# Ban edition war baiting in sigs and status lines?



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

It's not as bad as it was, but there are still posters with digs at 4e and/or WotC in their sigs and status lines ("tales from the limited staircase", "gald I'm not a WotC customer" etc.).

Every post these folks make is a mini edition war on its own!

Time for a ban?

As an interesting aside, haven't seen anything of the sort making digs at other editions or games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2011)

You might want to contact a mod and have this moved to the Meta forum- that's where they prefer to keep threads about the boards.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Will do


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 11, 2011)

Just turn off sigs in your preferences. I have not seen anyone's sig in years.


----------



## Wik (Jan 11, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> As an interesting aside, haven't seen anything of the sort making digs at other editions or games.




I dunno, I've been making digs at Retro-Clones and Savage Worlds lately....


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Not in your sig or status text though!

BTW what is the best way to contact the mods re moving this thread?


----------



## DumbPaladin (Jan 11, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> It's not as bad as it was, but there are still posters with digs at 4e and/or WotC in their sigs and status lines ("tales from the limited staircase", "gald I'm not a WotC customer" etc.).
> 
> Every post these folks make is a mini edition war on its own!
> 
> ...





Problematic, and unlikely, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

One: You pointedly raise an issue with "digs" against 4E (and WotC), but have stated no objection to "digs" against Pathfinder, Paizo, any other system of RPG, or any other publisher of material.  Did you mean for your "ban" to only target people who dislike 4th Edition?

Two: People have a right to dislike 4th Edition, 3rd Edition, or any future or past editions.  Do I think they have a right to be horribly vocal about 4E *within* the 4E forum?  That's basically trolling, so personally I'd say no  Do they have a right to express their disdain about 4E in the Pathfinder forum, or the Media Lounge? Well ... sure, why not?

Three: Who exactly shall be the arbiters of what constitutes a "dig" against 4th Edition?  Are you nominating yourself? I would like to vote for someone other than you ... so now we disagree about who will get to set this nebulous definition.  I'm sure you can imagine the problem if the mods disagree, or Morrus desires not to take a stance at all.  Just as an aside: I have absolutely no understand of why 'tales from a limited staircase' would be a dig against anything? The phrase means nothing to me.

Four: As pointed out upthread, you can turn off having to see signatures at all.  Certainly a good idea for people, such as yourself, who find them horribly offensive.  I'm glad such an option exists.

Five:  Why not just ban signatures outright? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Perhaps we should be discussing this instead.

Six:  If we establish a precedent of one user's request for a ban on certain types of signatures, can you not foresee a potential problem with your own signatures (or those of your friends) in the near future?  Perhaps it had not occurred to you that some other EN World user might decide to object to anything you would put in your signature.

I could bring up "censorship is generally bad" issues, but why bother, I already have six points ...


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

To take your points in order:

1) The title of the thread is *Ban edition war baiting in sigs and status lines.*
2) I agree.
3) The mods
4) I don't find sigs "horribly offensive" although most of them are pretty sad IMO.
5) I agree.
6) No.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 11, 2011)

I like sigs - even the baiting kind. They tend to tell something about the poster, right? So they can be useful to judge a post and decide if it's worthwhile to post a reply with a differing opinion


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jan 11, 2011)

The best way to end the edition wars is to ban discussion of DnD, d20, and Fantasy Roleplaying Games on Enworld.

Short of that, almost any topic can be turned into a flame war about which publication did it best.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 11, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> To take your points in order:
> 
> <snip>
> 3) The mods
> <snip>




The mods already control the sigs/statuses to the level they wish.  You wish has been granted and you didn't even know it!  Anything left over isn't considered baiting.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 11, 2011)

If you see a sig that you think is a problem, just report the post and specify the sig in the comment box. (Just use the 

 button in the lower left of the post block.) The mods will take a look at it and decide if they think it's a problem or not. If they don't think it's a problem though, you may not here anything back from them. They can be rather busy, and can't always respond back on everything. If you really want an explanation of why they don't have a sig changed, just pm one of them and they'll usually get you an answer. At least as long as your respectful about it.

Also, in order to get the thread moved to Meta, just pm a mod and ask them. They'll probably agree that this should be in Meta.

Correction - The mods online at any given time are listed at the bottom of any forum page, such as: *General RPG Discussion*. Just click on one of the names and pm (private message) them.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 11, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> The best way to end the edition wars is to ban discussion of DnD, d20, and Fantasy Roleplaying Games on Enworld.
> 
> Short of that, almost any topic can be turned into a flame war about which publication did it best.




Hey, that's insulting to people who want to have a flame war about Science Fiction RPGs. And come to think of it, WoD games, and Shadowrun, and Paranoia, and....

Discussion should be banned. Except discussion about discussion should be allowed, since that's meta.


----------



## Eridanis (Jan 11, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> If you see a sig that you think is a problem, just report the post and specify the sig in the comment box. (Just use the
> 
> button in the lower left of the post block.) The mods will take a look at it and decide if they think it's a problem or not. If they don't think it's a problem though, you may not here anything back from them. They can be rather busy, and can't always respond back on everything. If you really want an explanation of why they don't have a sig changed, just pm one of them and they'll usually get you an answer. At least as long as your respectful about it.




Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 11, 2011)

There really are no more than a dozen people at EN World who actively engage in edition wars on either side and make the boards unfriendly. If you add them to your ignore list, EN World gets a lot more fun, friendly and productive. Seriously. 

I won't name names, but if everyone IL'd this dirty dozen (and they are hard to miss), I bet there wouldn't be very much overlap in our lists. 

There was a recent thread where someone complained about how quickly an edition war started in that thread and I was about to reply "what are you talking about?" when I realized I couldn't see any of the offending posts because they were on my dirty dozen ignore list. It was nice to learn the system works!


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jan 11, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Hey, that's insulting to people who want to have a flame war about Science Fiction RPGs. And come to think of it, WoD games, and Shadowrun, and Paranoia, and....
> 
> Discussion should be banned. Except discussion about discussion should be allowed, since that's meta.




I like flame wars about WoD, so I excluded it hoping no one would notice.  Curses!


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Don't get me wrong, I acutally like edition wars. But I only want to see them in edition-warry threads.

This sig abuse is very annoying. rather like Chinese water torture. The individual drips may be harmless (and too minor to Report ) but after reading the "tales of the limited staircase" dig for the 1000th time, and on every single thread where this guy posts, it gets a little wearing. 

Maybe I'll just switch off sigs. Then all I'll have to deal with are the "stunned till 5e" type status lines


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> Every post these folks make is a mini edition war on its own!




No, they don't.  It takes two to tango - you can't have a war with only one side, and most people choose to simply ignore the crass people.



> Time for a ban?




Probably not - if we were going to ban such things outright, we would have done it years ago, ad the height of edition warring.  We found a policy of changing individual problematic sigs was far more effective and supportable than a general ban.  



> As an interesting aside, haven't seen anything of the sort making digs at other editions or games.




Oh, they're there.  Over time, we've had to ask several people to change their sigs, and they have appeared on both sides of the line, and across different lines of war than editions.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 11, 2011)

Oh, maybe Im' not hip or something, but what does "tales of the limited staircase" mean?


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 11, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Oh, maybe Im' not hip or something, but what does "tales of the limited staircase" mean?




It's a quote from someone here on the boards from several years ago I copied into my sig. Back in 2e AD&D, there was a Planescape module called "Tales from the Infinite Staircase". Given a comparison of the 1e/2e/3e cosmology to the 4e cosmology, and the design ethos thereof, the joke was made about the 4e version being "tales from the limited staircase".


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Could I respectfully ask you to change it Shemeska? It really is very irritating.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> No, they don't. It takes two to tango - you can't have a war with only one side, and most people choose to simply ignore the crass people.




True, but why should you have to ignore crass people. Why not call them on being crass? 

I appreciate hearing the mods point of view, so thanks for replying. However, I know as mods you get ticked off with edition wars, and I think this kind of low level stuff does build up and is a big factor in the sensitivity of some of the 4e defenders.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 11, 2011)

I think your last post is part of the problem though. I love 4e, and it's far and away the best edition *for me*, but I never feel like a 4e Defender (even if I love playing one in the game ). 

There's a lot of problems with 4e as written, just as every other edition has it's own share of issues. I'll respond to silly, obviously wrong posts about 4e "combat takes 7 hours to resolve" etc, but really I think identifying yourself as a 4e defender already starts you on an aggressive, and potentially combative stance, and maybe take some posters criticisms of the game too seriously. Really, I've never been bugged by "stunned till 5e" or the other sigs/statuses people have posted. Why? Because none of it affects how I play my game of choice, 4e, and if people spout off on 4e not being D&D because it's not the same as OD&D or AD&D or whatever, fine, that's your opinion and I'll happily debate it with someone. 

I'll echo others suggestions to either ignore posters, turn off sigs, or just come up with your own quasi-witty status, like "4e, the only *true* edition of D&D" or something (I'm not witty sadly). Or call them out on it, but make sure you follow the boards rules about it.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> No, they don't.  It takes two to tango - you can't have a war with only one side



 Unilateral conflicts certainly do exist.

For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war, even though only one side was doing any attacking.

- - -

Pedantry aside, some sigs do seem to contain things that would not be allowed in the body of a post. Is there a different policy on sigs vs. posts?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

I'm not a 4e defender in any form, check my post count, most of which is from this thread! I do sympathise with them though. I view them in the same way as I view online defenders of AGW -  I am full of admiration for their dedication in debunking misinformation


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 11, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> Could I respectfully ask you to change it Shemeska? It really is very irritating.




I find it hilarious.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 11, 2011)

I just want to add that it's really hard to take anyone who registered four months ago and only has 13 posts, each of which alternates between I love/hate edition wars, seriously.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I find it hilarious.




I have never found any sig, no matter how witty, hilarious after more than a couple of repetitions. I envy you.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

jaerdaph said:


> I just want to add that it's really hard to take anyone who registered four months ago and only has 13 posts, each of which alternates between I love/hate edition wars, seriously.




I generally find it is more productive to judge each post on its merits.

That said it is funny you should say that. I created this account, after years or lurking, specifically to post in support of edition wars. But recently I too am getting a little tired of them, sad to say because it looks like the 4e defenders have basically given up save for a small hard core. I expect they are just having fun playing instead. The original edition wars were full of fire and brimstone, but also informative to an interested observer. Now everything that can be said has been and it's all looking a little samey.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 11, 2011)

Okay.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Wow. Either I've totally misunderstood the concept of trolling or that was unjustified.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> True, but why should you have to ignore crass people. Why not call them on being crass?




Because, like beauty, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.

As a purely practical matter, it is not possible for us to eliminate everything that everyone might find offensive, and world experience has shown that if you try, people simply find new things to become offended at.  So, we don't play that game.

We cannot, and do not want to, be your mommies and daddies, or thought police.  Those aren't healthy or practical.  So, we keep the worst of things in check, and rely on you all to be basically mature people in control of yourselves and willing to be responsible for your actions. This place wouldn't work otherwise, and honestly I wouldn't want to be here if it did.

Part of being mature and responsible is that you can let small stuff slide, or recognizing that you need to take a break when you can't let it slide any more.  



> ...I think this kind of low level stuff does build up and is a big factor in the sensitivity of some of the 4e defenders.




I think we're generally of the opinion that editions don't need to be defended - they're game products, not helpless maidens.  Maybe if folks stopped worrying about defending games, they'd not feel the sting of slings and arrows nearly so much.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Part of being mature and responsible is that you can let small stuff slide, or recognizing that you need to take a break when you can't let it slide any more.




I fully intend to slide back into lurkerdom after this thread, I just wanted to get a low level annoyance of my chest. It was interesting putting my head above the parapet, but I think I'm too thin skinned to make a habit of it


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 11, 2011)

Well, I am glad to see one person here that actually reads sigs at all. Pretty easy to just skip right over them.

I wonder if my sig counts, it has some digits in it that seem to really offend people.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 11, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> Well, I am glad to see one person here that actually reads sigs at all. Pretty easy to just skip right over them.
> 
> I wonder if my sig counts, it has some digits in it that seem to really offend people.




Not offensive, but I thought the mods a while back asked everyone to take out red font from sigs, because that was now officially a "moderator color"?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Not offensive, but I thought the mods a while back asked everyone to take out red font from sigs, because that was now officially a "moderator color"?




Exactly right, so if you could be so good, TerraDave?

Thanks.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 12, 2011)

Free DARK ORANGE from moderator tyranny!!!


----------



## DumbPaladin (Jan 12, 2011)

Can we please close this thread now?

The suggestion to impose unilateral censorship is unrealistic and insulting.  This entire discussion does seem like an attempt to troll, and there's nothing positive that's going to come out of further discussion.

Some guy dislikes signatures.  Okay, we all know that now.  I'll file that with other things I'm not that concerned about.  Time to move on!

Thanks.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 12, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> Well, I am glad to see one person here that actually reads sigs at all. Pretty easy to just skip right over them.
> 
> I wonder if my sig counts, it has some digits in it that seem to really offend people.



Actually, Dave, your sig has red text in it, something we go through and change when we see it. Can you please pick a different color than red or dark orange?


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 12, 2011)

"Someone is trying to impose unilateral censorship! Close the thread!"

Gotta love the irony.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jan 12, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> "Someone is trying to impose unilateral censorship! Close the thread!"
> 
> Gotta love the irony.



I don't do. About 'crass' people, I think it a bit 'crass' to ask someone else to change his sig just because someone doesn't like it.

And '4e' itself has not much meaning. Shadowrun is in it's 4th edition, too, for example.

And what about the over way? The sig: "4e is the faultless!" could annoy people who don't like it flaws. Ban that too?

This is no attack vs HealTheSquad, "I just wanted to get a low level annoyance of my chest."


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 12, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I don't do. About 'crass' people, I think it a bit 'crass' to ask someone else to change his sig just because someone doesn't like it.




OK.



Walking Dad said:


> And '4e' itself has not much meaning. Shadowrun is in it's 4th edition, too, for example.




I think you are being disingenuous here.



Walking Dad said:


> And what about the over way? The sig: "4e is the faultless!" could annoy people who don't like it flaws. Ban that too?




It would indeed annoy me as I dislike pigeon English.

It shouldn't be necessary to repeat this again, but I was proposing banning edition war sniping in sigs, from both sides. It just so happens that all the sniping I have seen is anti-4E.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jan 12, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> Can we please close this thread now?
> 
> The suggestion to impose unilateral censorship is unrealistic and insulting.  This entire discussion does seem like an attempt to troll, and there's nothing positive that's going to come out of further discussion.
> 
> ...




This.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 12, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> I think you are being disingenuous here.




Your complaint about sigs would have seemed a lot more reasonable if you hadn't said that.  Accusing others of dishonesty pretty much loses you the moral high ground when talking about behavior.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 12, 2011)

Disingenuous is not the same as dishonest. Please do not put words in my mouth. 

And I think saying, on a D&D forum, that use of the term 4e is ambiguous is the very definition of disingenuous.

Anyway I will regretfully bow out of this discussion now. I am finding the level of outright hostility to be rather disconcerting.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 12, 2011)

Hehe...there's no hostility, there's discussion and disagreement over your statements, but c'est la vie. 

Also, taking a potshot at someone for whom English is not a first language isn't cool either. 

FWIW, enworld is not a D&D only forum, so yes 4e likely means the 4th edition of D&D, but I've had other people put 4e down and mean other games.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 12, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Also, taking a potshot at someone for whom English is not a first language isn't cool either.




Sorry I have to jump in just for this and apologise to Walking Dad. I was assuming that he was posting a kind of "my hat of 3e no no limit" quote. In fact I didn't pick up on the non English speaker angle. I have lived in Switzerland for 19 years and am married to an Iranian, so my "correct English" antennae are a bit rusty. Apologies again.

But since I'm here...



renau1g said:


> FWIW, enworld is not a D&D only forum, so yes 4e likely means the 4th edition of D&D, but I've had other people put 4e down and mean other games.




At the top of the page it says *The world's premier fan community for Dungeons & Dragons news and more!*

I stand by my contention that 4e has a specific meaning on a D&D forum even though I am aware other games are discussed.

Re the agression, I said I have a thin skin  Also, all my RPGing action these days is on RPoL so every post I type here is time taken directly away from my games.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 12, 2011)

HealTheSquad said:


> Disingenuous is not the same as dishonest.




Disingenuous - giving a false sense of simple frankness or candor; insincerity, especially by way of pretending to know less on a topic than you actually do.

I think if you check several dictionaries, you'll find intentional falseness (dishonestly) is part of the common definition.



> Please do not put words in my mouth.




I am not putting words in your mouth.  I'm pointing out to you what your words mean to others.  

My point is not to accuse you of some mortal sin, or something.  I mean just to put the shoe on the other foot, so now you see how it feels.  You might want to reconsider your stance on sigs, as when we do something similar to you, you don't seem to like it much.

The Golden Rule applies - do unto others as you'd have them to unto you.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Jan 12, 2011)

No. Disingenuous does not equal dishonest. Words matter.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 13, 2011)

My dictionary lists disingenuous as synonymous with dishonesty. Maybe that matters.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 13, 2011)

Tell you what - if you see a problematic sig, please report the post. We'll take a look. Thanks.

(Closing the thread; PM me if you think further commentary is needed.)


----------

