimes forget.  I can get away with calling a friend an a-hole when arguing with him, for example, but I wouldn't be able to do that with a stranger and come off as anything but an a-hole myself even if I was only playing around.  We've got to remember we're among strangers. 

Overall, though, we like to discuss.  We typically don't see arguing as a bad thing, though.  Why is it?  What's wrong with being passionate about your position so long as you remain at least somewhat open?  I have had many, many of my opinions about very real things changed through arguing with my fellow OTTers.  I'm talking about things ranging from economic policy to sexism to gay marches.  Yeah, serious stuff (that I know we can't talk about here - that's cool).  So to me there's just as much value in argument as there is discussion.

On to that 'it depends' part now: Sometimes we'll stir the pot just to stir it.  What we forget is that while we know we're doing it strangers will not.  When we had the numbers in the OTT that didn't matter.  It does here.  I'll give a couple of examples now so you understand better what I mean by stirring the pot: We had a few go to threads where people would purposefully take unreasonable positions and argue with people doing the same.  Star Bores (see?) vs Star Trek was one of our standbys.  Debate threads there called for unreasonable positions, faux insults and pointless attacks on taste.  Same applied to our equally enjoyable kittehs vs puppies threads.  There it wasn't enough to like puppies better you had to _hate _kittens and prove it.  Not a rule or anything like that, just expected behavior.  It's all for the laugh, to blow off steam.  Nobody gets hurt cuz everybody's in on it sooner or later.  

You'll no doubt notice we haven't done a whole lot of that here (I, uhh, can't help but slip in Star Bores comments - force of habit, you see).  We recognized that ya'all just aren't ready for that particular OTTer tradition just yet.  That's cool.



JamesonCourage said:


> Sorry for the delay, I had errands to do before work.




NP. 



> I'm not really afraid of that happening at the store most of the time, either. I'd still just tell an employee.




Difference in approach.  So what, right?  



> I hope we can understand one another through a civil conversation, then.




Yarp.



> I meant "original post" and not "original poster", but yeah, I imagine there is a "culture difference" here. Nothing inherently wrong with that; there were "factions" within EN World long before you guys migrated over.




Yep, it seems mostly a culture thing to me.  What I hop ya'all realize is that while we may be different we are _not _here to turn this place into the Off Topic Tavern part 2.  We're happy to be accepted here as-is.  We just ask to be able to be ourselves - within reason.  Basically, we're immigrants.  We know it's a good idea to learn to speak ENWorlder but we don't want to have to stop speaking OTTer to totally fit in.



> Mod warnings and potential bannings if the behavior wasn't curbed. I'll repeat myself, though: "but I'd definitely prefer civil discourse, yes." I just didn't see that as a reasonable option based on what I'd observed in this forum thus far.




Yeah, so long as civil discourse is the first option then there's nothing wrong with this approach.  It's when the report button becomes the first and then only option that I have a problem.  Some seem to have taken that approach.  Their loss.



> Well, I have no plans to adapt to your group's style of posting in other threads, so that might mean that we're an at impasse. I don't see how it improves discussion on this site. I like that some new articles are being brought up, but I'm not a fan of the posting style most of the time.




We're not asking you to.  Again, we just wanna be ourselves.  That doesn't mean you need to be like us or stop being like you.

I'd say that when people get over the idea of everything new being mean or an attack then they'll see that sarcasm and playful joking can be funny.  We're a funny group and all we wanna do is have some fun.  If that doesn't add to the place, well, I think we're on two totally different pages.  



> *Shrug*




Ah!



> Personally, I don't mind when people I find disruptive get kicked out. In fact, I tend to support that action. It never seems fair to the people I see as disruptive, obviously. But really, I love the moderators here, and the job that they do. I support them, and Morrus' right to "censor" posts he doesn't like on his site. If it means more civil discourse, I'm all for it. If that makes me seem "crappy" to you, I'm not going to work to change your perception.




And I'm not asking you to.  I appreciate your honesty in this discussion and I do believe it's provided a real look at some of the obstacles we're facing here.  I don't have to agree with your approach or what you think makes for a fun place to talk (and I don't think I do) to respect you for at least showing up and telling us how you feel.  Thanks.  I mean that.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2013)

With all due respect, guys, we don't really care what the moderation was (or is) like on WotC's boards.  We don't post there; we post here.  While your plight might evoke a little transitory sympathy (as sympathetic as one _can_ be about something as trivial as D&D messageboards), it's not something which makes any difference at all to us or how we operate - if you have a problem with WotC or their forums, take it up with them.  It's nothing to do with us.

Now, this thread is starting to drift into Namecalling Avenue.  That'll get this thread closed pretty quick.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm a damned dirty ape and I blew my post all to hell.  

Srsly, though, it didn't need to be said.  I really _wanted _to say it but the ice is getting thin.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> With all due respect, guys, we don't really care what the moderation was (or is) like on WotC's boards.  We don't post there; we post here.  While your plight might evoke a little transitory sympathy (as sympathetic as one _can_ be about something as trivial as D&D messageboards), it's not something which makes any difference at all to us or how we operate - if you have a problem with WotC or their forums, take it up with them.  It's nothing to do with us.
> 
> Now, this thread is starting to drift into Namecalling Avenue.  That'll get this thread closed pretty quick.




That stuff wasn't posted to garner sympathy or lay blame, it's simply background on why some OTTers approach certain situations as they do.  It was meant to be informative and nothing more.  I'm not arguing with you or trying to say it matters and should be ok or whatever, I just wanted to try to explain why it was posted.  That said, message received.

Guys, can we please lay off the WotC stuff for now?  I'd rather not see this thread die - especially for something one of us did.  Thanks.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

bone_naga said:


> That's an understatement.
> 
> Guys, while I don't agree with everything Goldo says or how he says it, this much is definitely true, so just keep that in mind if this comes across as overly nitpicky or rules-lawyering or anything like that. We spent far too long dealing with really bad and inconsistent moderation that sometimes left us scratching our heads, the mods themselves would never comment on their moderation, and customer service had a default answer of "please read our really vague CoC that we never really elaborate on and every mod seems to interpret differently and the mod is always right".




As a regular here, I think the modding is good. I've been on forums with mystery or crappy moderation.  This site is better.  If nothing else, I am compatible with the moddng style and the posting style here.

EN World gets new people all the time.  They seem to integrate just fine, with only a few people who need some correction.  Part of this is likely because they lurk for awhile, then the contribute to some posts, then they start new topics.  They grow to fit in.

The OTTers seem to be a different animal.  They have their own forum culture that they have transplanted here at EN World.  I'm probably wrong, but I don't think the OTTers post anywhere than the Misc forum.

This certainly feels where the collision is.  In some ways, it is not clear why the OTTers didn't just setup/sign up for their own free forum somewhere they could control the modding and do things exactly how they want.  The Misc topic forum at EN probably wasn't meant to be the primary place of business that the OTTers used OTT for at WotC.

This won't be great advice, but it may help reduce friction.  EN World is not WotC.  Misc is not OTT.  You are welcome to merge in with the rest of us, but posting here like you did at WotC/OTT might lead to compatibility problems.

I suspect, that if an OTTer tried to emulate the better members of EN world, after awhile, their own reputation would be enough to allow them some slack on their old behaviors.  That's more like a science experiement idea than advice.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 6, 2013)

It's difficult to take someone seriously when they constantly say, "Don't take me so seriously."

It's difficult to believe someone is truly offended/hurt when they constantly tell others they are too easily offended and "butt hurt."

It's difficult to accept someone is sincerely trying to politely fit into a new community when they constantly brag about how impolite they were in another community.

Also...

When someone argues and argues about something that multiple people have politely explained, which is the better assumption to err on? That they are just honestly _don't understand_ what everyone else has understood, or that they are a troll just trying to provoke a flame war?


Another question based on the OP:

Would the "OTTers" prefer to be treated and accepted as a group or as individuals? There are some new folks who have engaged in discussions here apparently as individuals, and there are some new folks who are apparently engaging threads as a tight clique.

Bullgrit

*Mod Note:*  Edited at BG's request.  ~Umbran


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> It's difficult to take someone seriously when they constantly say, "Don't take me so seriously."




It's really not.  People can be serious sometimes and not serious others.  Our mistake was in assuming that you could see the difference right off the bat - a mistake made due to our long history together.



> It's difficult to believe someone is truly offended/hurt when they constantly tell others they are too easily offended and "butt hurt."




Why can't you think someone is overreacting in one place and react justifiably negatively to something done to you?  These are separate things.



> It's difficult to accept someone is sincerely trying to politely fit into a new community when they constantly brag about how impolite they were in another community.




I haven't seen a lot of that.  Could you explain - caveat: Only if it's something I've lead you to believe through something I've posted in this thread.  I'd rather not ask you to point out something in someone else from somewhere else.  If you're not comfortable addressing anything I've done here, I understand.



> Also...
> 
> When someone argues and argues about something that multiple people have politely explained, which is the better assumption to err on? That they are just honestly too dense to understand what everyone else has understood, or that they are a troll just trying to provoke a flame war?




There's another option: They legitimately don't believe the other people are correct.  Five people telling me the sky is green doesn't actually make the sky green.  Now if you're talking about something like how these boards work, well, that's different and I see your point.




> Another question based on the OP:
> 
> Would the "OTTers" prefer to be treated and accepted as a group or as individuals? There are some new folks who have engaged in discussions here apparently as individuals, and there are some new folks who are apparently engaging threads as a tight clique.
> 
> Bullgrit




Ideally you'll all learn to love us and want to have our babies.  We'll, of course, politely decline as we'd be terrible parents.  You'll grow to resent us - at first privately - and eventually ditch us for a younger, tighter, sexier and more financially successful group of refugees.

Or not.  I'd personally like to see us all be accepted.  We are not one person, though, and it's not fair to treat us all the same because of an experience you've had with one of us - good or bad.  It's ultimately your call.  If you choose to dismiss all of us because of friction with one or two of us, so be it.  I can't change your mind.  It'd be a real shame, though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

You were doing great until the bolded part.

*Mod Note:*  Correction made at BG's request.  ~Umbran


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You seem like a reasonable person, and your advice is generally pretty good. I think you do a good job of explaining what the social norms on this site are, or what people would like them to be. unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what others do. That seems to be the problem It makes it harder for others to acclimate to the environment if they are presented with a set of rules that aren't the ones being followed by everyone, you know what I mean?




Thanks.  I want the new guys to fit in, and to reduce tension.  I don't have a perfect solution for that, but my advice might help you blend in a bit.  Outside of culture change, they seemed like decent practices.

I would view my long verbiage as the concepts I aspire to when I am on any forum.  Many of which were developed here, by virtue of better behaviors I'd seen.

So overall, EN seems to run the way I write, though as I used the word "aspire", implying all of us do not perfectly achieve at all times.  Even people you might currently have a problem with have inspired me to do better.  We all make mistakes, or go overboard.

I should probably give you guys a new rule of thumb, since Morrus brought it up.

Coming to EN world to complain about an issue at another forum site is bad form.  We're not talking the OTTers in any way.  We've had newbs show up and immediately start in on how "they were wronged blah, blah, blah, take my side" and so on.  Getting embroiled in inter-site arguments would drag the site down.  So that kind of thing is preferred to be avoided.  Obviously, some discussion happens, when referencing something, but as a general rule it seems best to minimize talking about other sites' problems.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

double post


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> As a regular here, I think the modding is good. I've been on forums with mystery or crappy moderation.  This site is better.  If nothing else, I am compatible with the moddng style and the posting style here.
> 
> EN World gets new people all the time.  They seem to integrate just fine, with only a few people who need some correction.  Part of this is likely because they lurk for awhile, then the contribute to some posts, then they start new topics.  They grow to fit in.
> 
> ...



It had been discussed, but we're all gamers. We like the gaming forums. I've been an ENWorld member for a little while now. I don't post all that often (my posts here probably outnumber all the other posts I made on EN throughout my membership) but I lurk in other forums quite a bit (and even post on occasion). I'll probably post a lot more in other forums once I have more time on my hands. Besides, in our own OTTer forum, there would be no interaction with anyone else. In the OTT, there were other people that came through and posted once in a while, they just weren't regulars. I'm sure it's the same here too.

We aren't some overly cliquish group (or at least we try not to be). We only became OTTers by frequently posting in the OTT (we could try to be Miscers but it just doesn't have the same ring to it). We are just gamers that talked to each other a lot. Even when we formed a private group to carry on some of our discussions, the group changed over time. Some people left and new people came. We didn't intentionally bring our own culture over here, it just sort of happens when an entire group of people move at once instead of one or two guys each drifting to a new forum on their own.

Honestly I've been somewhat amused and somewhat confused by the fact that we garnered this much attention as a group.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

For the record, I did post in other places than the OTT on the old boards and will probably venture forth here at some point if my time allows it.  I don't have all day to cruise boards anymore so I use my limited time where I have the most fun.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> It's difficult to take someone seriously when they constantly say, "Don't take me so seriously."



More like the internet ain't that serious. No need to have egos is a virtual world where we are all anonymous.



> It's difficult to believe someone is truly offended/hurt when they constantly tell others they are too easily offended and "butt hurt."



Some are offended, some aren't. For myself I can say that double standards of a moderator, yeah, they are bottersome cause they actually interfere in conversations. Double standards of posters are also bottersome. People ask of us to be civil, but haven't been themselves.



> When someone argues and argues about something that multiple people have politely explained, which is the better assumption to err on? That they are just honestly too dense to understand what everyone else has understood, or that they are a troll just trying to provoke a flame war?



Because lots of people believe something doesn't mean they are right. And because when someone disagrees with lots of people it doesn't mean you can insult them. It seems like a double standard. You say people should be respectful, but then you insult them by calling them names. 




> Another question based on the OP:
> 
> Would the "OTTers" prefer to be treated and accepted as a group or as individuals? There are some new folks who have engaged in discussions here apparently as individuals, and there are some new folks who are apparently engaging threads as a tight clique.
> 
> Bullgrit



If you have something to say to me directly, do it. Some people have lumped us together,for better or worse.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Coming to EN world to complain about an issue at another forum site is bad form.



Continuing on this, there used to be a rule here, and I'm not sure if it was an unwritten rule or an actual site rule, that said no to cross-board drama. People coming here to complain about other sites got modded pretty heavily.

So just having the 'Of the WotC Forums and the OTT' thread exist and not get locked straight away seems like a pretty big step to me. Not necessarily a step forwards or backwards, but a step nevertheless.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> More like the internet ain't that serious. No need to have egos is a virtual world where we are all anonymous.




That may be what you're used to, but many of us_ aren't_ anonymous.  If you stick around a while, you'll realise that many of the relationships on this board extend into real life.  I've made dozens of real-life friends here (some of them I only see occasionally when I cross the Atlantic to do so; others more frequently).  we meet at Game Days and conventions.  We visit each others' homes.  Our real names, in many cases, are public knowledge, especially those who work in gaming - mine isn't exactly a secret.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You were doing great until you the bolded part.




let's just chalk that up to frustration.

I'll give a recent example that is NOT you OTT guys as far as I know.

A guy pops in asking a copyright question.  Having some experience with copyright/trademark/patent law, I and some other people give the same answer.  Danny's not around to confirm it, which is a bummer, but the question was pretty simple, so I am confident the answer was correct.

The guy spends considerable posts challenging our answer and asking us for proofs or evidence.

At some point, it does feel like this guy is so intent on getting the answer he wants to hear, he's refusing to accept anything less than us doing to work of a lawyer and looking it up definitively and posting the respective legal sections to cover his case.

It begins to feel like we're arguing with a crazy person.

What we have is a collision.  I can't change my answer to reflect what I know to be false.  And the guy can't accept my answer because he just can't.

It's one of those moments where the sooner we both realize we should "just agree to disagree" the better.

What does NOT make those collisions better is when the guy expects the experts (or at least knowledgeable people) to go hunt down citations, etc.  EN World isn't Westlaw's database or Wikipedia.  the members aren't a legal research staff required to prove every point with documentation and references.

Once the conversation devolves into semantic bickering or show me your proof, stuffs not going well.  I'm almost always going to side (or change my mind to) whatever the known experts say.  I don't argue Physics with Umbran.  I don't argue law with Danny.  If Danny cuts out a plank from my platform by saying, "actually, that kind of thing can and will go to trial", then I'm going to stop using that as part of my position.

I'd also note that I try to argue differently. if I raise 3 points on why I think position X is correct and Danny can give me 3 plausible/reasonable negations, I am happy to consider my position disproved.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Would the "OTTers" prefer to be treated and accepted as a group or as individuals? There are some new folks who have engaged in discussions here apparently as individuals, and there are some new folks who are apparently engaging threads as a tight clique.



Individuals. Being treated as a group is what landed most of us here in the first place.

But seriously, we happened to come here (at least to this forum if not this site) at once, and we happened to talk with each other a lot, but we're individuals. We almost never agree with each other (at least across our group). We weren't even a group until we actually created a private group to continue discussions that had been stopped in open forums. Before that we were just random people that happened to share enough interests that we kept bumping into each other in threads over and over again.

It's no different than how ENWorld has its own overall culture but I'd hardly lump all EN posters together as a single entity.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Continuing on this, there used to be a rule here, and I'm not sure if it was an unwritten rule or an actual site rule, that said no to cross-board drama. People coming here to complain about other sites got modded pretty heavily.
> 
> So just having the 'Of the WotC Forums and the OTT' thread exist and not get locked straight away seems like a pretty big step to me. Not necessarily a step forwards or backwards, but a step nevertheless.




To be fair, that was our first thread here ever.  It has seen some very recent traffic, though.  Honestly, I think it's some helpful backstory about us but I also understand why it'd be frowned upon and would personally have no issue at all if Morrus chose to lock or remove that thread.  That's what I'd call a perfectly reasonable rule.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That may be what you're used to, but many of us_ aren't_ anonymous.  If you stick around a while, you'll realise that many of the relationships on this board extend into real life.  I've made dozens of real-life friends here (some of them I only see occasionally when I cross the Atlantic to do so; others more frequently).  we meet at Game Days and conventions.  We visit each others' homes.  Our real names, in many cases, are public knowledge, especially those who work in gaming - mine isn't exactly a secret.




Thats a really good point. And it is why we DO give credit to what a regular says, instead of assuming he's lying about his profession.

We've all been here a long time.  We had like one case of a dude running a long con on who he was including faking his own coma to draw out sympathy.

Otherwise, we all pretty much trust that Morrus is who he says he is.  Umbran is a Physics guy in Boston (which implies some big name places he might work at).  Danny is an entertainment lawyer (not a trial lawyer) in Dallas.  I'm not outing these guys.  This is known "public" information within EN world.  I respect these guys and their knowledge.

One of the things I like about Danny when he waxes legal, is he clarifies what he knows by general trade, or what he has or doesn't have in direct experience.  If he's talking about trial law, he will point out that he is not a trial lawyer and has general lawyer-grade knowledge, but not extensive experience.  I can accept his info is mostly accurate until a trial lawyer shows up to ammend/append his information.

In an ideal, respectful situation, said trial lawyer wouldn't just shout Danny down.  He'd acknowledge that Danny was giving basic information "that all lawyers know" and then he'd just go into his corrections as "clarifications."  I've seen Umban and some of the other resident Physics guys do this, and generally I'm impressed by the professionalism.

What usually doesn't impress me is the guy who likes Physics and obviously knows more than me, but less than the Phd's who insists on arguing about how wrong they are.  these kind of things seem more like go challenges, and are really traps for the experts.  Folks like Umbran will and do take the time to explain the details of something.  But it really mires down a thread if they fall for an argument about some fact.

So, when I advise "don't argue with the experts", that's my personal preference to avoid dragging down a thread.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> We had like one case of a dude running a long con on who he was including faking his own coma to draw out sympathy.



And having a massive number of aliases here, playing it as if he was several people, all talking to each other.

That incident didn't just hurt a whole lot of people here emotionally, it got several people who had been regulars to quit the site partially or entirely. People we liked having around to talk with have not been back since, just because this guy thought it was a fun game or something.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> So you do not expect us to change cause all of you non-mods asked?



I don't expect you guys to change, no. Which is why I had reported a couple things. I'm only posting in this thread because the original post seemed honest and open to discussion.



bone_naga said:


> But returning to the topic of forum posts rather than RL scenarios, especially in the context of Umbran's post on the handling of reports, wouldn't it make more sense to at least make it known to the poster that you have a problem with him before reporting him?



Like I said, if I don't think they're receptive, I won't even try. That was the case with this group of posters prior to this thread, though my feeling that they might be open to discussion is basically gone now for some posters (though not completely, and not for every poster).


bone_naga said:


> Or just add him to your ignore list and move on? Sometimes people are just rude and insensitive by nature (or choice) but sometimes it really is unintentional.



I don't have anyone on my ignore list, but it definitely works for some situations. However, if I think a particular poster is making the entire site worse off because of his posts, that's when I'll report it. (It's also why nobody is on my ignore list; I want that ability to see such posts, so I can let the mods know and they can make that decision.)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Thats a really good point. And it is why we DO give credit to what a regular says, instead of assuming he's lying about his profession.
> 
> We've all been here a long time.  We had like one case of a dude running a long con on who he was including faking his own coma to draw out sympathy.
> 
> ...



You know, that's the thing. You guys have had a long time to get to know each other. You've had very little time, and some of you appear to have had very little interest, in getting to know our expertise or who we actually are. So yeah, I get that when someone who has been on here a long time says something in their area of expertise, you guys take it at face value. However, you are expecting people who do not have that history of knowing you guys, to do the same. At the same time, you guys are not considering that some of us may be experts in some of the topics that have been discussed. Some have taken what information has been given, and dismissed it. So again, it appears that you guys are asking us to do something that you aren't willing to do yourself. It's not helpful to anyone to say one thing and do another.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That may be what you're used to, but many of us_ aren't_ anonymous.  If you stick around a while, you'll realise that many of the relationships on this board extend into real life.  I've made dozens of real-life friends here (some of them I only see occasionally when I cross the Atlantic to do so; others more frequently).  we meet at Game Days and conventions.  We visit each others' homes.  Our real names, in many cases, are public knowledge, especially those who work in gaming - mine isn't exactly a secret.



It still doesn't mean egos need to be brought here will all the drama that comes with it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Thats a really good point. And it is why we DO give credit to what a regular says, instead of assuming he's lying about his profession.



I didn't assume he did. You need to read what I wrote.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You know, that's the thing. You guys have had a long time to get to know each other. You've had very little time, and some of you appear to have had very little interest, in getting to know our expertise or who we actually are. So yeah, I get that when someone who has been on here a long time says something in their area of expertise, you guys take it at face value. However, you are expecting people who do not have that history of knowing you guys, to do the same. At the same time, you guys are not considering that some of us may be experts in some of the topics that have been discussed. Some have taken what information has been given, and dismissed it. So again, it appears that you guys are asking us to do something that you aren't willing to do yourself. It's not helpful to anyone to say one thing and do another.




One thing to consider is I never asked Umbran if he was an physicist, or if Danny was a lawyer.  At some point, a topic came up in their area of expertise, and they contributed and mentioned that they know of the topic by way of their respective careers.

Nobody's offered their relevant credentials yet, so it hasn't come up.

Another variable is you are new.  You have no established track record of expertise and having not seen any mentioned any in a relevant thread, haven't begun establishing one.

I don't really know what you guys do for a living.  If we hit a technical topic (or on review of a past topic), you'll quickly see what my expertise and profession is.

Personally, I don't care for getting to know people threads for individuals.  I learn who has common hobbies by way of what threads we both participated in.  That works for me.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> One thing to consider is I never asked Umbran if he was an physicist, or if Danny was a lawyer.  At some point, a topic came up in their area of expertise, and they contributed and mentioned that they know of the topic by way of their respective careers.



True, but as goldomark pointed out, it's the internet and while some of you guys know each other in person, we don't know you guys in person, nor do you guys know us in person. So, for example, I can claim to be a psychologist, a lawyer, a chemist, or Ju Jutsu instructor . Would you believe me if I did? 



> Nobody's offered their relevant credentials yet, so it hasn't come up.



Some people don't feel a need to advertise their expertise. 



> Another variable is you are new.  You have no established track record of expertise and having not seen any mentioned any in a relevant thread, haven't begun establishing one.



Right. we are new to you guys, and you guys, while this is a site you have been on for some time, are new to us. So it's pretty much the same situation on both sides. We haven't built up a track record of expertise with you guys, and you guys haven't built up a track record of expertise with us. So we get into these situations where you guys expect something from us without doing the same in return. In the end, it's unfair to both groups. 



> I don't really know what you guys do for a living.  If we hit a technical topic (or on review of a past topic), you'll quickly see what my expertise and profession is.



You could always ask. While we don't go around advertising our occupations, we aren't opposed to sharing that information when asked. 



> Personally, *I don't care for getting to know people threads for individuals*.  I learn who has common hobbies by way of what threads we both participated in.  That works for me.



Sorry, but that is a bit confusing. Could you clarify?


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> True, but as goldomark pointed out, it's the internet and while some of you guys know each other in person, we don't know you guys in person, nor do you guys know us in person. So, for example, I can claim to be a psychologist, a lawyer, a chemist, or Ju Jutsu instructor . Would you believe me if I did?




Consider the possibility that on EN World, if you say what you do for a living, we will all assume that it is true unless contradictory information comes up later.

For example, if you pointed out that you were a mental health professional in the woman killer her bad husband discussion, that would actually change the context of your points in that discussion from armchair quarterback to somebody who actually knows their stuff.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Some people don't feel a need to advertise their expertise.
> 
> Right. we are new to you guys, and you guys, while this is a site you have been on for some time, are new to us. So it's pretty much the same situation on both sides. We haven't built up a track record of expertise with you guys, and you guys haven't built up a track record of expertise with us. So we get into these situations where you guys expect something from us without doing the same in return. In the end, it's unfair to both groups.
> 
> You could always ask. While we don't go around advertising our occupations, we aren't opposed to sharing that information when asked.




It's our school playground.  You're the new kids.  Sadly, the outsiders got more to prove if they want to be accepted.  I think Celebrim wrote some lengthy verbiage about that in the sexism thread under RPG talk.  Nobody liked his point, but I recognize that it is the way humans work.

Like the suggested guidelines I gave before, my advice isn't particularly great or fair.  It's just a means to blend in and not offend.  Being the least offensive person in the conversation seems a reasonable strategy.  That way, if there's bad behavior, it isn't on you.

As an example, I have been in a thread where I tried to make a point and blundered badly.  It royally angered some people.  We're talking lots of post reportings.  I recieved ZERO warnings. Why?  Because on review of my statements in the thread, I said nothing hostile.  I was debating a point (and losing because I said it wrong), but did not cross the line.  I later apologized for my remarks as I had still clearly not made a good point.  But the difference is that if done civilly, you're not the bad guy.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sorry, but that is a bit confusing. Could you clarify?




I meant that I'm not into reading a thread that is an introduction from a new member.  I'm not going to ask any questions to that person (as I have not asked you guys any questions in this thread).  I'd rather meet the new member as they join a thread in progress and they add to the conversation.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> Consider the possibility that on EN World, if you say what you do for a living, we will all assume that it is true unless contradictory information comes up later.



Right, but again, we're the new guys here, and we aren't familiar with those rules or have had the time to experience that. This is unfair to both sides, again. 


> For example, if you pointed out that you were a mental health professional in the woman killer her bad husband discussion, that would actually change the context of your points in that discussion from armchair quarterback to somebody who actually knows their stuff.



Okay, I'm a mental health professional. How do you feel about my comments in that thread now?



> It's our school playground.  You're the new kids.  Sadly, the outsiders got more to prove if they want to be accepted. I think Celebrim wrote some lengthy verbiage about that in the sexism thread under RPG talk.  Nobody liked his point, but I recognize that it is the way humans work.



Which as I said, it's unfair to both sides. Yeah, you've been here longer, but assuming that people will just come in an take your word at face value when you won't take their's is a bit naive. 



> Like the suggested guidelines I gave before, my advice isn't particularly great or* fair*.  It's just a means to blend in and not offend.  Being the least offensive person in the conversation seems a reasonable strategy.  That way, if there's bad behavior, it isn't on you.



That right there is a problem. If you can't be fair, you can't expect that others will be able to acclimate to the social rules you have around here. You are basically saying "These are the rules you have to follow when dealing with us. We have a different set of rules we are going to follow when dealing with you."


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Right, but again, we're the new guys here, and we aren't familiar with those rules or have had the time to experience that. This is unfair to both sides, again.




Nor did you keep your mouth shut and observe to see how things work around here and then attempt to post like the locals.  As most new people do as lurkers and then first time posters when a topic strikes their interest or they have a question they feel the community can answer.

Instead, it seems as if you came on here as if this was "the internet" and did your own thing.  EN's on the internet.  But it is NOT the internet.  I observe each forum I am interested in before I post, and I try to post to their standard or better if I can (doesn't mean I'm good at it).

Bear in mind, my thoughts on the matter aren't official, fair or well put.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Okay, I'm a mental health professional. How do you feel about my comments in that thread now?




Would you really challenge the findings of 3 professionals (apparently 3 pros reviewed her from the article I didn't read in that thread)?  Is Mental Health in such condition that quality standards among such people varies?  I really have no idea.

In a parallel case, I have advised Morrus on his current IT project when I raised some questions he didn't understand, that his developer better be able to answer them (to him), else he has a bad developer problem brewing.

It's possible such a behavior is rude, but I did couch it in qualifying terms, instead of saying a guy I didn't meet who has information I haven't seen given to him is bad.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Which as I said, it's unfair to both sides. Yeah, you've been here longer, but assuming that people will just come in an take your word at face value when you won't take their's is a bit naive.
> 
> That right there is a problem. If you can't be fair, you can't expect that others will be able to acclimate to the social rules you have around here. You are basically saying "These are the rules you have to follow when dealing with us. We have a different set of rules we are going to follow when dealing with you."




Do you want to join the secret order of secret stuff or not?  Membership is neither worth it nor not worth it.  It simply is a matter of being on the inside or outside of a house on a row of houses.  There are plenty to choose from, and you can be happy in this one, or you can choose another.  It's OK.

I've described some tricks I've learned to assimilate or blend in.  Human behavior isn't always fair, especially with regards to existing groups and newcomers.  I'm not a sociologist, but the behavior jives with what I've read.

I got no other advice.  I appreciate that Zombie recognized I was suggesting to move off the point of the woman who killed her bad husband that nobody agrees was bad or not.  And that somebody else re-newed the conversation a post later so it spun on again.  I don't think anybody was being bad, but a dead horse was continuing to suffer.

Each one of us can't control the other.  I can't make anybody follow the rules I suggested.  I'm advising that if you retain the clarity, when you spot the situation, that's when YOU can change what your doing.  On EN world, such situations aren't usually baiting or trolling.  It's more like a behavioral quirk kicks in and we get stuck debating something that we should really just gracefully back out of.  I think it is one of the keys that makes any of us argue too long or too hard, instead of listen or discuss.

So to heck with fair.  Just do the best you can to be polite, understanding and diplomatic, and let the other guy then stand out as the problem.  If he goes overboard, that'll be on him.  If he just missteps a little, well hopefully you both can avoid that trigger next time for his own sake.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 7, 2013)

Well, having read through all of these posts, I now feel as though I understand some of the recent exchanges on the forums slightly better. At the very least I now know what an OTTer is.

I have to say, I've been on these boards, and on Eric Noah's predecessor boards, for I guess about 13 years now. I post moderately regularly, though as you can see by my post count, I've certainly not burned up the boards over the decade or more that I've been here.

That said, I think that ENWorld works very well on the basis of the rules that it has, and it's moderators are very good and very respectful of the posters. In return, I've always sought to be respectful toward them. And when a Mod says something, I tend to take it seriously. When Morrus says something, I take it VERY seriously, because I value these boards and the culture they've created, and don't want to be deprived of that, either by my own behavior or someone else's.

What the moderation on these boards does well, I think is to provide a venue where people not only can talk civilly, but _expect_ to talk civilly. From way back, we have adhered to the "Eric's grandma" rule, which goes like this: "If you are planning to say something that would likely offend Eric Noah's grandmother, don't." I think that's a pretty good rule, and totally appropriate given that when the rule was established, Eric was running the site and paying the bills. Now Morrus is doing that, and the rule still stands, because again, we're guests in Morrus's house.

In over a decade of posting, I've only gotten spanked once, lightly, by a mod because of an exchange I had, and it was good for me in that it provided me an opportunity to catch my breath, step back, and let go of what by then was clearly an unproductive argument. So I did: I let it go and moved on. I don't really see the value in intentionally irritating people in a forum where that's frowned upon, when what people come here for is a bit of friendly give and take.

Upthread, someone made the point that the OTTers tease and poke just like real friends do. But of course the obvious problem is that, while we're all friendly, in many cases we're not "friends." When my friends tease me, it's based on a long-term set of relationships, a mutual knowledge of one another, and the ability to gauge what counts as "going too far." Recently a friend of long standing made a joke at my daughter's expense around the gaming table. I politely suggested that doing that wasn't cool with me, and he stopped. That's how friends deal with one another.

But here, we often don't have those relationships to fall back on, and we don't have the context to determine when a remark, intended in fun, can go astray. And in many regards that seems to be part of what's caused the "culture clash" here with the OTTers. For my part, I'm happy to welcome anyone from the WOTC boards here, who are willing to play by the rules we've all agreed to, even tacitly, by virtue of having joined the boards.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It still doesn't mean egos need to be brought here will all the drama that comes with it.




Depending on what you mean by "egos", I'm sorry, but yes, they do need to be brought here.  A person's ego is their sense of self - it is not separable from the individual, except in badly written Star Trek Episodes.

What we can ask is that people bring a modicum of self-control - bring the super-ego with the ego, please.

Mind you, that cuts both ways.  It isn't fair to say, "I'll do what I want, but you have to keep yourself under control."  It is helpful if readers keep themselves in check, and edit themselves before responding badly.  But, original authors should stop and ask the question, "Is this really appropriate to post?"  If *both* sides keep their self control, and use a little common sense in their posts, we can move along swimmingly.  But it does require both sides to keep their brains engaged.  



Here's a frequently useful technique - if you see a poster react poorly, rather than try to match them and get them to back down, apologize!  For many people around here, a sincere, "Whoops!  I didn't expect you to take it that way.  I'm sorry if I cheesed you off," can do wonders.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what others do. That seems to be the problem It makes it harder for others to acclimate to the environment if they are presented with a set of rules that aren't the ones being followed by everyone, you know what I mean?




He gives some great advice.  But do remember - nobody here is a machine.  We all - including the moderators - make a mistake now and again, or are a bit inconsistent.  That's human life, and give some allowance for it.  In the long run, it all comes out in the wash.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> *Nor did you keep your mouth shut *and observe to see how things work around here and then attempt to post like the locals.  As most new people do as lurkers and then first time posters when a topic strikes their interest or they have a question they feel the community can answer.



And we were having such nice discussion. There really is no need for that type of reaction. I think I brought up a good point. You guys have had a long time to get to know each other and we haven't had that opportunity. You guys also haven't had the time to get to know us. I would have thought that _you_ would have at least acknowledge it. I mean, you did post this:


Janx said:


> In an oppositional argument, try to acknowledge a valid point the other side makes. EN World is not debate team. There's no score. There's more honor in saying "while I still favor my position, you do raise a valid point in XYZ." Nobody's ideas or values are perfect. We all have our little hypocrisies like hating messy sandwiches but liking sloppy joes. To recognize the other side's point as significant shows that you are listening and considering new information, which on EN World is the better goal of having discussions about tricky topics.






> Instead, it seems as if you came on here as if this was "the internet" and did your own thing.  EN's on the internet.  But it is NOT the internet.  I observe each forum I am interested in before I post, and I try to post to their standard or better if I can (doesn't mean I'm good at it).
> 
> Bear in mind, my thoughts on the matter aren't official, fair or well put.



Not at all. We came here. We participated. Maybe we weren't perfect, or fit nicely into the little niche you guys would like everyone to fit into automatically, but it happens. There is a learning curve. Different sites different social norms. With as many members as ENworld has, I would expect that at least one other group has hit a couple of bumps along the way of getting used to the site. 



> Would you really challenge the findings of 3 professionals (apparently 3 pros reviewed her from the article I didn't read in that thread)?  Is Mental Health in such condition that quality standards among such people varies?  I really have no idea.



Why not? It happens in all fields. Hell, it append in the legal system all the time. You get judges that overturn the rulings of other judges all the time. Tae you car to two different mechanics. You might get one that tells you your car has one thing wrong, and the other guy will tell you it's something completely different. Same thing happens with doctors. That's why it's usually good to get a second, and sometimes third opinion. Let's not forget, even professionals make mistakes.
I've said I'm a menial health professional. Do you believe me? Did it change your opinion about my post in the other thread?



> In a parallel case, I have advised Morrus on his current IT project when I raised some questions he didn't understand, that his developer better be able to answer them (to him), else he has a bad developer problem brewing.
> 
> It's possible such a behavior is rude, but I did couch it in qualifying terms, instead of saying a guy I didn't meet who has information I haven't seen given to him is bad.



I've said I'm a menial health professional. Do you believe me? Did it change your opinion about my post in the other thread?



Do you want to join the secret order of secret stuff or not?  Membership is neither worth it nor not worth it.  It simply is a matter of being on the inside or outside of a house on a row of houses.  There are plenty to choose from, and you can be happy in this one, or you can choose another.  It's OK.



> I've described some tricks I've learned to assimilate or blend in.  Human behavior isn't always fair, especially with regards to existing groups and newcomers.  I'm not a sociologist, but the behavior jives with what I've read.
> 
> I got no other advice.  I appreciate that Zombie recognized I was suggesting to move off the point of the woman who killed her bad husband that nobody agrees was bad or not.  And that somebody else re-newed the conversation a post later so it spun on again.  I don't think anybody was being bad, but a dead horse was continuing to suffer.
> 
> Each one of us can't control the other.  I can't make anybody follow the rules I suggested.  I'm advising that if you retain the clarity, when you spot the situation, that's when YOU can change what your doing.  On EN world, such situations aren't usually baiting or trolling.  It's more like a behavioral quirk kicks in and we get stuck debating something that we should really just gracefully back out of.  I think it is one of the keys that makes any of us argue too long or too hard, instead of listen or discuss.



I don't know about that. I mean people continued to participate in the conversation for a reason. My guess is they enjoyed the conversation. It was interesting. I didn't see anything where people were going for each other, insulting each other, or being disrespectful in any way. What's wrong with them continuing the conversation as long as it stays civil, as it has?



> So to heck with fair.  Just do the best you can to be polite, understanding and diplomatic, and let the other guy then stand out as the problem.  If he goes overboard, that'll be on him.  If he just missteps a little, well hopefully you both can avoid that trigger next time for his own sake.



While your advice is good, people still need to be treated fairly. It makes it easier for everyone involved.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Depending on what you mean by "egos", I'm sorry, but yes, they do need to be brought here.  A person's ego is their sense of self - it is not separable from the individual, except in badly written Star Trek Episodes.
> 
> What we can ask is that people bring a modicum of self-control - bring the super-ego with the ego, please.



I'm not going to lecture you on this topic because Im' sure any post I make will be dismissed like last time, but seriously, you're killing me here, dude. killing me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Depending on what you mean by "egos", I'm sorry, but yes, they do need to be brought here.  A person's ego is their sense of self - it is not separable from the individual, except in badly written Star Trek Episodes.



Not what I ment. I ment self-importance.



> Here's a frequently useful technique - if you see a poster react poorly, rather than try to match them and get them to back down, apologize!  For many people around here, a sincere, "Whoops!  I didn't expect you to take it that way.  I'm sorry if I cheesed you off," can do wonders.



Interesting. What about apologizing for insinuating we were mentally challenged? It certainly would be appreciated.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Umbran said:


> He gives some great advice.  But do remember - nobody here is a machine.  We all - including the moderators - make a mistake now and again, or are a bit inconsistent.  That's human life, and give some allowance for it.  In the long run, it all comes out in the wash.



Right, and I think you guys should take that same consideration with us, or any new members.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And we were having such nice discussion. There really is no need for that type of reaction. I think I brought up a good point. You guys have had a long time to get to know each other and we haven't had that opportunity. You guys also haven't had the time to get to know us. I would have thought that _you_ would have at least acknowledge it. I mean, you did post this:




I apologize for the poor choice of words.  I am not EN's diplomat, and we all vary in the quality of our diplomacy, even in the best of us.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Not at all. We came here. We participated. Maybe we weren't perfect, or fit nicely into the little niche you guys would like everyone to fit into automatically, but it happens. There is a learning curve. Different sites different social norms. With as many members as ENworld has, I would expect that at least one other group has hit a couple of bumps along the way of getting used to the site.




We don't usually get a whole batch at once, especially ones with a specific culture and expectation to resume their old practices on the new home.

Culture shock on both sides.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Why not? It happens in all fields. Hell, it append in the legal system all the time. You get judges that overturn the rulings of other judges all the time. Tae you car to two different mechanics. You might get one that tells you your car has one thing wrong, and the other guy will tell you it's something completely different. Same thing happens with doctors. That's why it's usually good to get a second, and sometimes third opinion. Let's not forget, even professionals make mistakes.
> I've said I'm a menial health professional. Do you believe me? Did it change your opinion about my post in the other thread?
> 
> I've said I'm a menial health professional. Do you believe me? Did it change your opinion about my post in the other thread?




Sure.  You've explained here a reasonable expectation for a professional to second guess another professional's work.

You've now mentioned that you do have professional expertise in the matter, so that explains your comments as not being uninformed armchair quarterbacking (something we are ALL prone to do with every topic).

Until something comes along to contradict it, I TRUST that you are indeed some kind of mental health professional.

I don't need to see your qualifications.  It is possible that you're lying, but I'm not worried about it.  I would expect evidence to the contrary would be if you say mental health stuff that doesn't jive with industry terms or other experts on the forum.  Kind of like how in my industry, I can tell bad Project Managers because they don't keep lists and track progress against those lists (in any variety of PM methodologies, that is the root of their art).

You word is good enough for government work.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I don't know about that. I mean people continued to participate in the conversation for a reason. My guess is they enjoyed the conversation. It was interesting. I didn't see anything where people were going for each other, insulting each other, or being disrespectful in any way. What's wrong with them continuing the conversation as long as it stays civil, as it has?
> 
> While your advice is good, people still need to be treated fairly. It makes it easier for everyone involved.




In that thread, nobody's being bad (and it was an ENner who resumed it after Z and I both tried to tamp it down.  But the conversation is looping.  When it loops, as an outside observer, we can tell that nobody's changing their own opinion, so it becomes a matter of repeating oneself.  The bad threads usually incorporate this pattern, and its hard for the people inside to realize they are entering it.

An additional problem to when we hit that situation, is it devolves the conversation.  I disproved Danny's initial proposal of that story right after he posted it.  Some dialogue about it still is OK, but now, most of the thread is about that one legal case and no longer about the original topic.  On EN, that's threadjacking (and don't forget, even I kept posting about it).

There are lots of times, a little bit of side-tracking is OK.  And thread-jacking isn't a crime unto itself. It's more like an accident.  It really means a new forked topic needs to start.

A lot of these things are more like accidents.  It's more like people don't realize they're beating a dead horse, sidetracking a conversation (and thus making it harder for folks seeking to continue the OT), or getting ruder in their responses (like I messed up last post).


I am pretty certain EN worlders didn't perfectly follow the suggestions I outlined before OTT came along. But more of us seemed to aspire to do so than not.  Even those who've misstepped recently.

I know I suck at it, but I'd rather forget any of us had an argument yesterday, and simply try to post better today, and  not push somebody else's hot-buttons if I know they exist.

I don't expect to succeed at it, but I expect I will be better to work with than if I don't move past yesterday's mistakes.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Not what I ment. I ment self-importance.
> 
> Interesting. What about apologizing for insinuating we were mentally challenged? It certainly would be appreciated.




I'm sorry if I ever implied or said such a thing.

Which leads to another EN forum rule of thumb that I should follow better:

A danger zone that I've hit (and got redmarked for it) is using name calling to refer to the demographic who I think is outside of the conversation.  For example, "only jerkholes would think the original PA comic was condoning rape"

The danger I just hit, is initially, I think I'm just talking about non-EN worlders who misread PA's comic that was actually very Anti-Rape because I think they are being very bad and hurtful over a misrepresented cause.

However, as the conversation evolves and somebody takes up portions of the anti-PA argument (as PA had responded badly), now I am at risk of calling them jerkholes.  Which is against EN policy.

It can be really tricky to avoid (at least for me in my manner of writing).  Try to spot it and prevent yourself when you can, as it's just a bad habit that can get you in trouble, and certainly leads to undiplomatic speech.

Believe it or not, I would prefer that we all didn't have to carefully phrase our words and have our lawyers and editors look them over for approval before we speak.  But I also accept that we do need to put more effort more often than we actually do.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> I apologize for the poor choice of words.  I am not EN's diplomat, and we all vary in the quality of our diplomacy, even in the best of us.



No worries.


> We don't usually get a whole batch at once, especially ones with a specific culture and expectation to resume their old practices on the new home.
> 
> Culture shock on both sides.



Right, and it's not as if we expected you guys to just convert to our ways. As I aid before, there isa learning curve. We have to get used to the way you guys worked around here, as any new member has to do. All we ask is that we get that chance instead of having people automatically dump on us.


> Sure.  You've explained here a reasonable expectation for a professional to second guess another professional's work.
> 
> You've now mentioned that you do have professional expertise in the matter, so that explains your comments as not being uninformed armchair quarterbacking (something we are ALL prone to do with every topic).
> 
> ...



You know, I could also be just some guy who has had years of mental health treatment and learned enough to fake it. Some psychiatry patients are able to do a good enough job to fool even psychiatrist.


> In that thread, nobody's being bad (and it was an ENner who resumed it after Z and I both tried to tamp it down.  But the conversation is looping.  When it loops, as an outside observer, we can tell that nobody's changing their own opinion, so it becomes a matter of repeating oneself.  The bad threads usually incorporate this pattern, and its hard for the people inside to realize they are entering it.
> 
> An additional problem to when we hit that situation, is it devolves the conversation.  I disproved Danny's initial proposal of that story right after he posted it.  Some dialogue about it still is OK, but now, most of the thread is about that one legal case and no longer about the original topic.  On EN, that's threadjacking (and don't forget, even I kept posting about it).
> 
> ...



I recognized the problems with thread jacking. It is disruptive. It is annoying when it happens often. No one likes it. Still, the thread in question seems to have had a gradual shift towards that topic. Sometimes threads change topics. It's not always a bad thing.


> I am pretty certain EN worlders didn't perfectly follow the suggestions I outlined before OTT came along. But more of us seemed to aspire to do so than not.  Even those who've misstepped recently.
> 
> I know I suck at it, but I'd rather forget any of us had an argument yesterday, and simply try to post better today, and  not push somebody else's hot-buttons if I know they exist.
> 
> I don't expect to succeed at it, but I expect I will be better to work with than if I don't move past yesterday's mistakes.



We don't expect to perfectly fit in, but we do try to fit in. We have some members that have a bit more influence on other members, and they are able to corral some of our grumpy members pretty well. I suggested to Umbran that he PM those members. I'm not sure if he has, but the suggestion was given. It would be a much easier way than having people just reporting and getting angry with us. So it's not as if we aren't trying. It just requires time and a bit of a willingness from the other side to allow us to fit in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> I'm sorry if I ever implied or said such a thing.



No, that comment is in reference to a post Umbran made.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> No, that comment is in reference to a post Umbran made.




Just covering my own bases.

Personally, I'd rather realize I goofed up and issue my own apology.

Once requests for apologies start coming out, it seems to trigger new problems for the apologizer.

feeling forced to do so, denying that it is /was offensive to the other party, etc.

If I was you guys, I would rather Umbran simply chose his words better next time, than press for an apology this time.  Otherwise, it can re-open the wound as people seek to prove/disprove he did or didn't say something. ( I really don't know one way or the other and do NOT want to drag it back up).

But that's just me.  I can accept a dude back into the pack without making him do the walk of shame.  Paula Dean can go back to making food I don't eat.  As long as she stops catering dinners with black slaves, I can live with that.

I suspect this is related to the concept of "saving face".  Help each other save face.  I think we all know to be a lot more careful.

Worst case, if it happens again, try this phraseology (or make a better one, I ain't great at this either):
that statement seems like it implies I am mentally challenged. That's offensive to me. Please find another way of expressing your point.

I think some people call that "killing them with kindness".  By being so sincere and squeaky butt clean, the other party is now on the hook for improving their speech or being the jerk.  the additional side effect is that we not only haven't called them a jerk, we've left them an out to correct themselves.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> Paula Dean can go back to making food I don't eat.  As long as she stops catering dinners with black slaves,




Wow!
Care to post any proof she catered dinners with "black slaves"? Really dude, that was inflammatory as well as a lie.


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Wow!
> Care to post any proof she catered dinners with "black slaves"? Really dude, that was inflammatory as well as a lie.




It wasn't intended to be inflammatory.

I apparently erroneously assumed everybody knew her recent issues over charges of racism included catering dinners where she hired black staff and dressed them as classic black butler wait staff.

Per this article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/paula-deen-s-racist-wedding-fantasy-was-once-reality.html

Calling them black slaves may have been exagerative, and the exact incident was that she had allegedly planned, but not executed a wedding (didn't know that, learned something new).

I apologize for the mis-information.


Now for your part, was it necessary to escalate it to "that was inflammatory as well as a lie"

I believe it would have been sufficient to say, "that's not quite accurate.  That part of her recent drama was over her allegedly fantasizing about planning something like that as a wedding, but it never actually happened."

The point of correcting my information could have been delivered without such heated words or assumption of my intent (which should have been clear that I was saying Paula Deen can get back to work and the facts of her actual case were irrelevant).  I don't care if she did or did not plan a slave wedding so long as she doesn't do so now.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> It wasn't intended to be inflammatory.
> 
> I apparently erroneously assumed everybody knew her recent issues over charges of racism included catering dinners where she hired black staff and dressed them as classic black butler wait staff.
> 
> ...




Exaggerated is an understatement, but apology accepted. It seems (to me) your use of "black slaves" was intended to elicit a negative response from others, as it is clearly a lie and gross exaggeration of the issue. My "heated" response and "escalation" was a direct result of your exaggeration and gross misrepresentation of the issue. Sorry if you didn't like my response.
The truth... it hurts.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 7, 2013)

I can't help noticing that it's often pretty easy to identify OTTers in this and other threads simply by the tone of their responses. It's ... markedly different ... from what I've come to expect at ENWorld. And I have to say it doesn't seem to be having the most salubrious effect on the discourse.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

What's wrong with my "tone"?

Janx lied and overly-exaggerated the issue by using inflammatory words.

So tell me again how I am the one what's wrong in this situation?


----------



## Janx (Nov 7, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> What's wrong with my "tone"?
> 
> Janx lied and overly-exaggerated the issue by using inflammatory words.
> 
> So tell me again how I am the one what's wrong in this situation?




No, I stated information that was incorrect because I did not know the correct information.

I was misinformed and spoke inaccurately.  As my point was about moving beyond Paula Deen's mistake, the details of her mistake and thus my misinformation were irrelevant anyway.

So you missed my point, and called me a liar instead of correcting my error in information.

That's insulting.

As I can't seem to get past two posts without offending somebody, we're done here.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Interesting. What about apologizing for insinuating we were mentally challenged? It certainly would be appreciated.




Agreed.  I know it would make me feel a whole lot better about the position he holds here if he would acknowledge that in this one case he was well out of bounds.  It's not ok - to me - to have someone with the ability to censor others make comments like that towards people who he can censor.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> I can't help noticing that it's often pretty easy to identify OTTers in this and other threads simply by the tone of their responses. It's ... markedly different ... from what I've come to expect at ENWorld. And I have to say it doesn't seem to be having the most salubrious effect on the discourse.




Well, it's a two way street.  Some people here expected us to know exactly how things work here immediately and, when we showed we didn't, they treated us poorly.  Some of you, though, have been helpful, kind and willing to engage - I do not mean to imply this is a community wide deal.  Anyhoo, when people are treated poorly for reasons they do not understand it's not surprising to most to see those people react negatively.  From that moment on it doesn't take much to cause them to react negatively as many innocent things can be seen as an attack.

I'm sure that not everything you've noticed stems from this but I do believe it explains some.  I'm not trying to say this is all your fault or anything like that, I simply think we both had some unreasonable expectations.  I've admitted to mine.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Well, it's a two way street.  Some people here expected us to know exactly how things work here immediately and, when we showed we didn't, they treated us poorly.  Some of you, though, have been helpful, kind and willing to engage - I do not mean to imply this is a community wide deal.  Anyhoo, when people are treated poorly for reasons they do not understand it's not surprising to most to see those people react negatively.  From that moment on it doesn't take much to cause them to react negatively as many innocent things can be seen as an attack.
> 
> I'm sure that not everything you've noticed stems from this but I do believe it explains some.  I'm not trying to say this is all your fault or anything like that, I simply think we both had some unreasonable expectations.  I've admitted to mine.



I'm going to go with BOS (Battered OTTer Syndrome), and I've hired Dannyalcatraz as our lawyer. Any questions or comments should be directed at him.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> No, I stated information that was incorrect because I did not know the correct information.




So you are claiming that you actually believed Paula had "black slaves" working for her?
Really?
And that you were only "misinformed and inaccurate"? And cannot see how your use of "black slaves" was not inflammatory and offensive?
Really?
I _did_ correct your "error in information", and you _were_ lieing.
You said Paula used "black slaves". It is a fact that she has no slaves, black or otherwise. Therefore, what you wrote was a lie.
You missed _my_ point.

The truth- it hurts.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 7, 2013)

That's ENOUGH, Robin. He was wrong, and he admitted it. Drop it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

Janx said:


> I'm sorry if I ever implied or said such a thing.
> 
> Which leads to another EN forum rule of thumb that I should follow better:
> 
> ...



Umm... I'm not sure I get your response. Did you quote the right person? Cause I wasn't expecting an apology from you and I'm not sure what you are talking about.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Interesting. What about apologizing for insinuating we were mentally challenged? It certainly would be appreciated.




In the past, I offered to discuss that in private with anyone who wanted to.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

Oh you, always doing stuff behind closed doors.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

/Starts filming.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

*sits back and eats popcorn*


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Umbran said:


> In the past, I offered to discuss that in private with anyone who wanted to.




Fair enough.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 8, 2013)

We come off as rude and abrasive!? I always thought we were cute and cuddly.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 8, 2013)

The_Silversword said:


> We come off as rude and abrasive!? I always thought we were cute and cuddly.



Some of you do, and some of you don't.

I think the biggest mistake your group did was coming here and instantly identifying as this group that got itself kicked from the previous site. You labeled yourselves as an entity that does and thinks as a group, when you are individuals with varying opinions and personalities.

When one of you says something like "You are all accusing us of [a thing]" it's unfair to some inside your group who clearly didn't even have an opinion on the issue.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Like when some people say that EnWorlders behave differently than the rest of the internet, as if they were a group, and that some EnWorlder actually behave like the rest of the internet?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 8, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Some of you do, and some of you don't.
> 
> I think the biggest mistake your group did was coming here and instantly identifying as this group that got itself kicked from the previous site. You labeled yourselves as an entity that does and thinks as a group, when you are individuals with varying opinions and personalities.
> 
> When one of you says something like "You are all accusing us of [a thing]" it's unfair to some inside your group who clearly didn't even have an opinion on the issue.



Continuing on this:

Isn't this why some of you are here? I've seen comments from some of you where they complain that not only did they do nothing to deserve getting kicked out, they actually did nothing. They got kicked out because the people on the wotc side of things saw you as this group. I mean, that's how it seems from the way some of you have been talking.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 8, 2013)

The_Silversword said:


> We come off as rude and abrasive!? I always thought we were cute and cuddly.



_You_ are cute and cuddly. 

You're also a fan of the Forgotten Realms, which makes you an exceptionally sleek and stylish OTTer, as well as someone that I think shouldn't have been banned.

But some of your fellows fight for the sake of fighting and disingenuously cry foul when they get called on it. They also overreact to anything they perceive as a personal attack and absolutely refuse to hear any explanation as to why their perception is incorrect.

(And none of this is the fault of WotC's forum moderation.)

I hope EnWorld can discourage those traits, while encouraging the OTTers sense of humor, reckless courage and sense of community.

Also, their knowledge of comic books. I got a couple of comic book recommendations in WotC forum threads where OTTers participated (one of 'em started the thread too, if I recall) that turned out to be really, really good. 

Thanks to them I refamiliarized myself with the writing of Mark Millar (Superman: Red Son) and got acquainted with the works of Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo (Luthor).


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Like when some people say that EnWorlders behave differently than the rest of the internet, as if they were a group, and that some EnWorlder actually behave like the rest of the internet?




_If_ Enworld is different it's because we respect the rules set out by Morrus and the mods, and a culture of respect has grown up around the knowledge that the rules will be fairly enforced. That's not a function of Enworders per se, but the behavior that's expected and encouraged at Enworld.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 8, 2013)

sanishiver said:


> But some of your fellows fight for the sake of fighting and disingenuously cry foul when they get called on it.




Hi.  I was pretty much accused of doing that when I wasn't.  It seems some ENWorlders don't like to be contradicted - or aren't used to seeing certain people here contradicted.  Anyhoo, I was looked at as though I was trolling when I was actually arguing my opinion so this sort of mistake happens on both ends.  When you _assume _I'm going to do something it makes it very hard for me to prove otherwise.



> They also overreact to anything they perceive as a personal attack and absolutely refuse to hear any explanation as to why their perception is incorrect.




This is true and it's something a lot of us do have to work on.



> (And none of this is the fault of WotC's forum moderation.)




Not totally true.  It's been explained before and I'll only touch on it a tiny bit out of respect for requests to let it drop but I can assure you moderation there did have an influence on this.  Mostly because they had favorites and wouldn't respond to reports we made when said favorites actually personally attacked us.  Honest, it happened.



> I hope EnWorld can discourage those traits, while encouraging the OTTers sense of humor, reckless courage and sense of community.




This sounds like an excellent outcome to me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

> _If Enworld is different it's because we respect the rules set out by Morrus and the mods, and a culture of respect has grown up around the knowledge that the rules will be fairly enforced. That's not a function of Enworders per se, but the behavior that's expected and encouraged at Enworld._



You didn't get what I said. Jonesy's reproach applies to EnWorlders too. I find it funny when people say "do as I say, but not as I do".


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 9, 2013)

sanishiver said:


> _You_ are cute and cuddly.
> 
> You're also a fan of the Forgotten Realms, which makes you an exceptionally sleek and stylish OTTer, as well as someone that I think shouldn't have been banned.




How, how do you know Im a fan of the Realms!? Oh, I see, youve hung out in the Tavern before. What name did you go by over there?

And yes,we do have a tendency to over-react to perceived attacks, alot of that has to do with experiences over at the WotC site. We'll try to chill on that (right guys?). For the most part everyone here, from my experience, is pretty kool.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 9, 2013)

You would have known me as Mr_Miscellany on those forums. 

I think you'll really enjoy ENWorld. It's a place I've quietly enjoyed for a decade.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 9, 2013)

Oh hey Mr M, I never would have guessed. Some of the others thought for sure that you was the dreaded Thread Reporter, I tried to tell them that thats not the way you rolled. I think it something to do with you being "friends" with Timmeh, a poster we had lots of problems with. I think part of the over-all problem with the OTTers is that we kid around (insult) with each other all the time, and we pretty much treat everyone else as if they were OTTers, some people, like Timmeh, were extremely put off by this, but really it was just our way of saying welcome to the Tavern, not too many people seemed to understand that.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 10, 2013)

The_Silversword said:


> Some of the others thought for sure that you was the dreaded Thread Reporter, I tried to tell them that that's not the way you rolled.



  That was very nice of you.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 11, 2013)

sanishiver said:


> That was very nice of you.



Don't get too excited. Silversword is a notorious drunk.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 11, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Not totally true. It's been explained before and I'll only touch on it a tiny bit out of respect for requests to let it drop but I can assure you moderation there did have an influence on this. Mostly because they had favorites and wouldn't respond to reports we made when said favorites actually personally attacked us. Honest, it happened.



I noticed that my reports where not actually being transmitted to customer service do to an error that they couldn't nail down. If anyone didn't get an e-mail confirming a report, it didn't go though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 11, 2013)

calronmoonflower said:


> I noticed that my reports where not actually being transmitted to customer service do to an error that they couldn't nail down. If anyone didn't get an e-mail confirming a report, it didn't go though.



Yup, several people had that problem. When I brought it up to CS, they said that the reports did go through even if it didn't generate an email for you. When I asked them to look at my last report, they couldn't find it. Their response was "send it again."


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 11, 2013)

Well I personally tried my last report attempt on two different browsers and neither went though according to customer service. I also could not report by the customer service site because it keep saying a necessary field, that didn't exist, was not filled in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 11, 2013)

calronmoonflower said:


> Well I personally tried my last report attempt on two different browsers and neither went though according to customer service. I also could not report by the customer service site because it keep saying a necessary field, that didn't exist, was not filled in.



I tried all the same things, and I told them so. They still assured me the report had gone through until they tried to find the report and couldn't. They had no idea what was wrong or how to fix it, but their response was still the same: "Try it again."

They were retarded.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 11, 2013)

Now, now. Such language is not proper. They affirmed that my reports did not go though.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 11, 2013)

So you 2 were thread reporters!? Or atleast tried being thread reporters? for shame!


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 11, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Don't get too excited. Silversword is a notorious drunk.



I only drink on weekdays, and every other weekends.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 11, 2013)

The_Silversword said:


> I only drink on weekdays, and every other weekends.



I think you're low balling the number of times you drink.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 11, 2013)

The_Silversword said:


> I only drink on weekdays, and every other weekends.



Which also happens to be when you get your best work done.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 11, 2013)

Since when is playing Need for Speed work?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 11, 2013)

Staying awake is a lot of work.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hello all!
> 
> Recently a discussion I had with a member got me thinking about a few things.  You see, I'm an OTTer and there's more people like me running around here, too.  Apparently we've rubbed some folks the wrong way and I think that may be due to some simple misunderstanding.  We were so used to talking to each other and others where we previously posted that we popped in here not thinking about our ... unique approach to civil internet discourse.  Many of us had quite a few posts (I had over 35k, for example) and didn't really stop to think about the fact that very few people here had seen _any _of them.  And since we can come off as sort of ... abrasive even though that's not the intent, well, maybe it's a decent idea to give any interested Enworlders the opportunity to ask any questions about us they may have.  So here's a thread for that if there's anyone interested.  If not, meh.



I don't really have a question (well, except for what does "OTTer" stand for), but a few comments.

1) I've skimmed the later part of this thread, and by and large new posters have come across much better and calmer than I've seen in other threads.  So, good job.
2) I don't know if I've got much advice, other than don't get personal.  I understand how hard that is.  I've been there, and it's taken me decades to learn that online feuds stress me out.  I'm cranky, I can't sleep, and life generally sucks. You will discover that many of us are the same person offline as online.  I don't keep a separate persona for the internet. 
3) We're all human.  Forgive.  Forget, if possible.
4) Don't carry or act out grudges.
5) Unlike other sites, the mods here are part of the community, not above it.  They engage in conversations without being mods - this is why they have modtext.
6) Related to that, Morrus is in charge. Accept it and move on.

7) Welcome.


----------



## Jet Shield (Nov 12, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I don't really have a question (well, except for what does "OTTer" stand for)



OTTer = Off-Topic Tavern-er

We were all regulars in the Off-Topic Tavern on the wotc boards. Many of us also posted elsewhere, but the tavern is where we went to relax and hang out. The otter actually represents us fairly well. We tend to be curious, playful, and a bit mischievous. Like all wild animals, we can seem unpredictable to those not familiar with our natural behavior.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 12, 2013)

Jet Shield said:


> OTTer = Off-Topic Tavern-er
> 
> We were all regulars in the Off-Topic Tavern on the wotc boards. Many of us also posted elsewhere, but the tavern is where we went to relax and hang out. The otter actually represents us fairly well. We tend to be curious, playful, and a bit mischievous. Like all wild animals, we can seem unpredictable to those not familiar with our natural behavior.




Has anyone upthread pointed out Circvs Maximvs?  I'm no longer anything close to regular there, but it's...well, it's not EN World's dark mirror, but a fraternal twin? With dark hair and a widow's peak and a poisoned dagger?

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/

Edit: Honestly, I'm a bit mixed about pointing it out.  It's less of an "Off-Topic Tavern" and more of an assassin's guild. Tread gently.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 12, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> Has anyone upthread pointed out Circvs Maximvs?  I'm no longer anything close to regular there, but it's...well, it's not EN World's dark mirror, but a fraternal twin? With dark hair and a widow's peak and a poisoned dagger?
> 
> http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/
> 
> Edit: Honestly, I'm a bit mixed about pointing it out.  It's less of an "Off-Topic Tavern" and more of an assassin's guild. Tread gently.




Several people have pointed it out but not in this thread as far as I know


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I don't really have a question (well, except for what does "OTTer" stand for), but a few comments.




I explained it somewhere but Jet covered it nicely.



> 1) I've skimmed the later part of this thread, and by and large new posters have come across much better and calmer than I've seen in other threads.  So, good job.




Thanks.



> 2) I don't know if I've got much advice, other than don't get personal.  I understand how hard that is.  I've been there, and it's taken me decades to learn that online feuds stress me out.  I'm cranky, I can't sleep, and life generally sucks. You will discover that many of us are the same person offline as online.  I don't keep a separate persona for the internet.




I would say that most of us are pretty much the same online and off, too.  Yeah, we're weirdos and we like to joke around.



> 3) We're all human.  Forgive.  Forget, if possible.




Yup.



> 4) Don't carry or act out grudges.




My Rule Number 1.  In certain specific cases I do admit to having some trouble with this, though.  Aside from a handful of people that really struck me the wrong way, well, this is easy for me.



> 5) Unlike other sites, the mods here are part of the community, not above it.  They engage in conversations without being mods - this is why they have modtext.




I've my own concerns with that.  Luckily the mods here actually respond to PMs so I'm learning a bit more about how this is _supposed _to work.



> 6) Related to that, Morrus is in charge. Accept it and move on.




I have no problems with Morrus whatsoever.  He seems like a pretty good dood to me.



> 7) Welcome.




Thanks!


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 13, 2013)

I don't have questions, I'd rather let your posts speak for themselves. I'll be frank:
When you arrived here, I was already a bit wary, thinking 'Oh, dear, a bunch of posters that got kicked from the WotC forums? Please stay away!'. Now that you've been around for a while I've started to recognize (most? of) your names and simply avoid any thread started by one of you. I somewhat resent the number of 'useless' threads in the Geek-Talk forum, but I'm getting used to it. I think I've also put one or two of you 'OOTer's' on ignore because of repeatedly inane comments. I suppose I'd be happier if you moved on to harass a different forum.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 13, 2013)

Hey thanks for being civil Jhaelen! We appreciate that! That's the sort of "civil" we've came to expect around here! But better yet, thanks for proving a point some of us have made!
Perhaps you should have continued to avoid threads started by us, that way you could have not posted in this one, or any of the other "useless" threads we have started. And you wouldn't have had to see any of our "inane comments". Sorry you think we are harassing your forum... perhaps you should simply continue to ignore us, or us the report function, instead of baiting and trolling us like you are doing in your post above.
But I get it. You are a "regular" so you are allowed to act that way with no repercussions.
Yeah, we are starting to get the feel of how thinks work around here.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 13, 2013)

I guess it depends on what you mean by useless threads. Some threads are just for fun, sure. I dont think that makes them useless though. If someone thinks a topic is interesting/funny enough to share with everyone else, I see no point in belittling them about it just cause you may think its 'useless'. Anyways, from what ive seen, EnWorld already had plenty of 'useless' threads before we showed up.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 13, 2013)

Damnit, ninja'd by Robin, now it looks like my comments were meant for him, I guess thats what  I get for not using the 'quote' button.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 13, 2013)

Don't worry about it silver.
Jhaelen is simply bitter and needs to bait and troll us in order to feel better.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 13, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Don't worry about it silver.
> Jhaelen is simply bitter and needs to bait and troll us in order to feel better.



Well, there is a fair number of us, and we did sort of just show up and make ourselves at home, so I can understand some people getting a little miffed by that. I just want everyone to know that we're not actually as bad as we make ourselves out to be.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 13, 2013)

And might I suggest, Robin, that your original reply to Jhaelen, while more strongly worded than I'd like, was more than adequate to make your point, and the next one was really just piling on. Once you've made your point, there's not a lot of reason to keep coming back to the well.


----------



## RevTurkey (Nov 13, 2013)

Hello OTTers 

17 pages arguing/discussing arguing/discussing....impressive.

Right the OP is about asking questions so....

What D&D stuff do you lot play? Are you all into 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e or a mix?

Do you game together in real life?

with regard to the mudslinging and issues with mods and stuff...

To allow yourselves complete freedom to discuss what you like and how you like have you not considered starting up your own forum? Seems like a win win to me...you get to play around in a style you are comfortable with without 'regulars' getting the hump with your different approach?

I don't really have much of an opinion about any of this, just having a peep at the current big topics on the site whilst bored. Coming from a totally ignorant position the only thing I would add if you want to gain better acceptance on these forums (as seems to be the point of the olive branch style OP) it might be a good idea to avoid certain language...I found the repeated use of the word Rape by Goldomark in particular to be in poor taste. I am NOT trying to start an argument about it though...just an observation, take it or leave it


----------



## Morrus (Nov 13, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> perhaps you should simply continue to ignore us, or us the report function, instead of baiting and trolling us like you are doing in your post above.




While he may have been impolitic in his post, perhaps you should take your own advice and ignore him or use the report function instead of calling him a troll? Your regular outraged martyr act is generally far worse than anything you're responding to; please knock it off. 



> But I get it. You are a "regular" so you are allowed to act that way with no repercussions.
> Yeah, we are starting to get the feel of how thinks work around here.




See above.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 13, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> Hello OTTers
> 
> 17 pages arguing/discussing arguing/discussing....impressive.
> 
> ...




I cant speak for everybody, but I personally play D&D, various editions, depending on who's DMing. I ussually run 4e when its my turn. Used to play all sorts of stuff, World of Darkness, Rifts, Chill, just to name a few, just dont have the time for it like I used to, kids and a job and all that. So pretty much been stickin with the D&D, although the 3.5/Pathfinder guy I play with has been talking about getting a Star Wars game goin, He's checked out the latest system and seems to really like it, so we'll see what happens. 

And no, none of us has ever gamed together in real life as far as I know, but we've been talking about having an OTTer get together for a few years now.

We have talked about just making our own forum, but we decided it would get pretty boring just talking amongst ourselves, we need other people to argue with damnit!!

And yes we all need to work better at getting along, and when I say "we all" I dont just mean OTTers.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 13, 2013)

I remember playing Chill when I was a kid, the older edition, not Mayfair. They actually recently re-released that old edition again, filed off the serial numbers and gave it a new name. I've got it in my PDF folder somewhere. Now I need a chance to play it!


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> While he may have been impolitic in his post, perhaps you should take your own advice and ignore him or use the report function instead of calling him a troll? Your regular outraged martyr act is generally far worse than anything you're responding to; please knock it off.
> 
> See above.





I sent you a PM about this issue.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 13, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> I remember playing Chill when I was a kid, the older edition, not Mayfair. They actually recently re-released that old edition again, filed off the serial numbers and gave it a new name. I've got it in my PDF folder somewhere. Now I need a chance to play it!




Hell yeah, Chill was pretty fun, we played the old Pacesetter version as well, I still got a few of those books layin around here somewheres. Ive never checked out the Mayfair version, but kool that theyre putting out the originals again, I may have to check that out. The guy that used to run it was really into all the old black & white dracula and frakenstein movies so we had a lot of fun with it.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 13, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> And might I suggest, Robin, that your original reply to Jhaelen, while more strongly worded than I'd like, was more than adequate to make your point, and the next one was really just piling on. Once you've made your point, there's not a lot of reason to keep coming back to the well.



You can suggest anything you like.... it's just a suggestion.
Sorry it was more strongly worded than _you_ like, but I liked it just fine.
And more than adequate is better than simply adequate, IMO. I like to excel.


----------



## RevTurkey (Nov 13, 2013)

I played Chill once I think. I think the rerelease is Cryptworld but I don't know much about it or the original. I love old Hammer horror films...is Chill a good game for that type of stuff?

EDIT: sort of answered above before I posted


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 13, 2013)

_Stuff removed because purpose served, ephemeral as that was. Leaving stuff below up because it makes me sounds old codger._

For the record, I've been here long enough that the 2001 version of Eric Noah's site Morrus posted on the front page the other day looks newfangled and I wish they'd go back to the old style, and I haven't noticed a significant uptick from the normal 98.9%* useless threads.  I have had to use the ignore button, which is annoying because I don't recall ever using it before, and I hate learning new things.  I unignored them two days later.

Edit: more posts, and Morrus said something.  I'll leave this up for now.
Edit Edit: No I won't. Flamingo.  I need sleep.

*All statistics verified by the internet and/or a vole outside my house.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 13, 2013)

See, there is a point, Robin, where you just come off like a troll. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. But if it makes you happy, then fine: All of Robin's comments are always right, any facts to the contrary notwithstanding. And anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong.

There, now you don't ever have to keep flogging a disagreement with someone ever again.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 13, 2013)

The new version of the old _Chill_ game is called _Cryptworld_. It uses all of the old mechanics, and even the art is reminiscent of the old game. Like I said, I need to find a chance to play it!


----------



## Morrus (Nov 13, 2013)

Guys, please do not respond to Robin's or Jhaelen's posts above. Thanks.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 13, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> All of Robin's comments are always right, any facts to the contrary notwithstanding. And anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong.



Now we are getting somewhere!
Why it took you this long to figure that out is beyond me!
Now, spread the word.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Nov 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Guys, please do not respond to Robin's or Jhaelen's posts above. Thanks.




Yeah sorry Morrus. Just got annoyed.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Guys, please do not respond to Robin's or Jhaelen's posts above. Thanks.



Sorry.  I started my response, but had to wander off in the middle of it, and didn't realize you'd come in until after I wrapped it up and posted.
Edit: I've edited my response, and edited my response about my response, which is this response, as well as edited my edit comment on my response. Also, I am wicked tired, and this is too funny to me right now.



Bird.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> I don't have questions, I'd rather let your posts speak for themselves. I'll be frank:
> When you arrived here, I was already a bit wary, thinking 'Oh, dear, a bunch of posters that got kicked from the WotC forums? Please stay away!'. Now that you've been around for a while I've started to recognize (most? of) your names and simply avoid any thread started by one of you. I somewhat resent the number of 'useless' threads in the Geek-Talk forum, but I'm getting used to it. I think I've also put one or two of you 'OOTer's' on ignore because of repeatedly inane comments. I suppose I'd be happier if you moved on to harass a different forum.




Hi there and thanks for posting.  I'd like to address a couple of things - if I may:

I'd appreciate a definition from you for 'useless threads'.  I find that something I don't understand in the least.  This is a message board that's here for the purpose of discussion.  Any thread posted fits that use, does it not?  If not, why not?

I'd also appreciate a description of 'inane comments'.  I'd like to understand where your problem is.

One final thought: I can assure you we're not hear to harass anyone.  If we were, you'd know.  Or not.  Believe me, though, we're just looking for a place to talk.  Some of you seem to get that and respect it.  Others ... notsomuch.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hi there and thanks for posting.  I'd like to address a couple of things - if I may:
> 
> I'd appreciate a definition from you for 'useless threads'.  I find that something I don't understand in the least.  This is a message board that's here for the purpose of discussion.  Any thread posted fits that use, does it not?  If not, why not?
> 
> ...




Please don't reply to Jhaelen's or Robin's post.  Both are/have been dealt with by mods.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> Hello OTTers
> 
> 17 pages arguing/discussing arguing/discussing....impressive.




Thanks!



> Right the OP is about asking questions so....




Thanks even more!  



> What D&D stuff do you lot play? Are you all into 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e or a mix?




Personally I've played 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, Shadowrun and Battletech ... along with some original box Talisman.  Currently I'm enjoying Pathfinder in a Homebrewed setting very, very much.

OTTers love to argue about which version of D&D is 'real' D&D and we give each other a lot of crap about it.  Silver and bone are both 4e fans and they eat a lot for it.  'Course they give us a lot back in return, too.  It's all in good fun, you see.  We purposefully exaggerate and make it a game.  We don't do that in public forums, though, because edition warring is typically a no-no.  That's why you haven't seen it yet and shouldn't ... though I must admit it was tempting to go after silver a little.  



> Do you game together in real life?




Nope.  We live all over the country/world (though our global profile has shrunk some) and prefer different games and styles so it's not like we'd even Skype or whatever.  Just not how we roll.  We _have_, though, played a forum game that piggles invented.  He made up some rules and it was super RP heavy.  We played it in the OTT and it was called The Edition Wars.  And no, it wasn't us arguing like I mention above, it was a few states, basically, that were the editions and they were at war.  We RPd members of those nations and played out storylines and stuff.  It was awesome.  He's too damned lazy (or busy with college or whatever) to run it again, though.  



> with regard to the mudslinging and issues with mods and stuff...
> 
> To allow yourselves complete freedom to discuss what you like and how you like have you not considered starting up your own forum? Seems like a win win to me...you get to play around in a style you are comfortable with without 'regulars' getting the hump with your different approach?




Welp if ya do that ya can't get any new blood.  People always thought of the OTTers as a clique and we're not.  We want more members - we like to meet new people and argue with them.  We want as diverse a group of opinions as possible.  If we isolate, well, we can't get that.  In reality we're best served in a place like this because we can find new friends.  It's easy to be an OTTer - just be one.  

For the record, we keep our most out there stuff private.  



> I don't really have much of an opinion about any of this, just having a peep at the current big topics on the site whilst bored. Coming from a totally ignorant position the only thing I would add if you want to gain better acceptance on these forums (as seems to be the point of the olive branch style OP) it might be a good idea to avoid certain language...I found the repeated use of the word Rape by Goldomark in particular to be in poor taste. I am NOT trying to start an argument about it though...just an observation, take it or leave it




Hey, I appreciate your stopping by and talking.  Hell, it's what we're here for


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Please don't reply to Jhaelen's or Robin's post.  Both are/have been dealt with by mods.




Sorry about that, bro.  I saw it and responded before moving on to the next page and seeing your red text.  I assumed since the content didn't seem altered that it was cool to respond.  Getting used to the rules is all.  Again, sorry - I really didn't see your request before I posted.


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Nov 14, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> Hello OTTers
> 
> 17 pages arguing/discussing arguing/discussing....impressive.
> 
> ...



Well, that's how we roll. I generally stay out of it unless it's a topic which I'm fairly knowledgeable on and have a firm opinion, but it often is the case nonetheless. I play 3.5, myself, along with some of FFG's RPGs.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 15, 2013)

Ragnar_Lodbrok said:


> along with some of FFG's RPGs.



I didn't know you were into FFG's stuff. Have you tried their Star Wars RPG?


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Nov 15, 2013)

No, I've only bothered with their 40k stuff. Of those, Black Crusade is probably my favorite, but I'd love to find a group for Dark Heresy; there are a few character concepts that best fit that game that I'd like to get out of my system.


----------



## RevTurkey (Nov 15, 2013)

I tried running FFG Star Wars but just got dice blind reading those new fangled things. Otherwise looked cool.

Had a quick go at 40k DH and enjoyed it but one of the other players didn't and that was the end of that! Boooo 

As to D&D, I like every edition...each has it's merits....but 1e is still my fave despite some of the mechanics being nuts.


----------



## bone_naga (Nov 15, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> I tried running FFG Star Wars but just got dice blind reading those new fangled things. Otherwise looked cool.



I was put off a little at first by the dice (it just seemed a bit gimmicky for an RPG) but after trying it I think it worked really well, although I have to keep looking at a chart to remember what each symbol means.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 9, 2013)

*Moderator note: Please don't insult other users, sabrinathecat.
-Darkness*

So, I have a question.
Based on the behavior of an otter in another thread, it seems to be the intent of his arguing is just to argue, with no effort at logic or consistency. In short, it's like arguing with a 4yo. "NO, I didn't eat any of those cookies. They taste bad." Frequently self-contradictory, and blatantly misreading and distorting the wording of replies. I cannot imagine what sort of person could derive any entertainment from that style of interaction. I can only guess some stoner teenager or bored-off-his-ass college kid.
Where is the point of such behavior?
It is being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
why?
seriously, why?
Honestly, he might as well have his name officially and legally changed to "Eric Cartman."
It's the sort of thing that makes me want to go through this thread and add everyone who posted here onto my ignore list.
Maybe we can get an "Otter Flag" so that everyone knows that there is no point in trying to use logic or reason while talking to ____.
Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote.
"Do not argue with idiots, for they will drag you down to their level, and beat you down with experience."

Can you explain this?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 9, 2013)

Wow. So many insults because I diagree with you. Wow. I... I do not know what to say.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 9, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:
			
		

> Based on the behavior of an otter in another thread, it seems to be the intent of his arguing is just to argue, with no effort at logic or consistency.



There are a few, (2-3 -- we can probably all name them), who do seem to argue just to argue. They contridict their arguments and/or positions and/or styles between different threads against different posters. They will antagonize one poster just to keep an argument going. I won't assume reasons or cast aspersions at them, but I have put them on my ignore list, and that removes the static from my reception. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

[Redacted]



Note: Apparently just posting [redacted] is too short of a post here, so I had to add this note... deep.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 9, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Can you explain this?




I believe that we're not supposed to respond to warned posts so I can't really get into the meat of your query.  Can you try it again but in a different tone?  We can probably get you an answer if you post something we're permitted to respond to.  Thanks!

-ZB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I believe that we're not supposed to respond to warned posts so I can't really get into the meat of your query.  Can you try it again but in a different tone?  We can probably get you an answer if you post something we're permitted to respond to.  Thanks!
> 
> -ZB



I did not see the red text when I posted, but in any case, I'll just retract my post.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I believe that we're not supposed to respond to warned posts ...




If you can keep it civil, then there's no problem.  If, however, you respond in kind, or with baiting language, there's apt to be a problem.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If you can keep it civil, then there's no problem.  If, however, you respond in kind, or with baiting language, there's apt to be a problem.




Cool, thanks for the clarification!


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 9, 2013)

That was civil. Believe me. That was civil. I didn't name names or anything. Sure, someone could figure it out easily enough, but no names were named. If someone identifies himself as the origin of my comments, that's on him, isn't it?

Rephrasing? fine.

How does someone derive pleasure from arguing for the sake of arguing, when they are deliberately contradicting themselves and then belittling others for being illogical? What is the point? How is that entertaining? How is that anything but a waste of everyone's time?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> That was civil. Believe me. That was civil. I didn't name names or anything. Sure, someone could figure it out easily enough, but no names were named. If someone identifies himself as the origin of my comments, that's on him, isn't it?



 I'm not looking to argue with your, but calling someone adick, saying that arguing with them is like arguing with a for year old, saying there should be an"OTTer flag" So that people can ignore others, among the other colorful comments you made, is not being "civil."



> Rephrasing? fine.
> 
> How does someone derive pleasure from arguing for the sake of arguing, when they are deliberately contradicting themselves and then belittling others for being illogical? What is the point? How is that entertaining? How is that anything but a waste of everyone's time?



I'd be willing to explain behavior to your, and why some fund certain things reinforcing while others don't, but at the moment you still seem to be having an emotional response. If you'd like, your can pm me, and later on I'll explain it to you.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 9, 2013)

It could be that I am mistaken, and it is just one or two people giving the Otters a bad name. That is why I came here for clarification.
I prefer to be direct, and occasionally blunt.
Given the nature of the internet and bulletin boards, it leaves less room for misinterpretation.

I hold many opinions that are not popular, and will argue them. I do so because that is what I actually believe.
I do not understand people who choose to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

My question has been answered, more or less.
Please accept my apologies, for those of you who were offended for my undeserved comments.
The ignore function is a wonderful tool, and I shall simply use it on those who have shown themselves worthy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 9, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I hold many opinions that are not popular, and will argue them. I do so because that is what I actually believe.
> I do not understand people who choose to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.



I your opinion. What is supposed to be contradictory?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> It could be that I am mistaken, and it is just one or two people giving the Otters a bad name. That is why I came here for clarification.
> I prefer to be direct, and occasionally blunt.
> Given the nature of the internet and bulletin boards, it leaves less room for misinterpretation.



Being blunt does not require that you insult others. I could be blunt and tell you that you are a rude person, or I can be uncivil and just call you a dick, like you did before. There is no need to be insulting.


> I hold many opinions that are not popular, and will argue them. I do so because that is what I actually believe.
> I do not understand people who choose to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.



I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but your opinion is just your opinion. You may hold opinions that aren't popular, and you may argue those opinions vehemently, but guess what? Others have opinions that they will argue just as intensely as you. Their opinions may not align with yours. In fact, they may completely oppose yours. They have as much right to their opinions, and to defend them as you do.



> My question has been answered, more or less.
> Please accept my apologies, for those of you who were offended for my undeserved comments.
> The ignore function is a wonderful tool, and I shall simply use it on those who have shown themselves worthy.



I don't use the ignore function. It's pretty meaningless and you end up missing out on a lot of good stuff. You might disagree with someone one day, and find that they have posted some good articles or links, or whatever, the next.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I don't use the ignore function. It's pretty meaningless and you end up missing out on a lot of good stuff.



As you just said, that's your opinion.  Sabrinacat has a different one. They're both fine.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
			
		

> I don't use the ignore function. It's pretty meaningless and you end up missing out on a lot of good stuff. You might disagree with someone one day, and find that they have posted some good articles or links, or whatever, the next.



The Ignore function is not for just cutting out people who disagree with you. It's for cutting out people whom you feel add nothing but negative tones to the forum. There are and have been people throughout ENWorld's history, (not just a couple of recent OTTers), who do nothing but argue and antagonize everyone or one person, (sometimes rotating between people). Everyone knows the type, so I shouldn't need to explain it. Often such people get kicked out/banned, but sometimes they manage to walk the fine line, or maybe they just annoy the crap out of you/me/few people. The Ignore function gives you/me/few people the ability to just shut off their noise so it doesn't annoy you. I don't put someone on my Ignore list until/unless they have proven themselves to be one of those with no redeeming quality for discussions. It's a judgement call for each individual person.

For me, so far, every once in a while I see one of my Ignored people quoted in someone else's post. When I see that Ignored person's comments, it usually confirms my decision to use the Ignore list.

Bullgrit


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> As you just said, that's your opinion.  Sabrinacat has a different one. They're both fine.



Well in that case, I'm putting you both on my ignore list, so I won't face any opposing opinions to my own.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> The Ignore function is not for just cutting out people who disagree with you. It's for cutting out people whom you feel add nothing but negative tones to the forum. There are and have been people throughout ENWorld's history, (not just a couple of recent OTTers), who do nothing but argue and antagonize everyone or one person, (sometimes rotating between people). Everyone knows the type, so I shouldn't need to explain it. Often such people get kicked out/banned, but sometimes they manage to walk the fine line, or maybe they just annoy the crap out of you/me/few people. The Ignore function gives you/me/few people the ability to just shut off their noise so it doesn't annoy you. I don't put someone on my Ignore list until/unless they have proven themselves to be one of those with no redeeming quality for discussions. It's a judgement call for each individual person.
> 
> For me, so far, every once in a while I see one of my Ignored people quoted in someone else's post. When I see that Ignored person's comments, it usually confirms my decision to use the Ignore list.
> 
> Bullgrit



You make me want to put the mods on ignore to see what would happen.


----------



## Darkness (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You make me want to put the mods on ignore to see what would happen.



I always used to think there couldn't be too many mods left in this world, but this may have changed in recent years:







			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In 2010, the mod-influenced band Missing Andy saw their debut single, "The Way We're Made (Made In England)", reach number 38 on the UK Singles Chart and number 7 on the UK Indie Chart


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 9, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> That was civil. Believe me. That was civil. I didn't name names or anything. Sure, someone could figure it out easily enough, but no names were named. If someone identifies himself as the origin of my comments, that's on him, isn't it?
> 
> Rephrasing? fine.
> 
> How does someone derive pleasure from arguing for the sake of arguing, when they are deliberately contradicting themselves and then belittling others for being illogical? What is the point? How is that entertaining? How is that anything but a waste of everyone's time?




Just a small note: Responding in kind knocks you right off the higher ground.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Darkness said:


> I always used to think there couldn't be too many mods left in this world, but this may have changed in recent years:



Exactly!
We should all put all mods on ignore!


----------



## Lindeloef (Dec 9, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You make me want to put the mods on ignore to see what would happen.




Doesn't work. I tried out of curiosity. Also you cannot ignore yourself.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 9, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> Doesn't work. I tried out of curiosity. Also you cannot ignore yourself.



Damn you Morrus!!!
I'm putting Morrus on ignore.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 10, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> Also you cannot ignore yourself.



Now that would have been a func concept 
I find myself putting people on ignore whenever their posts tick me off on a regular basis, making me want to respond in kind.
Sometimes, their posts even contain interesting insights, but they're written in a way that prevents me from concentrating on the content, so it's a wasted effort.

It's extremely rare for me to remove someone from the ignore list, and when I do, it's usually years after putting them there.
The main reason why it's rare is that they've often either been banned in the meantime or moved on to pester other forums that were more accomodating of them.

I generally believe, that if you cannot keep it civil, don't post.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Why become emotional and upset over something as unimportant as post on the internet?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why become emotional and upset over something as unimportant as post on the internet?




Words have power.  They always have and they always will. The internet is just a communication tool; the medium is irrelevant.  That question is the same as "Why become emotional and upset over words, a speech, a letter, a phone call, something someone says to you?"  The answer to the question is that it would require a sociopath to _not_ ever become upset at the words of others.  I wouldn't want to be that person (then again, if I was that person, I guess that by definition I wouldn't care).


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

A sociopath? Come on. This is just the internet. It is full of stranger who say all sort of things, it is easy to take an emotional distance from what people say.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Words have power.  They always have and they always will. The internet is just a communication tool; the medium is irrelevant.  That question is the same as "Why become emotional and upset over words, a speech, a letter, a phone call, something someone says to you?"  The answer to the question is that it would require a sociopath to _not_ ever become upset at the words of others.  I wouldn't want to be that person (then again, if I was that person, I guess that by definition I wouldn't care).




I'm beginning to think this may be my favorite thing ever ... context.  You need to know where you are and react accordingly.  Proper expectations go a long way toward enhancing an experience or, at the least, maintaining a healthy blood pressure.  For example, if people want to drunkenly scream at a movie screen, I'll probably get pissed off.  If, however, they want to drunkenly scream at a TV screen in a sports bar, well, I'll probably join in.  The internet, where discussions happen, is not a happy, sane, rational, sensical, calm sort of place.  People are anonymous for the most part and that makes acting that way incredibly easy.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that if you expect it it's a lot easier to deal with.  On the internet nothing is sacred.  Luckily, most things are also totally not serious.


----------



## Lindeloef (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm beginning to think this may be my favorite thing ever ... context.  You need to know where you are and react accordingly.  Proper expectations go a long way toward enhancing an experience or, at the least, maintaining a healthy blood pressure.  For example, if people want to drunkenly scream at a movie screen, I'll probably get pissed off.  If, however, they want to drunkenly scream at a TV screen in a sports bar, well, I'll probably join in.  The internet, where discussions happen, is not a happy, sane, rational, sensical, calm sort of place.  People are anonymous for the most part and that makes acting that way incredibly easy.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that if you expect it it's a lot easier to deal with.  On the internet nothing is sacred.  Luckily, most things are also totally not serious.




And I think this is maybe the issues some of the EnWorlders have with some of the OTTers.
Morrus and his Mod Team kinda managed to make this forum without most of the baggage the internet comes with (the not happy, sane etc. part of your post).

and now for the obligatory Movie reference:
OTTer: this is the internet!
EnWorlder: NO THIS. IS. ENWORLD!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The internet, where discussions happen, is not a happy, sane, rational, sensical, calm sort of place.




And that's not an inaccurate generalization, as far as it goes.  But, it is a generalization, and generalizations often fail when dealing with specific instances.

I mean, 70% of the Earth is covered by water.  As a generalization, "the Earth is covered with water" is pretty accurate.  However, many of the important bits we care about are decidedly dry.

As Lindeleof has already pointed out, this isn't "the internet" in general.  This is EN World, in specific.  We've put in a lot of effort to make this place at least a little different from the rest of the Internet.  We have rather more discussion of RPGs, rather fewer cat videos, and a few other differences in what's seen as acceptable behavior.  This has led to a rather different expectation among most of the users.  And that's okay.  We *want* them to expect better of people in here - that becomes part of self-policing.

It also means that, "Well, this is the internet, so I can do what I want," will sometimes fail here.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm beginning to think this may be my favorite thing ever ... context.  You need to know where you are and react accordingly.  Proper expectations go a long way toward enhancing an experience or, at the least, maintaining a healthy blood pressure.  For example, if people want to drunkenly scream at a movie screen, I'll probably get pissed off.  If, however, they want to drunkenly scream at a TV screen in a sports bar, well, I'll probably join in.  The internet, where discussions happen, is not a happy, sane, rational, sensical, calm sort of place.  People are anonymous for the most part and that makes acting that way incredibly easy.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that if you expect it it's a lot easier to deal with.  On the internet nothing is sacred.  Luckily, most things are also totally not serious.




Except that you're defining "the internet" as a place. It's just a medium. A collection of lots if different places with different behavioural norms - just like the real world is.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> And I think this is maybe the issues some of the EnWorlders have with some of the OTTers.
> Morrus and his Mod Team kinda managed to make this forum without most of the baggage the internet comes with (the not happy, sane etc. part of your post).
> 
> and now for the obligatory Movie reference:
> ...




You're still on the net and membership is wide open.  People will and, I presume, do, come here that don't really care about what you guys think the place should be - and they're dealt with accordingly as soon as possible which is fine.  The thing is, there will be an overlap during which these peeps will piss some other peeps off.  It's at that time that what I'm saying is important, well, is.  Cuz why stress over what some idiot with a cartoon cat avatar has to say?

Now it's time for my obligatory movie reference:
OTTer: Why so srs?  



Umbran said:


> And that's not an inaccurate generalization, as far as it goes.  But, it is a generalization, and generalizations often fail when dealing with specific instances.
> 
> I mean, 70% of the Earth is covered by water.  As a generalization, "the Earth is covered with water" is pretty accurate.  However, many of the important bits we care about are decidedly dry.
> 
> ...




And that's cool.  It doesn't make you or anyone here immune to the sort of attitude I describe though, does it?  That's where what I'm saying comes into play: Relax, it's just some jackass having fun with you.

I get what ya'all are doing here and I'm not arguing against it.  



Morrus said:


> Except that you're defining "the internet" as a place. It's just a medium. A collection of lots if different places with different behavioural norms - just like the real world is.




And just like the real world - actually it's much, much easier on the tubez - people can come from one place with one behavioral norm and move to another place with a different set of expectations.  And just like the real world, they don't have to instantly behave how you'd like them.  It's during that time that it's important to remember where you are and who you're dealing with. 

It's unrealistic to think that because you've created a certain vibe that that vibe will be automatically respected and espoused.  There's no reason to get bent out of shape when you're handling that problem (reporting, ignore listing, modding, banning, etc), though, as some seem to get.  That's kinda my point.


----------



## Lindeloef (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You're still on the net and membership is wide open.  People will and, I presume, do, come here that don't really care about what you guys think the place should be - and they're dealt with accordingly as soon as possible which is fine.  The thing is, there will be an overlap during which these peeps will piss some other peeps off.  It's at that time that what I'm saying is important, well, is.  Cuz why stress over what some idiot with a cartoon cat avatar has to say?



I cannot answer you that, cause I personally have no problems with that, I just ignore it (without the ignore function even ^^)



Zombie_Babies said:


> Now it's time for my obligatory movie reference:
> OTTer: Why so srs?




The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Zombie_Babies?

not sure how that fits, but i felt there was a lack of Big Lebowski quotes in here.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> And just like the real world - actually it's much, much easier on the tubez - people can come from one place with one behavioral norm and move to another place with a different set of expectations.  And just like the real world, they don't have to instantly behave how you'd like them.  It's during that time that it's important to remember where you are and who you're dealing with.




Well, that's a different point.  The point I was addressing was the remark that words on the internet shouldn't be able to emotionally affect people.

I'll clarify.  Words are words. The communication tool is irrelevant; it doesn't matter whether I speak them to you, or write them down and mail them to you, or telephone you, or write them in a book, or broadcast them on the radio, or trail them in sky-writing.  A beautiful poem or piece of literature doesn't lose its power because its posted on the internet; and neither does an insult, a screed, a rant, or a plea.



> It's unrealistic to think that because you've created a certain vibe  that that vibe will be automatically respected and espoused.




Not at all; it's very realistic to expect that; people *do* normally respect the vibe of where they are online.  Take this site as an example (I'll use it because it's what I'm most familiar with).  I've been doing this for 14 years now, give or take a few weeks.  And by-and-large, people do respect the vibe here.  But that's not really what I was talking about.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Context in which words are used, and who uses them, are important. A stranger in the subway that tells me I am stupdi will not have the same emotional impact as say my mom telling me so. 

Being on the internet, and EW is on the internet, does create a layer of emotional isolation. For example, I do not get upset when someone disagrees with me.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

Lindeloef said:


> I cannot answer you that, cause I personally have no problems with that, I just ignore it (without the ignore function even ^^)




How dare you be rational!!!



> The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Zombie_Babies?
> 
> not sure how that fits, but i felt there was a lack of Big Lebowski quotes in here.




Yeah, well, you know, _that's just_, like, _your opinion_, _man_.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Well, that's a different point.  The point I was addressing was the remark that words on the internet shouldn't be able to emotionally affect people.
> 
> I'll clarify.  Words are words. The communication tool is irrelevant; it doesn't matter whether I speak them to you, or write them down and mail them to you, or telephone you, or write them in a book, or broadcast them on the radio, or trail them in sky-writing.  A beautiful poem or piece of literature doesn't lose its power because its posted on the internet; and neither does an insult, a screed, a rant, or a plea.




I see.  Goldo already pointed this out, but, again, it's context.  My point is that it matter who says what and where they say it.  This is the internet and people here, by and large, shouldn't matter enough to cause the same sort of harm as people in person can.

I don't know you professionally so if I were to say you suck at your job would you place as much weight on that as you would if whoever you report to (including yourself) said it?  Words are words, yes, but the weight they carry depends upon who said them and where.



> Not at all; it's very realistic to expect that; people *do* normally respect the vibe of where they are online.  Take this site as an example (I'll use it because it's what I'm most familiar with).  I've been doing this for 14 years now, give or take a few weeks.  And by-and-large, people do respect the vibe here.  But that's not really what I was talking about.




Point of order: I said '_automatically _respect and espouse'.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 10, 2013)

It's always those who use words to harrass, annoy, and offend people who then claim to wonder how mere words could possibly bother anyone. It's always trolls who cry offense when called a troll.

You know, a polite, well-meaning person when explained that politeness is expected somewhere, wouldn't spend so much time debating the reasons and boundaries of politeness. But an argumentative person would argue it forever. Half this thread is just argument for the sake of argument.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

I m rather surprised and amused to find that some people find that disagreeing with them means that person is impolite and a troll. As if I shouldn't speak my mind because someone has a different opinion. 

I do find it paradoxal that someone who complains about politeness and civility call other people trolls. As if politenesss and civility is not for them, just for others. Or maybe calling someone a troll is a form of politeness on EW? This place is different from the rest of the internet, after all.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> But an argumentative person would argue it forever. Half this thread is just argument for the sake of argument.



I think Morrus is well meaning and just seaking is mind, even if he is wrong.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I don't know you professionally so if I were to say you suck at your job would you place as much weight on that as you would if whoever you report to (including yourself) said it?  Words are words, yes, but the weight they carry depends upon who said them and where.




It depends on your words. If you posted an insightful, well-written, accurate analysis of how I did my job and backed it up convincingly, then yes, I'd put weight on it.  If you said "Boo yah!  You suxxor!" then I wouldn't.

Like I said, the words have power. And putting them on the internet doesn't take away that power.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

goldomark said:


> This place is different from the rest of the internet, after all.




Yes, it is. Every place on the internet is unique.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Snowflakes, snowflakes everywhere.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Like I said, the words have power. And putting them on the internet doesn't take away that power.



So a stranger calling you names on the subway will have the same impact as your mom calling you names?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

goldomark said:


> So a stranger calling you names on the subway will have the same impact as your mom calling you names?




That's not even slightly what I said.  Or if I did, it's not what I meant to say.  However, this is taking up quite a bit of time I should be spending working out the probabilities of dice rolls for the game I'm writing, and I'm not as interested in the conversation as I may appear, so I'll leave you guys to it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That's not even slightly what I said.  Or if I did, it's not what I meant to say.



Basically your wrote that context/medium/the person who uses words does not mean the word loses power. I disagreed with my example. SO what I understand from what you said is that the words used by the stranger on the subway keep their power and will hurt you as much as your mom using them. If they do not, they haven't kept their power, no?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Snowflakes, snowflakes everywhere.




And on a more serious note, bear in mind that you "hate the folks at EW" and you "wanna troll them hard".  It's a tough sell that you're well-meaning, y'know? If you're going to post things like that in places people can see, I don't think you can be too upset when they take you at your word.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Basically your wrote that context/medium/the person who uses words does not mean the word loses power. I disagreed with my example. SO what I understand from what you said is that the words used by the stranger on the subway keep their power and will hurt you as much as your mom using them. If they do not, they haven't kept their power, no?




No.  But like I said, I'm *still* not working. Maybe I'll try to explain what I mean at length more clearly when I have a spare 30 minutes or so to think about it, but it ain't that.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> It's always those who use words to harrass, annoy, and offend people who then claim to wonder how mere words could possibly bother anyone. It's always trolls who cry offense when called a troll.
> 
> You know, a polite, well-meaning person when explained that politeness is expected somewhere, wouldn't spend so much time debating the reasons and boundaries of politeness. But an argumentative person would argue it forever. Half this thread is just argument for the sake of argument.
> 
> Bullgrit




Somehow I think if I were to call you a troll that you'd take offense and defend yourself.  Does that make you a troll?  If so, everyone except those who admit they troll would be a troll, no?   I think your reasoning here may be a bit flawed - perhaps due to some sort of prejudice?  I dunno.

Anyhoo, why am I trolling if I reasonably disagree with someone?  Are we all supposed to agree on everything here or something?  Do I _have _to agree with some board veteran if he rebuts me politely?  I don't think so.  We're having a conversation here.  We're exchanging ideas and sharing opinions and, in the course, learning about each other.  It's almost like it's the precise intent of an internet message board or something.  

Honestly, I fail to see any reason for anyone to take issue with this line of conversation.  I don't have to agree with anyone - not even myself.



Morrus said:


> It depends on your words. If you posted an insightful, well-written, accurate analysis of how I did my job and backed it up convincingly, then yes, I'd put weight on it.  If you said "Boo yah!  You suxxor!" then I wouldn't.
> 
> Like I said, the words have power. And putting them on the internet doesn't take away that power.




If I posted an insightful, well-written and accurate analysis then I'd not only know something about you and what you do (remember, for this exampleI _didn't_) then I'd also be behaving in a most decidedly non-trollish manner.  Were I to get all 'u r teh suk' then, as you say, you wouldn't take me seriously - which was precisely my point and my advice.

The words matter _depending upon the context_.  Were I to know you and approach you properly you'd give my words more weight than you would were I to troll you.  That shows that you see the difference I've been trying to point out.  Words matter, sure, but so does who says them, how and where.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Have you considered, ZB, that they are trolling us?

They are disagreeing with us and not being to polite (BG calling us trolls).


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Now it's time for my obligatory movie reference:
> OTTer: Why so srs?




You know, a quote associated with an insane, sociopathic villain*... not exactly a great tool for convincing folks that it is a good idea 



> That's where what I'm saying comes into play: Relax, it's just some jackass having fun with you.




Why should anyone relax about being treated poorly?  Relaxing about it, tolerating it, does not work to reduce its prevalence.  And I don't see the jackass is having fun with you.  He's having fun using you, which isn't really the same thing.  Most folks don't take kindly to being used.

The greatest weapon we have against people being jerks is peer pressure.  We ask folks to apply that pressure in constructive manners, within the site rules, of course.  


*Admittedly, a wonderful performance depicting that villain.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> This is the internet and people here, by and large, shouldn't matter enough to cause the same sort of harm as people in person can.



The thought that "people shouldn't matter" is exactly the sort of emotional distancing that makes this possible. They're not real people, they're not here in front of me, so it's OK if I behave like a jackass (your word) and take potshots, looking for emotional weaknesses. Blaming people for reacting is blaming the victim. Don't excuse the behavior.

Trolling is emotional baiting and manipulation.  It's immature, childish, juvenile behavior that hurts other people for the troll's personal pleasure. I'm no more interested in tolerating a troll than I am in tolerating someone that kicks animals.

If a stranger comes up to you in a restaurant and harasses you, you get the owner to throw him out.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 10, 2013)

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Bullgrit again."

Goddamnit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 10, 2013)

Lots of posters disagree with each other, that isn't trolling. Exploration of ideas through debate and discussion is something most people here are fine with. Trolling is a matter of attutide, motive, and how you say things. If you are sniping at other posters, pestering other posters or just being rude, it is going to generate a negative response. I get the sense that folks are asking others to just ignore their insults and bad manners. I think if you come to a forum and your posts create the impression that you are trolling, you should probably ask what you can do differently to get your point across, rather than insist people change how they react to you. Every forum is a little different, and has its own expectations.going to a new forum is like joining a new club, going to a new game store or playing with a new group of gamers. You get a sense of where the boundaries are and behave accordingly.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You know, a quote associated with an insane, sociopathic villain*... not exactly a great tool for convincing folks that it is a good idea




Why how ... serious of you.  

That said, even the insane sociopath can teach us.  You can't automatically discount something because of who said it.  Take it in, try to understand it, see if it applies to you or could and then decide what to think.  Hitler had some pretty amazing ideas that many countries stole and use today.  They changed the world for the better.  Had Eisenhower, for example, decided that a national highway system was evil because Hitler was, well, where would we be?

*ahem*

How's _that _for serious to the point of silly?  Muahahaaaaaa!!



> Why should anyone relax about being treated poorly?  Relaxing about it, tolerating it, does not work to reduce its prevalence.  And I don't see the jackass is having fun with you.  He's having fun using you, which isn't really the same thing.  Most folks don't take kindly to being used.




Well, the most effective tool when dealing with trolls is _not _fire but ... silence.  See it for what is, move on.  That simple.  

Of course, we're not really talking about trolls treating people poorly - we're talking about people disagreeing with others and being seen as trolling because of how they approach the argument.  But whatever.  If someone chooses to see internet conversation on a forum devoted to playing games as srs bzns, well, there's not a whole lot I can say to change their mind.

My internet philosophy is this (like anyone is actually interested, heh) : You don't matter.  Sounds harsh, I know, but the trick is that I apply the same thought to everyone equally - myself included.  There's absolutely no reason to take anyone here seriously.  None.  That doesn't mean that I can't treat them with respect or honestly listen to them, all it means is that they can't possibly actually bother me.  At all.  Now there are exceptions - obviously if I'm seeking advice I'll listen to someone I trust and if I'm giving advice on a topic in serious manner I'll do so honestly.  Other than that, though?  Let's have some fun.



> The greatest weapon we have against people being jerks is peer pressure.  We ask folks to apply that pressure in constructive manners, within the site rules, of course.
> 
> 
> *Admittedly, a wonderful performance depicting that villain.




Actually, it's my belief that the greatest weapon is silence.  Some members choose that course but not all members - and that's the problem.  You'll never get everyone to agree to not talk to someone who is awesome at pushing buttons.  The only issue I see here is that people assume the worst really, really quickly and go into peer pressure or ignore mode.  Just an observation - hell, maybe I'm off base.



Nellisir said:


> The thought that "people shouldn't matter" is exactly the sort of emotional distancing that makes this possible. They're not real people, they're not here in front of me, so it's OK if I behave like a jackass (your word) and take potshots, looking for emotional weaknesses. Blaming people for reacting is blaming the victim. Don't excuse the behavior.
> 
> Trolling is emotional baiting and manipulation.  It's immature, childish, juvenile behavior that hurts other people for the troll's personal pleasure. I'm no more interested in tolerating a troll than I am in tolerating someone that kicks animals.
> 
> If a stranger comes up to you in a restaurant and harasses you, you get the owner to throw him out.




Trolling and thinking someone is a troll cuz they disagree with you are two different things.  

At any rate, dealing with a troll is easy: Ignore them.  Some do, some don't.  

This is telling, though.  I'm talking about one thing and everyone here assumes it's something else.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Bullgrit again."
> 
> Goddamnit.



Giving XP to people who insult other posters by calling them troll, is that the peer pressure that promotes civility on EW and make it different from the rest of the internet?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 10, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Giving XP to people who insult other posters by calling them troll, is that the peer pressure that promotes civility on EW and make it different from the rest of the internet?




We're not one of them.  That's the impression I get, anyway.  It's cool to be mean to the new kid.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> We're not one of them.  That's the impression I get, anyway.  It's cool to be mean to the new kid.



Yup, the mods will give you a free pass, but will hit the new kids with the full force of their powers. 

This place is different.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Trolling and thinking someone is a troll cuz they disagree with you are two different things.



Not all "disagreement" is equal.  If someone is spinning off red herrings, arguing selectively, ignoring contradictory evidence, getting personally insulting, and is unwilling (or apparently unable) to consider other points of view, that's being a...well, that word goes all   , so we'll say troll.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That said, even the insane sociopath can teach us.




That may be.  But from the point of view of presentation, is serves you well to scrub the serial numbers off before you put it forward.  "Hitler had this great idea...!" is kind of a hard sell, by putting too much emphasis on the source, rather than on the content.



> Well, the most effective tool when dealing with trolls is _not _fire but ... silence.  See it for what is, move on.  That simple.




I didn't say fire.  I said peer pressure.  There's a difference.  

And yes, I'm openly admitting that polite peer pressure (which can include pointed silence) is more powerful than the moderators, just in case anyone's noting that.  We ask folks to report things to the mods rather than engage because humans have a really hard time keeping peer pressure calm and polite.  But, a few folks can manage it, with a "Dude, that's not cool," and "So you know, going down that road is kind of asking for a moderator to come looking for you," and such.  When it comes from an individual, it is often disregarded, but _en masse_, it becomes a potent message.



> Of course, we're not really talking about trolls treating people poorly - we're talking about people disagreeing with others and being seen as trolling because of how they approach the argument.  But whatever.




Yes, but there's the question that I don't think has been answered - why approach the discussion that way if you *aren't* trolling?  What is to be gained in this approach? 



> My internet philosophy is this (like anyone is actually interested, heh) : You don't matter.




And that's fine.  You get to choose your philosophy.  It does have a slight mismatch with the local philosophy, in which we expect everyone to be shown a modicum of respect.  To phrase it to be more obvious in contrast with your philosophy:  Everyone matters at least a little bit.

I know you say that your philosophy doesn't mean you can't treat people with respect - but your philosophy doesn't mean you will, either.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 10, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> If someone chooses to see internet conversation on a forum devoted to playing games as srs bzns, well, there's not a whole lot I can say to change their mind.



I'm pretty sure Morrus has a fair amount of money involved here, so I would expect it to be serious business.



> My internet philosophy is this (like anyone is actually interested, heh) : You don't matter.  Sounds harsh, I know, but the trick is that I apply the same thought to everyone equally - myself included.  There's absolutely no reason to take anyone here seriously.  None.  That doesn't mean that I can't treat them with respect or honestly listen to them, all it means is that they can't possibly actually bother me.  At all.  Now there are exceptions - obviously if I'm seeking advice I'll listen to someone I trust and if I'm giving advice on a topic in serious manner I'll do so honestly.  Other than that, though?  Let's have some fun.



Knowing that you think I don't matter, why would I ever want to take your advice? Why would you ever want to take mine? 



> Actually, it's my belief that the greatest weapon is silence.



“All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...”
- Edmund Burke



> Some members choose that course but not all members - and that's the problem.



What you mean, then, is ostracization or exclusion. Non-engagement. Non-response. A sort of social shaming.



> Just an observation - hell, maybe I'm off base.



Not off base in making an observation or criticism. I've got no problem with your observation. Not sure I even disagree with it.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2013)

Guys, let's be honest with each other for a moment, eh?

A couple of you have posted elsewhere that you are trolling us.  Now, as of today, you've suddenly started hiding all that (we got screenshots at the time, don't worry), and you've deleted your private group here which contains several similar direct confirmations and a hell of a lot of fun descriptions of exactly what you think of us all.  

Now, not all of you are.  And even those who are, you're not doing it all of the time.  But some of you are some of the time, and you've talked about that in the open elsewhere.  Whoops, I guess; or not.  But what's done is done, and cleaning up the evidence now is too late.

We've pretty much handled it, dealing with it all on a case by case basis.  There were a few conversations, one short temp ban a while back (Cyclone Joker, who left over it, which was a shame, because he was contributing great stuff to the D&D forums when not insulting people), and that's mainly it.  Persecuted, you were _not_.  You were the opposite of persecuted.  But _self-admitted _trolls who act all hurt when someone points that out - and you must know that various members here found their way over there and saw those posts with their own eyes, and that's why they're saying these things - that argument's not getting any traction any more. 

So, let's do this: 

1) Most of you have moved on of your own accord anyway, and that's OK - not everywhere is suited to everyone. But those still here, who are welcome to remain, need to stop the martyr act.  Denying it isn't an option any more.

2) We have been pretty lenient so far in an attempt to let you acclimatize.  That honeymoon period's over.  While here, you're EN Worlders now.  You're not new any more, and as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as an OTter on this forum.  Welcome to EN World.

3) Everyone else - we're going to be strict with you, too.  The only way to deal with an issue like this is to report the post.  That means no more trying to call people out, argue with them, etc.  Use the report post and the ignore buttons, please, otherwise you'll find yourselves getting time-outs.  There have been several occasions where the behaviour of long-time EN Worlders has been worse than the new guys ever were. We've had words with you about it privately, but form now on we'll be giving timeouts for that, too.  

I hope that's clear.  Now, this thread has pretty much devolved into mudslinging, passive aggressive asides, and sarcasm.  I'm going to close it, and we're all going to get along pleasantly and peacefully.  I hate, hate, hate having to moderate; it makes me feel icky, it creates enemies where I don't want them, and it makes me have to spend vast swathes of time babysitting threads when I have things to do.  Please don't make me do that, eh?


----------

