# Suggestion: No April Fools prank this year, please. (Forked Thread: About Reveille)



## Zelligars Apprentice (Mar 14, 2009)

Forked from:  About Reveille 

In light of the situation regarding Reveille, I humbly suggest that EN World NOT do the traditional April Fools prank this year.  I know it's sad and disappointing, because many people enjoy them.  I also think that too many people's emotions will still be running too high to appreciate it, given the timing.

If this isn't the appropriate place to discuss such a suggestion, I apologize, and would be glad to direct my suggestion elsewhere.

Thank you.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> We have a policy of never discussing moderator action. In this case, though, I'm going to make an exception because we'll need to talk about this. It's a community issue that affects many of us.
> 
> It has come to our attention that Reveille wasn't sick. He created the 'Rev's Mandy' account and fabricated his illness. I'm honestly not sure why; maybe he wanted attention, or needed to gauge how people felt about him. I don't want to guess, and I'm not sure I'm fit to judge, but there's no doubt about this and no possible mistake.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 14, 2009)

Or maybe some people need a good laugh after how they were affected by Rev's postings?


----------



## Wik (Mar 14, 2009)

If we don't do an April Fool's prank, then the terrorists win.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm pretty sure after all that happened ENWorld's staff now have a good idea of what not to do for this year's prank.   I also seriously doubt that they will change everyone's avatar to Rev's mug over here or at CM since it's too soon (and many will not appreciate the joke even though it would be funny).


----------



## Inyssius (Mar 14, 2009)

Wik said:


> If we don't do an April Fool's prank, then the terrorists win.




Agreed, though I say this as a lurker only. I have discovered the secret of life, and it is this: *Don't Let It Get You Down*.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 14, 2009)

You mean that you don't want to hear how Diaglo is the lead author for 5th edition, the one true edition?


----------



## fba827 (Mar 14, 2009)

broghammerj said:


> You mean that you don't want to hear how Diaglo is leader author for 5th edition, the one true edition?




I thought 5th edition was going to be a reprint of 1st edition, with sticky labels covering the old edition number with the new ... but that's just what I heard...

(end thread derail).

As for the topic of the OP...  the April Fools jokes have always been silly fun, never actual emotionally-charged items.  Under the presumption that the mods have not suddenly been struck by stupidity to try something tasteless, I see no reason it couldn't be done.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 14, 2009)

No, please: we´ve lost enough. 

If bad things happen, if lies and deceit are all around, fools become more necessary.  Priceless, even.


----------



## Vurt (Mar 14, 2009)

Traditions are important for the very reason that they ignore the day-to-day ups and downs of the world.  Love or loathe the particulars of their implementation, they are a constant, a fixed position, around which the ocean of everyday events swell and sag.

Now if half the regular posters came down with serious medical conditions come April the first, while it would certainly be in extremely poor taste, I would probably still roll my eyes and chuckle a moment.  But I strongly doubt anything like that would ever happen around here.

If economic times are tough, you don't cancel Christmas, you just make do with less boxes under the tree and find some other way to demonstrate your love and friendship.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 14, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> I'm pretty sure after all that happened ENWorld's staff now have a good idea of what not to do for this year's prank.   I also seriously doubt that they will change everyone's avatar to Rev's mug over here or at CM since it's too soon (and many will not appreciate the joke even though it would be funny).




I'm pretty sure i'm the only one here with a mug! Oh, you probably mean his face...


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Mar 14, 2009)

Wik said:


> If we don't do an April Fool's prank, then the terrorists win.




This. Why let some dude you've probably never met change the way you live your life?


----------



## the Jester (Mar 14, 2009)

Zelligars Apprentice said:


> Forked from:  About Reveille
> 
> In light of the situation regarding Reveille, I humbly suggest that EN World NOT do the traditional April Fools prank this year.  I know it's sad and disappointing, because many people enjoy them.  I also think that too many people's emotions will still be running too high to appreciate it, given the timing.
> 
> ...




I challenge you to a duel to the death for saying such a thing.

Edit: You should let nothing, NOTHING rob you of your sense of humor.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Mar 14, 2009)

What Rev did was wrong, but if we let one troll put the brakes on normal (or abnormal) life here at EN World, then I say the reactions to the trolling have totally overshadowed the trolling itself.

Whatever his motivation, it was a naked plea for attention. Don't give him the satisfaction of letting him have any more than he's already gotten.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 14, 2009)

believe me or not, it doesn't change things.

but last year i was convinced i would get to run this site.
i commissioned Klaus to design a web page pic for me. i didn't tell him it was for here.
i chatted back and forth with mods and admins.

and i kept hinting to my players that i had some correspondence with publishers to get OD&D back in print.

i geared up to run this site as an OD&D site. April Fools or no. i planned to use it as much as i could to get the word out about real D&D.

then when the day came. i found out i didn't have admin rights. :doh:

so i had fun. but i got snookered too.


----------



## Mark (Mar 14, 2009)

diaglo said:


> believe me or not, it doesn't change things.
> (. . .)
> 
> i got snookered too.





_And yet another Innocent suffers the machinations of Fools_


----------



## Felon (Mar 14, 2009)

Zelligars Apprentice said:


> Forked from:  About Reveille
> 
> In light of the situation regarding Reveille, I humbly suggest that EN World NOT do the traditional April Fools prank this year.  I know it's sad and disappointing, because many people enjoy them.  I also think that too many people's emotions will still be running too high to appreciate it, given the timing.



So, instead of April Fool's Day, let's have Solemn Brooking Over Sense of Betrayal and Violation Day instead? Pass. Life goes on.

April 1st is, like, two weeks away. That's a billion internet years. Folks will be over it by then. In fact, the vast majority probably don't care that much right now.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> April 1st is, like, two weeks away.



I should be out of my coma by then.


[sblock]Too soon?

_Mod edit: Yes, a bit, but you're forgiven, okay?_[/sblock]


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> In fact, the vast majority probably don't care that much right now.




Put me down for definitely don't care at all. Rev didn't give me anything; he can't take anything from me.


----------



## megamania (Mar 14, 2009)

Anything dated April 1st is automatically suspect.   

...and besides....

I wouldn't give Rev the satisfaction of ruining a possible April Fool's that can bring a smile / smirk / laugh to someone here.


----------



## FickleGM (Mar 14, 2009)

TarionzCousin said:


> I should be out of my coma by then.
> 
> 
> [sblock]Too soon?[/sblock]



roflcopter


----------



## Wik (Mar 14, 2009)

FickleGM said:


> roflcopter




Yeah, I laughed, too.  And then said, "boooooo!".  But then I laughed again.


----------



## Vorput (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm still torn by this whole thing with Rev- but skipping any planned April Fool's gag doesn't seem like it will help with anything.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 14, 2009)

Is this some kind of April Fool already? We don't make a funny prank because someone made a "unfunny" one? 

I only remember last years April Fools prank, and that was genius and in no way bad taste. Well, except maybe towards diaglo.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 15, 2009)

Moving this thread to Meta....


----------



## genshou (Mar 15, 2009)

If you must do the usual April 1 tomfoolery...

Just please, PLEASE don't bring the Intellifilter back.

Also, I couldn't care less about Rev right now.  I'm more concerned with the fact that I hear static whenever either of my hands is next to my right ear.  What the heck?


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 16, 2009)

The April Fool's Day prank is an EN World *tradition *and I'm looking forward to it as I do every year. 

And what's up with all the people with low post counts suggesting such radical changes to EN World lately?


----------



## Elodan (Mar 16, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> The April Fool's Day prank is an EN World *tradition *and I'm looking forward to it as I do every year.
> 
> And what's up with all the people with low post counts suggesting such radical changes to EN World lately?




I think you're overestimating post count.  According to his join date he or she has been a member of the community for a few years now.

Not a fan of the April Fool's stuff but I see no reason to stop it.


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Mar 17, 2009)

OK, *that* idea went over like an adamantium balloon.  I officially withdraw the suggestion.

I have faith in the staff here.  This is one of the classiest forums around, thanks (in large part) to the professional caliber of moderation.  That said, I think a measure of caution is in order.  I saw some real pain in people's responses to the whole fake coma business, and urge the staff to keep that in mind when they devise their April Fools prank.  That's all.

Oh, and I am sorry for posting in the wrong forum.


----------



## genshou (Mar 17, 2009)

Elodan said:


> I think you're overestimating post count.  According to his join date he or she has been a member of the community for a few years now.
> 
> Not a fan of the April Fool's stuff but I see no reason to stop it.



I think post count does play a part here, albeit a small one.  People who read a very large amount of threads and never post are rare.  Mostly a person with low post count just isn't an active reader or writer in forum topics.  I only read the ones that interest me, and I usually reply to them at least once.  But I skip over the larger part of the threads here.  I just don't have time to read every topic anymore.

A bigger indication of someone's investment in the site is their status as a community supporter and/or staff member.  And everyone's opinions matter and should be heard--not based on a statistic like post count but discussed in an unbiased manner.  Whether or not you choose to be swayed by a person because of their community influence is up to you.  I, for instance, heartily endorse anything *Rel* says, because he's sexy.


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 17, 2009)

Yeah, my comment about post count was way out of line. I'm truly sorry, Zelligars Apprentice.


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 1, 2009)

genshou said:


> I think post count does play a part here, albeit a small one.  *People who read a very large amount of threads and never post are rare.  Mostly a person with low post count just isn't an active reader or writer in forum topics*.  I only read the ones that interest me, and I usually reply to them at least once.  But I skip over the larger part of the threads here.  I just don't have time to read every topic anymore.




Tangent! I would wager ENWorld has a _lot_ of lurkers; you can't tell whether or not that's true, of course, because definitionally they don't post (much|at all).

I should know; I am one


----------



## Morrus (Apr 1, 2009)

genshou said:


> People who read a very large amount of threads and never post are rare.  Mostly a person with low post count just isn't an active reader or writer in forum topics.




This isn't true.  Interestingly, the opposite is true: of those who read threads, those who actually post are rare.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 1, 2009)

Morrus said:


> This isn't true.  Interestingly, the opposite is true: of those who read threads, those who actually post are rare.




For every thread that I post to, there are at least 20 that I just read... I'm not at all surprised to learn that my behavior is not that uncommon.


----------



## genshou (Apr 2, 2009)

genshou said:


> People who read a very large amount of threads and *never* post are rare.





Morrus said:


> This isn't true.  Interestingly, the opposite is true: of those who read threads, those who actually post are rare.



Please re-read my statement with emphasis to see an obvious part you may have overlooked.

I may only post once or twice in a thread I respond to, and only respond to 1/10 threads I read.  But I still have over 2,000 posts.  That's because I consistently read a fair number of threads.  If I barely ever checked the forum, or only read the threads in a very "small" subforum, I would probably have a very low post count.


----------



## Elodan (Apr 2, 2009)

genshou said:


> Please re-read my statement with emphasis to see an obvious part you may have overlooked.
> 
> I may only post once or twice in a thread I respond to, and only respond to 1/10 threads I read.  But I still have over 2,000 posts.  That's because I consistently read a fair number of threads.  If I barely ever checked the forum, or only read the threads in a very "small" subforum, I would probably have a very low post count.




I would think that Morrus has the numbers to back him up.

I come to this message board almost every day.  I work through 6 -10 of the subforums each time reading a bunch of the posts in each.  I rarely respond.  I think those of us who don't post are more common.

Not trying to pick a fight.  I just think post count is _way _overrated.


----------



## genshou (Apr 3, 2009)

Yes, and as someone who has been here for around 7-ish years (I didn't check the month you joined, just the year) and yet has less posts than the number of days in a standard Earth year, you obviously (for unspecified reasons) just haven't said much compared to the extremely active posters.  But as to whether or not you read as many threads as someone like Crothian, well, who can know?

My point is simply that those who read as many threads as someone like Crothian but have less than 1% of his post count are generally a minority on any forum.  The correlation between post count and activity level is not a universal ratio (especially considering different forums have different circumstances, ratios between member count and posts per day, and other differing factors), nor is it the only thing that should be considered when weighting someone's opinion, but there IS some level of correlation between the two.

Obviously, if we go by total member count and find the mean of posts per day, it will be very low.  That mean would include people who registered years ago, visited the site for a very short time, never posted, and haven't touched the site for years.  It also fails to take into consideration leaves of absence from the site.  For example, I registered in 2003 because I was a player in a Story Hour started at that time, but I did not become an active member of the community until July 2005, at which time my post count rapidly increased from less than 10 to over 100.  Afterward, I took another extended leave of absence from active forum participation for at least a year and a half, which I believe ended late last year (I could find out exactly when if I took a careful look at my lists of subscribed threads).

I am inclined to believe a set of statistics comparing hours a person spent perusing the forum to their post count (impossible to quantify without omniscience, since the site can only register the time stamps at which a person takes some action on the forum such as clicking a link, but let's just roll with it for the sake of argument) would show a phenomenally higher mean of posts per day.

As others have pointed out (and so have I if I didn't muddy my posts too much), you certainly shouldn't rely on post count (or posts per day) alone to determine how active someone is on the forum.  However, it IS a factor, and that's all I'm trying to point out here.

I realize we've gone off on a tangent of considerable size, but I won't ask others who wish to reply to me to prevent themselves from doing so.  However, this will be my last post on the subject unless the discussion moves to a forked thread.  Feel free to leave your thoughts on my post on this or a forked thread.


----------

