# Three more days



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Just three more days until the edition wars can resume.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 8, 2008)

It's been nice without them, I'm not sure we need them back


----------



## shaylon (Jul 8, 2008)

Hmmm.  Why is this important?


----------



## The Lost Muse (Jul 8, 2008)

Crothian said:


> It's been nice without them, I'm not sure we need them back




QFT. The two editions are no better or worse, just different.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Timmundo said:


> QFT. The two editions are no better or worse, just different.




Isn't making that statement technically a violation of the no wars rule?


----------



## Terwox (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Just three more days until the edition wars can resume.




Possible upcoming extension on the ban.  Check Meta.

The wars are ridiculous.  I hope the ban sticks.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Oh, come on. It will be cathartic. Everyone's so darned polite around here, someone's going to get murdered.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Oh, come on. It will be cathartic. Everyone's so darned polite around here, someone's going to get murdered.




Nope, people just go elsewhere to blow off steam.  What purpose do you think the edition wars serve?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Oh, come on. It will be cathartic. Everyone's so darned polite around here, someone's going to get murdered.




*picks his nails with a pocket knife*

Indeed. We need a Westside Story-style verbal knife-fight. Meet me at Doc's Candy Store to discuss the weapons.

...from your first cigarette, to your last dying day...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Oh, come on. It will be cathartic. Everyone's so darned polite around here, someone's going to get murdered.




You mean war is better then murder? 


Isn't there a way to establish a "Mutually Assured Destruction" safety? Then we could have a "cold edition war" with double agents that will play 4E but secretly working for 3E to undermine 4E, bringing information on innovative mechanics back to 3E, while identifying the weak spots of 4E so that 3E posters can attack them, and vice versa. 

I wonder what's the equivalent of the Berlin Wall?


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Crothian said:


> Nope, people just go elsewhere to blow off steam.  What purpose do you think the edition wars serve?




I don't think "edition wars" themselves serve any great purpose. I do think discussions about differences in edition serve a valuable purpose, and the current ban pretty much forbids entire avenues of discussion ultimately worth having. Sports guys debate teams, we debate games.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 8, 2008)

Crothian said:


> It's been nice without them, I'm not sure we need them back




Agreed.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I wonder what's the equivalent of the Berlin Wall?




WotC's online content.


----------



## Derro (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Oh, come on. It will be cathartic. Everyone's so darned polite around here, someone's going to get murdered.




If you want catharsis go to RPG.net. I like Enworld polite and clean.
.
.
.

So... I'll be over at RPG.net flaming some tool for liking Exalted.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Derro said:


> If you want catharsis go to RPG.net. I like Enworld polite and clean.




Ha! Well, I find the moderation there pretty heavy-handed. I might be biased, though; I have a lifetime ban there for reporting Cessa for a conduct violation.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 8, 2008)

Maybe there should be one official edition war thread where everyone can duke it out all they want while the ban stays in effect for the rest of the boards.  Heck...edition war threads almost deserve their own sub-forum.  It would at least give people a place to speak their minds without trampling all over the other forums.


----------



## racoffin (Jul 8, 2008)

Is there anything really left to say on the matter?


----------



## Crothian (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I don't think "edition wars" themselves serve any great purpose. I do think discussions about differences in edition serve a valuable purpose, and the current ban pretty much forbids entire avenues of discussion ultimately worth having. Sports guys debate teams, we debate games.




In theory that is all well and good but in practice we don't debate games.  Just like in practice many sports guys don't debate teams, some of those sports forums are nasty places.  Instead of debate we get nasty insulting sly comments from people who can't understand why other people play different games.  But that's not the worst thing about it.  In threads that have nothing to do with different editions we get the same people trying to make it one.  

If we could get a good discussion about the good and bad of different games and different editions I'd be all for it but I'm not sure it has really ever been able to happen.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 8, 2008)

Frankly the ban doesn't seem to have done anything except force people to think of new terms in which to couch the edition war many seem intent on having.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jul 8, 2008)

What Crothian said.  Edition discussion is much different than edition wars.  If there was a thread that contained a civil discussion of the two editions with no flaming, no insulting, ect..., I would be shocked if the mods locked it.

Edit:  Not that I see such a thread ever really occurring.  It is the Internet, after all.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 8, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> Maybe there should be one official edition war thread where everyone can duke it out all they want while the ban stays in effect for the rest of the boards.  Heck...edition war threads almost deserve their own sub-forum.  It would at least give people a place to speak their minds without trampling all over the other forums.




If that's all you want we have a whole different forum for that sort of thing

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/


----------



## The Lost Muse (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Isn't making that statement technically a violation of the no wars rule?





I hope not, but the point I was trying to make is that it's just two different frameworks for accomplishing much the same thing. While we all have an opinion on which one achieves its purpose better or worse than the other(s), and those opinions are valid. Having arguments where people are emotinally invested can lead to a much more negative atmosphere on these boards.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 8, 2008)

*DOCTOR PEPPER YOU BASTARDS!!!!!!!1!eleven!!*

"A pox on both your editions!", -- N


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 8, 2008)

I think the ban on edition wars is a good idea. I don't see this one resolving itself like it did when 3rd edition was released. There are too many people who feel strongly that one game is superior or inferior to the other, and that the people who like the other are mentally deficient and shouldn't be allowed to breathe the same air.

I think that as a community, ENWorld should embrace diversity! Half of the community wants to play 4E and the other half would rather immerse themselves in pretty graphics and fast moving combat when they play an MMO. There's nothing wrong with that! Continuing to bicker about it and flame each other over their preference is counter-productive. The schizm exists and will continue to exist. I'm happy that there are a number of players who play a range of games. That's good for the hobby.


----------



## jensun (Jul 8, 2008)

What made you think they stopped?

There are probably three or four threads around which are little more than thinly veiled edition wars with a number containing pretty blatant war baiting.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 8, 2008)

jensun said:


> What made you think they stopped?
> 
> There are probably three or four threads around which are little more than thinly veiled edition wars with a number containing pretty blatant war baiting.




I think that if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I agree with you.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Ha! Well, I find the moderation there pretty heavy-handed. I might be biased, though; I have a lifetime ban there for reporting Cessa for a conduct violation.



Amen. I have a lifetime ban for being the victim of a gang up by 3 blatant CoC violators.

Gotta love RPGnet. Just be sure that if you're going to participate in edition wars that you are the one blatantly violating the CoC, as you'll only get the occasional mild public reprimand (ohh, torture 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). Because if you're not, then you're the one being attacked, and when you make one accidental misstep (like simply calling one of your attackers a "jerk"), you'll be permabanned.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 8, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think that if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I agree with you.



Huh.  All I got out of it was that you'd been dropped on your head as a child.


----------



## jensun (Jul 8, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think that if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I agree with you.



I was replying to the OP, yours was just the post before mine...


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 8, 2008)

Corjay said:


> Amen. I have a lifetime ban for being the victim of a gang up by 3 blatant CoC violators.
> 
> Gotta love RPGnet. Just be sure that if you're going to participate in edition wars that you are the one blatantly violating the CoC, as you'll only get the occasional mild public reprimand (ohh, torture
> 
> ...




Speaking of which. . . IIRC, I think that discussing of policy at other forums is against the rules _here_ (or, at least, that's what I've been told in the past).


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 8, 2008)

Crothian said:


> If that's all you want we have a whole different forum for that sort of thing
> 
> http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/




Let me make one thing clear...I like both editions and my forum posts back that up (the only thing I've been seriously negative about is WotC's failure to deliver on the character generator).  I'm not interested in being *involved* in the edition war.  However, I don't think telling people they're not allowed to vocally dislike one edition or another leaves much room for actually discussing the relative merits of one edition over another, and I *did* enjoy those sorts of threads.  

Where do you draw the line between a "This is why I like X edition more" thread and "I want to do obscenely illegal things to anyone who likes X edition because I hate it" thread?  It seems to me that every so called "edition war" thread had both sorts of posters regardless of the intent of the original thread poster.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 8, 2008)

Mercule said:


> Huh.  All I got out of it was that you'd been dropped on your head as a child.




I'd comment on your questionable parentage and dubious upbringing, but I think there are safer boards for us to discuss such things.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> Speaking of which. . . IIRC, I think that discussing of policy at other forums is against the rules _here_ (or, at least, that's what I've been told in the past).



I just looked through the rules again and didn't see it, but the rules do state that if a moderator makes a ruling, no matter how much you disagree, you have to abide by it. So, if a moderator says don't, I won't. For you, though, you would be bound by the moderator's warning you saw.


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Jul 8, 2008)

I have to admit that while I don't mind lively discussions on the difference between editions, I honestly hope it doesn't devolve into the D&D version of 'Kirk vs. Picard' uselessness.

Then again, I tend to vent on my own private/semi-private channels now, which is fantastically cathartic.  For one, I'm *always* right when I post to them (seeing as they're my own journals).  

And I still say pong is better than Pac-man.  Seriously.  Boop..... Boop.... Boop...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 8, 2008)

foundry of decay said:


> i have to admit that while i don't mind lively discussions on the difference between editions, i honestly hope it doesn't devolve into the d&d version of 'kirk vs. Picard' uselessness.




Picard, yo.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 8, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Picard, yo.




W3rd!


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Jul 8, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Picard, yo.




/agree.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> Let me make one thing clear...I like both editions and my forum posts back that up (the only thing I've been seriously negative about is WotC's failure to deliver on the character generator).  I'm not interested in being *involved* in the edition war.  However, I don't think telling people they're not allowed to vocally dislike one edition or another leaves much room for actually discussing the relative merits of one edition over another, and I *did* enjoy those sorts of threads.



Amen.



Vanuslux said:


> Where do you draw the line between a "This is why I like X edition more" thread and "I want to do obscenely illegal things to anyone who likes X edition because I hate it" thread?  It seems to me that every so called "edition war" thread had both sorts of posters regardless of the intent of the original thread poster.



I think it's a matter of approach. Just as you point out, the one says "I like this because it does such and such". That's focused and is not launching ammunition against an opponent. Thus is no part of any war. But saying "you must be a moron for liking that version" is a clear attack. So a thread that says "I like this version, who else does?" is not an edition war thread. But a thread that says "Why on earth would you want to play that version?" is clearly an edition war thread.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 8, 2008)

Corjay said:


> I just looked through the rules again and didn't see it, but the rules do state that if a moderator makes a ruling, no matter how much you disagree, you have to abide by it. So, if a moderator says don't, I won't. For you, though, you would be bound by the moderator's warning you saw.




Actually, it looks like it's not there anymore. There was (at one time) a very specific clause about not engaging in cross-forum flaming (i.e., a don't talk about people at other forums behind their backs kind of rule). So, feel free to talk about or criticize the moderators/posters at RPGnet any old way you want, I suppose.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jul 8, 2008)

I would prefer to see the edition wars remain on the back burner.  I almost stopped visiting ENWorld due to the edition wars. 

That's not to say I wouldn't mind rational discussion on the different editions, calm statements regarding your favorite edition backed by experience or fact as opposed to knee-jerk reaction and opinion.   

However, these are the internets and such a wish is merely a pipe dream.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 8, 2008)

I believe the ban should remain in effect, if only because I find the current crop of Edition Cold Warriors much more creative and amusing than the self-immolating commandos of the previous war.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 8, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> That's not to say I wouldn't mind rational discussion on the different editions, calm statements regarding your favorite edition backed by experience or fact as opposed to knee-jerk reaction and opinion.



Such discussion is impossible from two entrenched camps. If you want such discussion you will only find it from people who like both editions.

For instance, I hate 3e and will therefore only have bad things to say about it. The same goes for anyone who hates 4e. Only those who like both will be able to have an objective discussion about the differences.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 8, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think the ban on edition wars is a good idea. I don't see this one resolving itself like it did when 3rd edition was released.



4E has been out for about 10 minutes. The 2E/3E stuff hadn't settled down by this point.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 8, 2008)

Corjay said:


> Amen.
> 
> I think it's a matter of approach. Just as you point out, the one says "I like this because it does such and such". That's focused and is not launching ammunition against an opponent. Thus is no part of any war. But saying "you must be a moron for liking that version" is a clear attack. So a thread that says "I like this version, who else does?" is not an edition war thread. But a thread that says "Why on earth would you want to play that version?" is clearly an edition war thread.





Aye, the main problem is that regardless of which kind a thread starts as, it's inevitable that both sorts of posters will end up posting in it.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> Just three more days until the edition wars can resume.





No.  

For one thing, we are considering extending the ban.  

For another, even if we don't extend it, we are going to be pretty ruthless about policing.  If we have to use the banhammer more than a couple of times, you can expect that the topic will be restricted again.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

Well, I would expect policing to be stringent. Feelings are strong, and ENWorld has, in my entire recollection, been a place where civility has been enforced. That said:

_If we have to use the banhammer more than a couple of times, you can expect that the topic will be restricted again._

This just sounds like an invitation for people to "act up." As others have suggested, I think the important thing is for people to receive the usual warnings, early and consistenty, for uncivil behavior. I think punishing the topic itself is counterproductive to the idea of a forum.

While I can see an argument for extending the ban another month, I have a hard time imagining it going longer than that. There is only much you can say without broaching the forbidden subject: some people prefer one edition over another, for reasons intellectual, social, and emotional. It is relevant not only to discussions about differences between editions, but a variety of other topics where these differences are relevant. 

"You are stupid for liking X" is already against the rules, with or without a ban.  Because it's already against the rules to say someone is stupid. But I don't think someone would be moderated for saying 3e multiclassing works better than AD&D's multiclassing, and so I wonder what purpose is served by forbidding someone from making an evaluative comparison between 3e and 4e's mutliclassing systems. At least, as I understand the ban, that would be forbidden because it would inspire someone to defend one game and criticize the other. But it's a worthy topic.


----------



## Campbell (Jul 8, 2008)

Crothian said:


> If that's all you want we have a whole different forum for that sort of thing
> 
> http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/




The Circvs is not really the forum for that sort of thing. It might be light on moderation, but pointless ranting is not looked at too kindly by its denizens.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 8, 2008)

Campbell said:


> The Circvs is not really the forum for that sort of thing. It might be light on moderation, but pointless ranting is not looked at too kindly by its denizens.




I'm not sure there is a place that looks kindly on pointless ranting.  But my point its you won't get banned there for doing it.  And it's not here which is also important.


----------



## Mark (Jul 9, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> I would prefer to see the edition wars remain on the back burner.  I almost stopped visiting ENWorld due to the edition wars.
> 
> That's not to say I wouldn't mind rational discussion on the different editions, calm statements regarding your favorite edition backed by experience or fact as opposed to knee-jerk reaction and opinion.
> 
> However, these are the internets and such a wish is merely a pipe dream.






Not if mods use the tools at their disposal.  Mods can split edition wars conversation out of threads that it inappropriately infects and then combine the split-off thread into a huge ongoing depository thread for edition wars chatter (and temp ban anyone who repeatedly causes that to need to happen in threads where it is inappropriate).  Once people realize that trying to shut down conversation by jumping in with edition wars talk or accusations, I think that ploy will become less attractive.

I agree EN World needs to be a place where discussion of editions can happen.  Stifling genuine discussion on edition comparisons is probably not a good thing for EN World in the long run


----------



## hong (Jul 9, 2008)

Wormwood said:


> I believe the ban should remain in effect, if only because I find the current crop of Edition Cold Warriors much more creative and amusing than the self-immolating commandos of the previous war.



Do you have a problem with going commando?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2008)

hong said:


> Do you have a problem with going commando?



If you're going to immolate yourself you're going to want some asbestos underpants.


----------

