# query re policy on 'bigwigs'



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2005)

I would have asked this on Rasyr's thrread, but Dinkeldog has closed that. I want to know if there is an official moderator policy that 'industry bigwigs' in particular, as opposed to general posters, are not to be criticised in a manner that could be construed as derogatory? That is the impression I have gathered from Ryan Dancey's WFRP review thread and from the response to Rasyr's thread here on Meta. I have not seen moderators leap in to protect members of the public from criticism in the same manner, although moderators may disagree. I can understand why you might have this policy - if industry bigwigs feel this is a safe place to venture, they are more likely to post to these forums, which is presumably good for ENW's business. In Dancey's case it seemed that he posted his controversial reviews then posted to ENW either fishing for support from D&D enthusiasts or looking to stir up a hornet's nest. I think a strong reaction was understandable but I haven't seen anything that breached forum guidelines that I'm aware of.

-Simon


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 16, 2005)

We have a clear general policy which is summed up in the first part of the rules



> *Keep it civil:* Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.




As far as is possible we try to ensure that derogatory criticism isn't levelled against *any *of our posters on ENworld, and we are always on the lookout for it. Sometimes it is dealt with within a thread, sometimes we email someone privately and ask them to tone it down. 

There are a lot of threads going on at any one time, and although we are active in the boards ourselves, often the first we know of a problem is when someone reports a post to us, and it may be that posts involving 'bigwigs' are more frequently reported. I have certainly seen 'bigwigs' attacked with more vitriol and more frequently within such threads than our other posters, which just isn't on. 

But if you haven't seen moderators leap in to protect members of the public in the same manner it may be just that you've not been looking in the places where it has been happening. My moderating experience is overwhelmingly not related to industry figures.

Cheers


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2005)

So you don't aim to apply different standards to criticism of industry professionals as to members of the general public?

I'm also unclear as to whether the discussion of controversial issues such as Dancey's apparent illicit monitoring of a GAMA board mailing list as part of a takeover attempt of GAMA is allowed?  This seems to influence some posters' opinions of his trustworthiness.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 16, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> So you don't aim to apply different standards to criticism of industry professionals as to members of the general public?




No.  Although some people seem to think that the rules don't apply to criticising industry professionals.  The rule is clear and applies to every member.



> I'm also unclear as to whether the discussion of controversial issues such as Dancey's apparent illicit monitoring of a GAMA board mailing list as part of a takeover attempt of GAMA is allowed? This seems to influence some posters' opinions of his trustworthiness.




It's fine.  Just be polite about it.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2005)

OK, thanks.  I'm not totally clear where the line is re what consitutes a personal attack, but thanks for advice.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 16, 2005)

If you say that only an idiot would develop a ruleset like xxxx, then you're making a personal attack on the developer.  This happens a lot.  

If you say that you would like to take pieces of this ruleset and that ruleset, then you're not. 

In general, if you think you're skirting the borderline cleverly, you've probably crossed it.


----------



## Belen (Aug 18, 2005)

Actually, I would not mind if they did coddle the bigwigs a bit.  One thing I love about ENWorld is having the opportunity to interact with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas etc.  I do not want to lose that.

Heck, I think that may be one reason that the Wizards people are not around as often these days.


----------



## reveal (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I would not mind if they did coddle the bigwigs a bit.  One thing I love about ENWorld is having the opportunity to interact with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas etc.  I do not want to lose that.
> 
> Heck, I think that may be one reason that the Wizards people are not around as often these days.




OTOH, if they did coddle the big-wigs and they started acting like jerks, that could turn people off from their products. I think it's best to just treat everyone the same across the board.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 18, 2005)

Yeah.  As far as we're concerned, everyone's a member and everyone's equal.

The problem lies in the fact that some people think that because someone is an "industry bigwig" they don't have the same right to be addressed courteously and politely that everyone else does.  Then, when they get called on it, they claim that we're "siding with bigwigs" or whatever.  The fact is, we don't allow ANY member to be insulted here.


----------



## BSF (Aug 18, 2005)

I do think that the threads with 'bigwigs' have more activity and visibility.  I know I certainly disagreed with some of Dancey's statements in one of his threads.  But I didn't have anything to add to the conversation other than simply disagreeing.  So, I didn't post.  Admittedly, I don't have the same passion for WHFRP as other folks do.  When somebody says something you disagree with passionately, it is a lot harder to ignore it.  

Dancey is vocal about his opinions and I think he rubs a lot of people the wrong way.   But that is no reason to shove polite disagreement aside.  The fact that he is a recognizable name for many people, and the topic was growing heated, I imagine more people were inclined to use the 'Report this Post' button.  *shrug*  I could be wrong though.  But if you see somebody being singled out and attacked, then report the post.  There are a lot of posts on the board and the moderators can't see them all.  So help them out when you can.


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 18, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I would not mind if they did coddle the bigwigs a bit.  One thing I love about ENWorld is having the opportunity to interact with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas etc.  I do not want to lose that.
> 
> Heck, I think that may be one reason that the Wizards people are not around as often these days.




If you suck up to publishers, you end up with rpg.net, where people from white wolf can and have had the mods pull threads they didn't like, despite the thread not breaking any rules at all.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 19, 2005)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> If you suck up to publishers, you end up with rpg.net, where people from white wolf can and have had the mods pull threads they didn't like, despite the thread not breaking any rules at all.




Hm, they didn't pull the threads about the recent pay-to-LARP fiasco (& WW allowed pretty heated threads on their own forums, eventually resulting in them rescinding the policy).  rpgnet moderation always seems to me far more hands-off than on ENW.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 19, 2005)

S'mon, you say that like it's a good thing.


----------



## Belen (Aug 19, 2005)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> If you suck up to publishers, you end up with rpg.net, where people from white wolf can and have had the mods pull threads they didn't like, despite the thread not breaking any rules at all.




I am not advocating that anyone "suck" up.  However, I like the friendly atmosphere of ENWorld.  You do not find that anywhere else.  I also like the fact that we can interact with people who are famous in our hobby.  If they are flamed all the time, then they will not return.

So, I like the policies here.  These are the only boards I ever post too because people can be civil and friendly.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 19, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> S'mon, you say that like it's a good thing.




I've never found the relative lack of moderation on rpg.net to be a problem; the sheer volume of posts and focus towards games I'm not interested in (Vampire, Exalted) limit my time there.


----------



## Darkness (Aug 19, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I've never found the relative lack of moderation on rpg.net to be a problem



 If you're referring to the _current_ level of moderation (i.e., last year or so) or only the gaming section (RPG and otherwise - plus Other Media), I agree.


----------



## diaglo (Aug 19, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> If you're referring to the _current_ level of moderation (i.e., last year or so) or only the gaming section (RPG and otherwise - plus Other Media), I agree.



ditto.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Aug 19, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> OTOH, if they did coddle the big-wigs and they started acting like jerks, that could turn people off from their products. I think it's best to just treat everyone the same across the board.



 Exactly.  Like has been seen in a few threads of late.  

Kane


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Aug 21, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> OTOH, if they did coddle the big-wigs and they started acting like jerks, that could turn people off from their products. I think it's best to just treat everyone the same across the board.




True. If a publisher comes across acting like a jerk, then we, the consumer, can just react with our closed wallets. 

But everyone, like a few have said, should be treated equal. Whether they be a publisher, writer, artist, long-time poster, newbie or other.... We're all equal here, no matter where we come from or what our personal beliefs/lifestyles are.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 21, 2005)

I'm glad this thread came up, because I've been wondering exactly the same thing myself.




			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> If you say that only an idiot would develop a ruleset like xxxx, then you're making a personal attack on the developer. This happens a lot.
> 
> If you say that you would like to take pieces of this ruleset and that ruleset, then you're not.
> 
> In general, if you think you're skirting the borderline cleverly, you've probably crossed it.




If this is true, then why is the Rick James thread at this URL: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=144161 still open when its a blatant attack on two publishers who visit these boards? Just curious, because I know the thread has been reported by several people.


----------



## Greylock (Aug 21, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm glad this thread came up, because I've been wondering exactly the same thing myself.
> 
> If this is true, then why is the Rick James thread at this URL: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=144161 still open when its a blatant attack on two publishers who visit these boards? Just curious, because I know the thread has been reported by several people.




Seconded.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 21, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> If you're referring to the _current_ level of moderation (i.e., last year or so) or only the gaming section (RPG and otherwise - plus Other Media), I agree.




Yup - I only look at the roleplaying games forum on rpg.net


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 21, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm glad this thread came up, because I've been wondering exactly the same thing myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We've had two reports on this thread.  One for specific images (that were removed by TM before I got there) and one for "racist overtones" which none of the moderators saw.


----------



## Darkness (Aug 21, 2005)

For the record, IIRC a bit earlier a third poster also reported the very first post in the thread but merely said they found the thread "offensive" - they didn't even say _what_ they objected to. Not much of a report, that...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 21, 2005)

Yeah, there was that.  However, tasteless, which is what makes Chappell's Rick James character, does not equal "offensive".  It just makes it, well, tasteless.


----------



## Darkness (Aug 21, 2005)

Indeed...


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Aug 21, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm glad this thread came up, because I've been wondering exactly the same thing myself.  If this is true, then why is the Rick James thread at this URL: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=144161 still open when its a blatant attack on two publishers who visit these boards? Just curious, because I know the thread has been reported by several people.




Blantant attack?  Saying you find stuff made by some publishers to be unblanaced is now a blantant attack?     Guess about 50% of the reviews on this site will have to be prunedd too.

I have to agree with Thayan Menace (and others) you are being remarkablely thin-skinned.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Aug 21, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> Blantant attack?  Saying you find stuff made by some publishers to be unblanaced is now a blantant attack?     Guess about 50% of the reviews on this site will have to be prunedd too.
> 
> I have to agree with Thayan Menace (and others) you are being remarkablely thin-skinned.



 It's what he does.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 21, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> Blantant attack? Saying you find stuff made by some publishers to be unblanaced is now a blantant attack?  Guess about 50% of the reviews on this site will have to be prunedd too.




Yes, it is a blatant attack. The following is quoted from the "poster" attachment in that thread:



> Basic Guidelines for the
> Rick James School of DMing:
> The Ten Commandments of an
> Unreasonable Dungeon Master
> ...




This pretty clearly states that only unreasonable Dungeon Masters use non-WotC products, and then goes on to specifically cite Mongoose and Bastion. Or, to simplify that, he is saying that only unreasonable DMs use Mongoose and Bastion products. How that can be seen as anything but a blatant attack is beyond me.



> I have to agree with Thayan Menace (and others) you are being remarkablely thin-skinned.




Not really. On any other board, where civility is not a fundamental requirement, this wouldn't even be an issue. I am simply asking the moderators to enforce this board's own rules.


----------



## BSF (Aug 21, 2005)

There is an inference that unreasonable DMs use third party material.
There is a cited example of two publisher's product lines being specific indicators of being an unreasonable DM.  

Coupled with several other 'discussions' the originating poster has been involved in, I now ignore somebody.  

I often call into question products from Mongoose Press.  I have had no issues with Bastion Press products.  I would not blanket label anybody using books from either company as being 'unreasonable'.  This poster does.

Sure everyone is entitled to an opinion.  But if I were to post in that thread that everyone agreeing with the original poster is an 'unreasonable jerk' I would be guilty of violating EN World's Code of Conduct.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 21, 2005)

*Your Words ... Not Mine*



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> But if I were to post in that thread that everyone agreeing with the original poster is an 'unreasonable jerk' I would be guilty of violating EN World's Code of Conduct.



So you choose to post that statement in this thread instead?


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 21, 2005)

*What Exactly is Your Definition of a Personal Attack?*



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Yes, it is a blatant attack .... On any other board, where civility is not a fundamental requirement, this wouldn't even be an issue.



I suppose calling me an ignorant racist constitutes civil discourse?



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Your ignorance is showing ....





			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I find your attempt at humor inherently racist.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Aug 21, 2005)

Well, you have to admit...playing the "satire" card would have been a little more elegant than cheeky quote-out-of-context games.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 21, 2005)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I suppose calling me an ignorant racist consitutes civil discourse?




Actually, I said that your post showed the ignorance regarding Bastion's product line, which you admitted to in another thread. The racism remark was not directed at you personally, but towards the subject matter of the post. Now, given the fact that I am not very familiar with the Chappele show, I'll happily retract any suggestion of racism on your part. The moderators are free to delete my post calling you ignorant if they feel that violates board policy, but I'm going to let my comments stand since I'm just calling it as I see it.

Now, I'm not going to bother with any more verbal sparring. My comments in this thread were directed to the administration and the moderators. Given the fact that you already once offered to remove the mention of the specific companies, and then went back on your offer, replacing it with a much more ludicrous one, I have no reason to believe that continuing this dialog with you will be productive. It will also, very soon, become impossible for me to see anything you have posted.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 21, 2005)

*No Metatext Here*



			
				Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> Well, you have to admit...playing the "satire" card would have been a little more elegant than cheeky quote-out-of-context games.



Feel free to analyze the content of my quotes all you like; the context is unadulterated.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Aug 21, 2005)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> ...the context is unadulterated.




Is it now?

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 21, 2005)

*The Ignore List Resolves all Irreconcilable Differences*



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Actually, I said that your post showed the ignorance regarding Bastion's [new] product line, which you admitted to in another thread.



True enough, but my "ignorance" was recently lessened by examining more Bastion materials at my local gaming store. I even offered to further alleviate my alleged misconceptions, but you never responded to the offer.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> The racism remark was not directed at you personally, but towards the subject matter of the post.



I was not truly offended, to be honest. Frankly, I have no trouble distinguishing between a critique of my writing and a personal attack.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Now, given the fact that I am not very familiar with the Chappele show, I'll happily retract any suggestion of racism on your part. The moderators are free to delete my post calling you ignorant if they feel that violates board policy, but I'm going to let my comments stand since I'm just calling it as I see it.



Your comments do not bother me in the least, but they certainly are more inflammatory than ones I have made.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Now, I'm not going to bother with any more verbal sparring.



I never considered our exchange to be a verbal sparring match.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> My comments in this thread were directed to the administration and the moderators.



This is a public forum. You chose to make this into a publicized issue; the moderators are equally capable of handling this matter via e-mail.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Given the fact that you alread once offered to remove the mention of the specific companies, and then went back on your offer, replacing it with a much more ludicrous one, I have no reason to believe that continuing this dialog with you will be productive.



Discourse requires at least two consenting parties. Although I made you an offer of honest dialogue, you responded by issuing a demand and then telling others that I agreed with your viewpoint ... without any further discussion whatsoever.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> It will also, very soon, become impossible for me to see anything you have posted.



Considering your irresolvable enmity for my posts, putting me on your ignore list is a very good decision. This manuever would have saved us (and the moderators) a lot of grief if you had done it earlier.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 21, 2005)

*Dictionary Semantics*



			
				Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.



I'm not the world's most perfect writer, but feel free to check out the definition for yourself.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 21, 2005)

*Back on Topic: Personal Attacks vs. Corporate Critiques*

I digress; my simple opinion is this:

Personal attacks on industry bigwigs are inappropriate, but criticism of their product line is fair game.

Peace Out,

-The Menace


----------



## Berandor (Aug 22, 2005)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I'm not the world's most perfect writer, but feel free to check out the definition for yourself.



So your comments are pure?


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Aug 22, 2005)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I'm not the world's most perfect writer, but feel free to check out the definition for yourself.




Actually, I was talking about the word "context" in your nonsensical statement "the context is unadulterated."

If you've taken only one line of someone's post and thus quoted it _out of context_, the context cannot possibly be unadulterated, even using your fancy $3 definition.  

But back to the original point: claiming that your Rick James thread is "satire" would have been a lot more clever than defending your right to make _ad hominem_ attacks. I count two threads with torches and pitchforks calling for your thread's head. Have fun!


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 22, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> Actually, I was talking about the word "context" in your nonsensical statement "the context is unadulterated."
> 
> If you've taken only one line of someone's post and thus quoted it _out of context_, the context cannot possibly be unadulterated, even using your fancy $3 definition.



You seem like an intelligent individual. Surely you must realize that you do not necessarily have to cite a quote in its entirety to preserve its context. In any event, my use of "unadulterated" is grammatically correct; your only basis for criticizing it appears to be your personal distaste for my posts.



			
				Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> But back to the original point: claiming that your Rick James thread is "satire" would have been a lot more clever than defending your right to make _ad hominem_ attacks.



I never told Mr. Drader that he had no credibility to discuss Bastion press simply because he was one of their former employees ... in fact, I urged him to use his professional standing to speak out against me if he felt I was wrong.



			
				The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Now, you are free to criticize me all you want (you can even vote to say that my concept is lame), however I am equally free to reasonably express my opinion through the medium of message-board comedy.
> 
> If my humor is based on incorrect assumptions, then you have absolutely no cause for concern; people won't find it funny, and this thread will die.
> 
> In addition, you also have the option of calling me an ignorant crank and using your occupational credibility to dismiss my claims.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 22, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> So your comments are pure?



I'm not really the zealot type, and I make no claims of moral purity. I've merely made sure that the context of my quotes remains unaltered from the context of the original text. Citations are ineffective otherwise.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Aug 22, 2005)

*Nice Frankenstein Metaphor ....*



			
				Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> I count two threads with torches and pitchforks calling for your thread's head. Have fun!



All I see is a handful of disgruntled posts and a few individuals who would rather besmirch me in a clandestine fashion than engage me in normal conversation. While it was never my intention to upset anyone, I'm not really all that concerned about this insignificant witch-hunt.

If the moderators feel that I need to make concessions, I will gladly do so. However, I certainly do not intend to lose any sleep over this.


----------



## fett527 (Aug 22, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> We've had two reports on this thread.  One for specific images (that were removed by TM before I got there) and one for "racist overtones" which none of the moderators saw.





Makes me wish I'd just reported it.

Is any mod still reading that thread?  Do you not feel that the last back and forth with fusangite was filled with personal attacks (on both sides)?  I'm beginning to wonder what entails personal attacks and how far they can be taken before a thread is closed.


----------



## Berandor (Aug 22, 2005)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> I'm not really the zealot type, and I make no claims of moral purity. I've merely made sure that the context of my quotes remains unaltered from the context of the original text. Citations are ineffective otherwise.



I'm not the world's best writer, but from the definition you linked to, unaltered and unadulterated cannot be used interchangeably.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 22, 2005)

I think we're done here.


----------

