# OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!



## Morrus (Dec 4, 2007)

Folks, this is an ultimatum: calm down and be civil, or we're gonna boot you.

We're barraged with complaints that we're creating an anti-4E forum from those who like it.  We're barraged with complaints that we're "anti-grognard" from those who don't.  Somehow we're both.

What _is_ clear is that people on _both _ sides of the issue are being equally uncivil; and the result is the forum isn't fun for _either_ camp, each of which is convinced it has been overrun by the other.  And we get the reported posts by the truckload.  We get emails accusing us of being biased towards both sides.  We get people notifying us that they're leaving because the other camp (whichever it is) is too strident.

We're brainstorming some solutions (and you're welcome to suggest any bright ideas you may have), but we're not going to tolerate the astonishing lack of civility in this forum any longer.

I'll make it clear: this forum is not for 4E optimists only; it is not for 4E pessimists only.  Use some basic common sense.  You don't have to barge into everyone's conversation and declare that you don't like what they're talking about; you don't have to barge into anyone's conversation and declare that you like the thing they dislike.  There's a massive difference between valid debate and threadcrapping.  _Do not threadcrap_.

That's all for now, but we'll add more later.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 4, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> We're brainstorming some solutions (and you're welcome to suggest any bright ideas you may have), but we're not going to tolerate the astonishing lack of civility in this forum any longer.



Have you considered temporary moderators (i.e. moderators for the time until the dust settles)?

I think one problem is the sheer volume of posts made right now - even as a non-moderator who just reads this stuff, I'm completely overwhelmed by the sheer amount of debate (good and bad debates, mind you) - I guess you guys, completely swamped with reported threads, aren't enough to handle it.

More moderators is perhaps not the most elegant solution, but... perhaps useful.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 4, 2007)

One suggestion: posters creating a thread should be allowed to tag the thread as [Pro-4e], [Anti-4e] or neither. This will be a guide to responders about where the original poster wants the discussion to go, and allow moderators to determine who is making problems. 

There are people who want to say what they don't like about 4e with like-mined people without being called grognards, with the message that they're dinosaurs. 

There are people who want to discuss what they like about the game without being told that it ruins 30 years of fluff, with the implicit message that they don't understand "real" D&D.

Both groups of people should be able to have some place on ENWorld where can they talk about 4e without getting into conflict, and this is simpler than splitting the boards.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> One suggestion: posters creating a thread should be allowed to tag the thread as [Pro-4e], [Anti-4e] or neither. This will be a guide to responders about where the original poster wants the discussion to go, and allow moderators to determine who is making problems.




This is a brilliant idea. I would like to second it. 

To the mods, and especially to Moruss: Thank you for all your hard work. I'm not sure how much it will help, but I will try hard to be a positive influence where I can and set a good example of civil discussion. If there is anything else I can do to help, let me know.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> One suggestion: posters creating a thread should be allowed to tag the thread as [Pro-4e], [Anti-4e] or neither. This will be a guide to responders about where the original poster wants the discussion to go, and allow moderators to determine who is making problems.



These tags will, of course, also attract threadcrappers and baiters. Which will get banned in no time, but I don't like that, somehow.

And will make it more difficult for people who are (like me) cautiously optimistic or cautiously pessimistic. If you're pro-4E, but see various to severe problems with a specific aspect, do you really want to post it in a pro-4E thread?

And it'll create the phenomenon that every WotC will produce two threads at once, a pro-4E one and a contra-4E one. And that'll increase the moderating effort... which is counter-productive.

Not saying that's all-bad idea, but just some aspects to consider.

Nevertheless, thanks for the hard work here, guys.

Cheer, LT.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 4, 2007)

How about 5 tags?  [very pro 4e], [somewhat pro 4e], [neutral to 4e], [somewhat anti 4e], [very anti 4e].  All members of enworld are required to register under one of the five tags before they can even see threads with any of those 5 tags, and then they can only see (and thus post to) the threads with the tag that matches their own.  They can only change their personal tag with permission from a moderator.

I don't know if this is technologically feasible though.


----------



## Lackhand (Dec 4, 2007)

My humor module is in the shop, sorry: Particle_Man, is your suggestion serious? While it'd cut down on arguments, it'd *really* splinter the boards and kill discussion.

Like, worse than arguments do currently


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 4, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is technologically feasible though.



It is. By creating five sub-forums, each associated with a group membership and fitting access-restrictions for the groups.

But suffice to say, that I share Lackhand's opinion about that.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2007)

It wouldn't hurt to recall the days of the original Eric Noah 3rd Edition News & Rumors Site, where the guideline was the "Grandma Rule." Pretend your grandma is over for dinner. Would you be this rude to other people at the table while your grandma was watching?


----------



## Nifft (Dec 4, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> What is clear is that people on both  sides of the issue are being equally uncivil; and the result is the forum isn't fun for either camp, each of which is convinced it has bene overrun by the other.



 Agree. I seem to have moved my tent back to House Rules last month. :\



			
				Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> One suggestion: posters creating a thread should be allowed to tag the thread as [Pro-4e], [Anti-4e] or neither. This will be a guide to responders about where the original poster wants the discussion to go, and allow moderators to determine who is making problems.



 I hate this idea with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

I want to be able to discuss stuff with people of many different mindsets, and not be limited in which opinions I publicly air.

Civility is orthogonal to "political camp".

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> One suggestion: posters creating a thread should be allowed to tag the thread as [Pro-4e], [Anti-4e] or neither.




My thought here - real discussion, real debate, real intellectual process all require at least two sides.  We _want_ the plusses and minuses investigated, the things we like and dislike, shown side by side.  Segregating them like that would get in the way of finding the real truths about how the system works, and what may be right or wrong with it.  

We are supposed to be mature adults, able to carry on a civil conversation.  We should not treat ourselves like schoolchildren, who cannot keep from fighting unless we are separated.  Are we so immature that we cannot keep civil tongues in our heads without labels to contain us?


----------



## Henry (Dec 4, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It wouldn't hurt to recall the days of the original Eric Noah 3rd Edition News & Rumors Site, where the guideline was the "Grandma Rule." Pretend your grandma is over for dinner. Would you be this rude to other people at the table while your grandma was watching?




Judging by the past few months, some people's Grandmas are backstabbing bitter old women who cuss like drunken rock stars on a one-nighter. 

I agree with the sentiment, though. Personally, I'd love to see people with not only an extra ounce of civility, but also slightly thicker skins, and a willingness to give one another a little benefit of the doubt that they aren't the only smart person among morons or something.

_"According to a new article, Oozes will be different colors."
"Yeesh, that isn't going to work for me at all. It just doesn't feel like I'm going to like this game."
"Why on earth would you quit playing just because oozes are a different color? You can always change it for your home games."
"I didn't say I was quitting. However, it will be harder because multi-color oozes are now the default. Every player will see it that way. WotC designers are mucking this game up for good."
"Whatever, snowflake."_

And so on.

Or,

_"Oozes are all colors now? Thanks, you WotC retards, you just flushed this game down the tubes! Everybody will be playing with their kiddy multi-oozes now! I will get as many gamers as I can lay hands on to boycott your crappy version!!!"_

Or my personal favorite, someone who reports a post and then tells people that they've done it just to try and shame someone into submission. Just like it's poor form to tell a policeman about someone driving recklessly and then chasing them down, it's not a good idea to get in the mods' way and become part of the very problem that was being noted.

It's not only crazy to watch people go at each other like this, it's very frustrating for mods to have to come down on so many people going at it like this.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Dec 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> My thought here - real discussion, real debate, real intellectual process all require at least two sides.




My feeling is that real discussion, debate and intellectual process almost never happen in online forums. They decay into flame wars unless separated out into different boards/newsgroups, and strong moderation keeps things polite but eventually eliminates dissenters.

Of course, if this belief is correct I have no chance of persuading you of it, since this is yet another forum.


----------



## Henry (Dec 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> My feeling is that real discussion, debate and intellectual process almost never happen in online forums. They decay into flame wars unless separated out into different boards/newsgroups, and strong moderation keeps things polite but eventually eliminates dissenters.




May be true, but I've seen rational debate happen here and at CM more often than I've seen anywhere else on the Web, enough to know it's possible, and enough to want to foster it as much as possible. We've got people lurking around here capable of some fantastic discourse, and I'm pleased as punch when they feel moved enough to come out and speak their minds. But  they can do it without ticking other people off, too, and don't feel the need to slash and burn as they go just to try making more people listen to them, because it never works.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> My feeling is that real discussion, debate and intellectual process almost never happen in online forums.



 I'd encourage you to visit forums other than 4e. It happens around here plenty.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Patlin (Dec 4, 2007)

I take it if someone does something offensive, they get some sort of warning e-mail or some other notice? General statement like this thread are good for maintaining awareness, but not so good at letting the offenders know in exactly what manner they've offended.

I think your being very clear that its not optomism or pessimism that's the problem, it's the lack of civility in expressing those opinions that's objectionable.  We're free to disagree with each other as much as we want, as long as we do it politely.

I guess I'm a little unclear on what "threadcrapping" means, but it wouldn't include "I disagree with your position because of a, b and c."  Am I right?


----------



## Henry (Dec 4, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> I guess I'm a little unclear on what "threadcrapping" means, but it wouldn't include "I disagree with your position because of a, b and c."  Am I right?




Correct. Threadcrapping is something like:

*Poster 1: I think 4E Wizards sound great! Can't wait to play one!
Poster 2: I can't stand those implements ideas! Where are my wizards with no reliance on material components?
Poster 3: Apparently, they're locked away, along with any shred of material that would make a decent game. *

Guess who's the one we'll be saying a word to above?


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Judging by the past few months, some people's Grandmas are backstabbing bitter old women who cuss like drunken rock stars on a one-nighter.




Hense, the problem in general with the Grandma rule.  It's entirely subjective.  And more to the point, my Grandma is a southern belle.  She can insult your parentage and be civil about it at the same time.  There is alot of that going around.

Personally, I think the English language rich enough that we don't have to resort to coarseness in our conversation, and I'm thinkful for it.  But civility does not equal a stance of respect for your fellow posters, and the only way to get discourse is to have some measure of respect.



> I agree with the sentiment, though. Personally, I'd love to see people with not only an extra ounce of civility, but also _slightly thicker skins_...




Maybe its just me, but I consider reporting posts (ei 'tattle-telling', bringing your mutual boss in when you have a problem with your peer, etc.) to be very productive behavior, nor do I consider it to be very civil or mature.  You don't do yourself any favors as admins by encouraging it.  The problem isn't that you've got a culture where people's grandma's ears are abused; you've got a culture of kindegardeners.  Bringing in the higher authority figure is the ultimate escalation of the fight.  It is incitement.  If you've got rampant tattle-tellers, they are every bit as much of a problem as if you have rampant trolls.  Actually, its more, because at least flame-wars often have at least some measure of mature adult discussion admidst the 'and hense with these three points I've proved you are an idiot'.  Bringing in the mods is just an attempt to shut down discussion.

As for the 'thicker skins', back 'in the old days' the rule used to be that if you don't have on your asbestos underwear when you post, its your problem.  You can always just ignore the poster if you don't like what they say.  If you incite them, intentionally or unintentionally, one responce is usually enough.  If they don't start sounding more reasonable immediately - either because they realize they've been an idiot or you do - you can always just end the discussion.  You don't have to talk to me; I don't have to talk to you.  You don't have to rise to the bait; or if you must, you don't have to keep doing it if its obviously unproductive.  IME, between mature posters, most disagreements will flicker out after a post or two and no harm done, either with the disagreement being buried with a 'agree to disagree' or at least the inciteful language dying down.  If you can't do that, then you aren't the mature poster, because 'thicker skin' and being able to take abit of friction is part of it.

If you take a strong opinionated stand on something, you are going to recieve a strong responce.  Deal with it.  You aren't entitled to not be disagreed with.  You aren't even entitled to not be called an idiot.  Nobody here is entitled.  They just have rights.  I have a right to speak.  The mods have the right to decide, 'No, you don't.'  You have a right to speak or not speak or even choose not to listen.  But nobody gets to control the content of the speach, not even the mods except by creating all the speach themselves - which would I think defeat the point.

And for the love of Gygax, can we avoid taking the self-righteous moral high ground as a pretence for attacking particular poster?   A veneer of civility does not for respect make. If the post is really dumb, the real moral high ground is not responding at all.  Once you respond, don't pretend you aren't escalating the conflict.

On the other hand, if you don't respond it will usually take you longer to figure out you've been the idiot.  Speaking from personal experience here as well as long observation.

To really set the coals under the pot, do the three day bans actually accomplish anything but make people resentful?


----------



## Nifft (Dec 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> To really set the coals under the pot, do the three day bans actually accomplish anything but make people resentful?



 Well, yes: at minimum they effect the temporary silence of someone who isn't particularly useful. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Correct. Threadcrapping is something like:
> 
> *Poster 1: I think 4E Wizards sound great! Can't wait to play one!
> Poster 2: I can't stand those implements ideas! Where are my wizards with no reliance on material components?
> ...




Poster 1, I hope.


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The problem isn't that you've got a culture where people's grandma's ears are abused; you've got a culture of kindegardeners.  Bringing in the higher authority figure is the ultimate escalation of the fight.  It is incitement.  If you've got rampant tattle-tellers, they are every bit as much of a problem as if you have rampant trolls.  Actually, its more, because at least flame-wars often have at least some measure of mature adult discussion admidst the 'and hense with these three points I've proved you are an idiot'.  Bringing in the mods is just an attempt to shut down discussion.



I strongly disagree.  Mods know when to stay out of a discussion, bump a discussion away from a bad area or when to get heavy handed (at least good ones, which we pretty much have here).  Reporting a post is not an automatic "bring the mods down on a thread" unless the thread needs that to happen.  I say this as a mod on another site where I often look at a thread and decide the person reporting a post was just being thin-skinned.


----------



## neceros (Dec 4, 2007)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Poster 1, I hope.



Rather, I don't think any one of those posters have done wrong.
1: Started a debate, without which any forum is unnecessary.
2: Added to the debate on the opposite end.
3: Added a +1 point towards the negative opposing side of the debate humorously.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 4, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> My humor module is in the shop, sorry: Particle_Man, is your suggestion serious? While it'd cut down on arguments, it'd *really* splinter the boards and kill discussion.
> 
> Like, worse than arguments do currently




Well it was a serious (rather than humourous) notion, but just a suggestion.

On reporting, I think that reporting is good, while mentioning that you have reported not so good.

Maybe there is a way (going back to my first idea) of using the tags, but letting most people access them, but "partially banning" people that are abusive so that they can't get into [pro-4e] threads if they have been threadcrapping on them, nor into [anti-4e] threads if they have been threadcrapping on them?  Sort of an intermediate step betweent he warning and the general ban?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 4, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Rather, I don't think any one of those posters have done wrong.
> 1: Started a debate, without which any forum is unnecessary.
> 2: Added to the debate on the opposite end.
> 3: Added a +1 point towards the negative side of the debate humorously.





Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion.  What's wrong with that?  Some may disagree with it, but so what?  If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

First of all, I'm in agreement with Umbran and a couple of the other posters. Civility shouldn't be that hard to maintain and discussion (which generally requires differences of opinion) is why we're here. However, if civility is to be valued over discussion and the forum divided into different camps that aren't allowed to mingle, then there's not really a point in coming here in the first place.

Secondly, I haven't really had a problem with people saying things that my grandmother would take offense to, other than pro-D&D statements in general. She did think it was devil worship after all. I have yet to report someone to the moderators in the years that I've been coming here, and nothing I've read on the 4E forums has even made me consider clicking that button.

That being said, I've also noticed a definite decrease in the level of enjoyment I get from perusing the board. Why? I'm not entirely sure but I think it has something to do with the proliferation of threads and posts that are almost entirely about people spouting off their opinions and not really contributing to an actual discussion in a useful way. I'm here to talk about all things 4E, not wade through a river of snarky two liners that also happen to inarticulately express a completely subjective opinion. If I wanted to subject myself to that I'd go hang out in a coffee shop full of ironic, self-obsessed hipsters. I live in Seattle. They're easy to find.

As for what to do about the problem in general? Here's what I would do if I were in charge:

I'd split the forum into two sub-forums, with one labeled "discussion" and the other labeled "opinion."

The discussion forum is, obviously, about calmly discussing what we know about 4E. Opinions are allowed but posts that ONLY contain an opinion and not something more substantial are strongly discouraged. I'd even go so far as to say that posts that simply say "I agree" or "I disagree" should be discouraged. There's no snarking. There's none of this "I'm going to say something really offensive but use words that make it sound like I'm being friendly to get away with it" garbage. As far as moderating is concerned, it operates under the old "Eric's Grandma" rules for behavior, but it's much more strictly moderated than usual. Far less tolerance for bad behavior than currently seems to exist on the boards. If you step out of line, you get warned the first time.

The other "opinion" sub-forum is sort of like the PvP zones you tend to find in MMO's. Or, if you please, the "two minute hate" in 1984. In either case, you're thoroughly warned ahead of time what you're getting yourself into if you post there, so you can't complain if you later decide that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Threads titled "I hate gnomes and think they should die", "Wizards wants to eat your soul for breakfast" and "I heard that Mike Mearls likes Ranma 1/2" are all perfectly okay. As are bluntly worded objections to the opinions expressed in the titles. The level of moderation is lower (so the mods can focus on the other forum) but the rules about what sorts of things you can complain about are much tighter and far less subjective. If you contact a mod about something going on in the "opinion" sub-forum and it doesn't fall under the very specific rules about what are reportable offenses, you yourself stand a fair chance of getting banned simply for wasting a mod's time.

Under this sort of a regime, people that want to discuss can do so and not have to be bothered by trolls and people that just don't have much to say other than "yeah, I think that too." And people that just want to vent off some steam about something they're upset about? They can go to the "opinion" sub-forum and vent until their spleens explode.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 4, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion.  What's wrong with that?  Some may disagree with it, but so what?  If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.



What's wrong? Probably the attitude.

#3 could have said:

"This kind of wizard is probably no longer really viable, because of a profound paradigm change in WotC, which renders their material useless for me."

"We probably won't see them. In general, I disagree with WotC's course and don't see anything that suits my gaming style."

"I don't know, but in general, most of these new ideas are not my taste."

"..." (i.e. posted nothing, as he hasn't continued any discussion)

All convey "I don't like that game", but don't carry as much snark. Generally, I wouldn't say that any poster has done anything wrong, if that wouldn't happen over and over again, often with much more snark - snark and sarcasm is fine once in a while... but if used to often in an environment, it'll change from passive-aggressive to active-aggressive.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 4, 2007)

> Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion. What's wrong with that? Some may disagree with it, but so what? If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.




The way I see it, #3 was a jerk about it.

Because instead of saying something like "I don't like that either, it could really ruin the game for me," he said "Everything poster #1 likes is wrong."

You can respect the validity of someone's ideas without agreeing with them, and you can keep an open channel of discussion without condescending. 

For #3, there is no discussion, there's just demagoguery. His mind is made up and he just wants to preach his message. There's no reason to post if you're not making a point, you don't need to leave a post just to see your own text on display. It didn't add anything new, and it's impossible to actually talk about the issues raised, it insults those who don't agree, and, basically, is a jerk about it.

Normally, that's fine, but 4e is a touchy subject 'round here. There's a lot of people really invested in this game.  That means that people should take extra care. If that means keepin' your yap shut instead of cracking wise, you should. Take a minute before you post, ask yourself why you need to post it, and then go ahead with it.

And debating with the mods CAN'T be the most productive way to go about getting back into the fray!


----------



## Khaalis (Dec 4, 2007)

There is a larger problem here than simply the 4E like/hate debate. The problem is really the overabundance of internet incivility. 

People hide behind their computers and screen-names and act in ways they would never think of doing in public. The internet's anonymity (in general) brings out the worst in many people. You will never get people to stop threadcrapping, and you will never get them to willingly stop being rude. The only thing you can viably do is simply get strict on moderation of behavior.

It is fine to express contradictory opinions and to debate topics. It is *NOT* acceptable to be rude, insulting, vulgar, etc. The site already has a written _*Code of Conduct*_. When you create an account here it is assumed that you accept and agree to these terms. If people are not willing to abide by it, then they should get the boot. Simple as that.  It is not about supporting one side or the other or any kind of favoritism. If you break the CoD, you're out. Simple as that.

What it comes down to Morris is that this is the EN site. It is not the poster's site. If posters are not willing to abide by the rules of this private run site, they don't belong here.

JMHO.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 4, 2007)

The real problem is that the type of enforced civility we have, coupled with the social norm of presuming that everyone's opinion has at least some merit and that there's always two sides to an issue, encourages certain types of anti social behavior that slips under the moderation rules.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The real problem is that the type of enforced civility we have, coupled with the social norm of presuming that everyone's opinion has at least some merit and that there's always two sides to an issue, encourages certain types of anti social behavior that slips under the moderation rules.




I'm interested. Why do you think

a) civility rules
b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
c) presuming there are two sides to an issue

encourages antisocial behaviour? 

It seems to me that those three things are conducive to polite, rational, intelligent discussion - and in fact the lack of those three elements would hugely encourage antisocial behaviour.

So could you explain your opinion here?

Thanks


----------



## Driddle (Dec 4, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> We're barraged with complaints that we're creating an anti-4E forum from those who like it.  We're barraged with complaints that we're "anti-grognard" from those who don't.  Somehow we're both.




That is SO true! You don't hate only one side or the other -- you hate everyone equally! I don't know how you do it, but your moderating skills have evolved beyond mere good and evil and attained a sort of simultaneous dichotomy that can only be described as gawd-like. It's awesome. Keep it up!




... Oh.  :\  My wife just explained what you meant.

Huh. I thought it was something people would appreciate. *I *do.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 4, 2007)

OK, upon reading the thread more closely....



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Judging by the past few months, some people's Grandmas are backstabbing bitter old women who cuss like drunken rock stars on a one-nighter.
> 
> I agree with the sentiment, though. Personally, I'd love to see people with not only an extra ounce of civility, but also slightly thicker skins, and a willingness to give one another a little benefit of the doubt that they aren't the only smart person among morons or something.




Henry gets my vote. I'd support either a Henry/Pirate-Cat ticket for '08 or a Pirate-Cat/Henry ticket.

I also am for civility and thicker skin: Stop being mean and stop assuming someone else is being mean. Because once people stop being so edgy, maybe they'll rediscover their sense of humor.

(And by the way, both of my grandmas are dead. Makes me a little sad for someone to suggest that I pretend they've come to dinner.)


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 4, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion.  What's wrong with that?  Some may disagree with it, but so what?  If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.




I think its the poster's implication that "4e will be badwrongfun and you'd have to be a moron not to see it."


----------



## Horacio (Dec 4, 2007)

My take on the subject : 

Before posting, try to think if you would say it face to face. If you wouldn't say it face to face, don't post it.

In the doubt, also think that face to face interlocutor is a friend of a frind, somebody you wouldn't want to offend.

That is, act as you would do in a social evening party.

If everybody did it, most problems would stop, IMHO...


----------



## Maggan (Dec 4, 2007)

This is an honest question:

How many posters are part of the problem?

Is it a group of 5? Or 10? Or is it widespread, with hundreds participating in bringing EN World down?

The reason I'm asking is that there has to be different solutions depending on what/who is the major part of the problem. If the negativity and hostility are perpetuated by say five people on each side cranking out their posts, riling people up, the solution would be to talk to these people individually about their posting habits.

If there are hundreds of people to blame, it becomes a different problem, with a different solution, for example by banning threadcrappers for a week with no warning, at the mods discretion. That would have a negative effect on the boards, sure, but it would make sure that people thought their posts through a couple of times before posting.

/M


----------



## Imaro (Dec 4, 2007)

Well I'll throw in a thought...humor, it's totallyy subjective and requires a context that can be hard to convey on the internet.  On top of that it's a totally subjective thing.  In the post by Henry...



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Correct. Threadcrapping is something like:
> 
> *Poster 1: I think 4E Wizards sound great! Can't wait to play one!
> Poster 2: I can't stand those implements ideas! Where are my wizards with no reliance on material components?
> ...




Number 3 could be interpreted as mean-spirited or he could be having a go at sarcastic humor.  I have seen numerous (though not all) "humor" threads which could easily be interpreted as either sarcastic but ultimately harmless ribbing or as thinly veiled insults against other opinions.  My thing is it becomes unbalanced because some are totally acceptable to the mods while others aren't and I don't think there is clear cut definition about what is and isn't going to get you in trouble.

I do think that it's easier for people on these boards to dish it than to take it, but in the end it's just a game and unless the person is insulting you personally (and no, I'm not talking about what may or may not be implied...since again that is totally subjective) people maybe should get some thicker skins about what is ultimately just a hobby/company/game.  Just my .02


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm interested. Why do you think
> 
> a) civility rules
> b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
> ...




Certainly.

There are more types of trolling than mere insults.  There is concern trolling, contrarian trolling, and a whole host of others.  Some of them function by carefully _not_ crossing the line in terms of insults, while still mindlessly repeating obnoxious, unthoughtful comments, with the intention of annoying.  The fact that no explicit rules are being violated protects the troll, and the culture of presuming that there are two sides to an issue and that other's opinions must have some merit gives the troll moral high ground to demand equal treatment with other non-trolls, even as the trolls irrational comments, crocodile tears at alleged mistreatment, and astounding stamina in posting the same thing over and over even after it has been more than adequately dismissed, drag the forum into the ditch.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102

Consider reading that guide to the trolls of the internet.


----------



## Tiew (Dec 4, 2007)

Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random. Just grab any somewhat uncivil person you see, temp band them, make it public you temp banned them, and don't give any justification for why they deserved it more than the other somewhat uncivil people.

This is kind of how China accomplishes the almost impossible goal of censoring the internet. Rather than come up with an official list of bad sites, they arbitrarily send people to jail. This causes all the ISPs to very diligently self-censor.

The point is if there are clear lines you can always go right up to them and play around. If there aren't, and you know you could be punished unfairly, you'll stay as far away as you can.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There are more types of trolling ... etc.
> 
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102
> 
> Consider reading that guide to the trolls of the internet.




The mods in this thread aren't addressing "trolling" by itself, but rather civility and decency in general. If you really want to bolster the "troll" tangent, I would bring back the focus to an introductory line of that link you referenced: "Trolls delight in _sowing discord _ on the forums." Too many people are quick to jump to the conclusion that the other guy is trying to cause problems. P-Sail takes the high road in three points ... 



> a) civility rules
> b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
> c) presuming there are two sides to an issue




... to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, rather than ascribe malicious intent. It's a very even-handed attitude, and I applaud it. Even if the post in question has no obvious merit (subjectively), the three-point P-Sail position helps us to avoid a default negative interpretation and nasty reaction.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102
> 
> Consider reading that guide to the trolls of the internet.




I have to agree with Cadfan here. Like I said in my earlier post, all of the useless "opinion clutter" has been my main source of irritation lately, but he's got a good point. A lot of the bad behavior does seem like trolling that's been softened just enough to not provoke the ire of the mods.

Course, now that I've read his link, I'm worried I might secretly be a troll and not even know it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 4, 2007)

Tiew said:
			
		

> Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random.




Now where did I put that d56,335?


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 4, 2007)

Apartheid
Two 4E forums, one for the fanboys and one for the naysayers, so they can release their passion and fury.
And a third forum for the real constructive discussion.


----------



## Tiew (Dec 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Now where did I put that d56,335?




Hehehehe.  Yeah.

I originally had "somewhat arbitrary, and somewhat random" but then I saw I used somewhat again in the next sentence and took it out.


----------



## nerfherder (Dec 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Now where did I put that d56,335?



Sadly, it's too big for Invisible Castle...


----------



## Blackrat (Dec 4, 2007)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> Sadly, it's too big for Invisible Castle...



But not for this http://www.costik.com/frpdice.html


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 4, 2007)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> Sadly, it's too big for Invisible Castle...




No it's, not...  you just have to know the trick.

Sorry, oldschooler, user #28925... you're BANNED.


The trouble is that there are so many accounts here with post counts in the single digits, the vast majority wouldn't even notice if you banned them for a week or two.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm interested. Why do you think
> 
> a) civility rules
> b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
> ...




I can explain it, if you'll permit me some hyperbole that probably isn't applicable to ENWorld's specific 4e problems.

A, B, and C encourage folks to adopt positions that, in a sane world, would be roundly and publicly ridiculed. 

Not all opinions deserve serious consideration, and not all issues have two equal sides.

The anonymity of internet exacerbates this phenomenon even further. You can spout some nonsense on the internet that not only wouldn't be tolerated in person, it might properly get you a face full of fist.

There _should be_ limits to civility, because some things do not warrant a civil response.

EDIT: To put it another way, the possibility that you will be publicly shamed, and/or possibly get your teeth knocked in, justifiably so, works far better towards discouraging anti-social behavior than the knowledge that there is a forum where your wack-job opinions will be welcomed and officially protected.


----------



## nerfherder (Dec 4, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> No it's, not...  you just have to know the trick.
> 
> Sorry, oldschooler, user #28925... you're BANNED.
> 
> ...



Good one


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: To put it another way, the possibility that you will be publicly shamed, and/or possibly get your teeth knocked in, justifiably so, works far better towards discouraging anti-social behavior than the knowledge that there is a forum where your wack-job opinions will be welcomed and officially protected.




And the only way to do this in a forum environment is to make sure there are enough mods to do the job. They're the only ones that should have the power to "kick teeth in."

From the OP, it sounds like the actual identifiable problem here is that the mods are being overwhelmed by a mountain of complaints about supposed bad behavior.

I'm 100% behind PlaneSailing on the call for civility and you're absolutely correct that people with "issues" aren't going to respond to said call. I still think the strategy I outlined in my overly long post from last night is the way to go.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Henry
> Correct. Threadcrapping is something like:
> 
> Poster 1: I think 4E Wizards sound great! Can't wait to play one!
> ...




Poster 3 here might be aiming for sarcastic humour, but to me, certainly they come across as an uneccessary post, and over time become increasingly irrirtating.

Personally, I'm happy to read any opinion, so long as it is backed up with some information and a reason why the poster is holding that opinion.

"That sucks! It's rubbish! It's going to make the game terrible!" is irritating.

"That sucks! It's rubbish! it's going to make the game terrible! My players can already see these flaws in this material that are going to lead to these problems and I'm suggesting this as a useful solution..." is an interesting post that is worth reading.

My own personal pet peeve is endless polls asking essentially pointless questions. "What do you think of this?" - well, I can answer that in a post - it doesn't need a poll, especially on each and every small detail.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 4, 2007)

Just want to go on record as saying I agree with Cadfan.  It is why I have lurked here since the site started, and haven't registered until a few months ago. There are the rules of civility, and then there is the spirit of civility.  EN World has been worth reading for a long time (without prompting me to delurk to comment), because the moderators were able to walk that line of enforcing the spirit of civility, and not just the rules.  I suspect that the increased activity (number of posters and amount they post) has made this line a lot harder to walk.

There are plenty of people out there that are more interested in pushing the spirit of the rules to the breaking point than actually doing whatever activity is taking place (in this case, discussion).  They are the kind that will be sure, for example, to find a way to let you know what they think about some hot, off-topic subject, if only via a line in their sig.  For them, it's fun to see how far they can go without being called on it.

And just so you know, wondering at my post count, I've observed that I personally am the type that can get drug down into the gutter with such types--because it's obvious to me what they are doing, and I find it extremely irritating.  Thus I tend not to post very much in forums that try to strike what I think is an unsustainable balance.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Well I'll throw in a thought...humor, it's totallyy subjective and requires a context that can be hard to convey on the internet.  On top of that it's a totally subjective thing.  In the post by Henry...
> 
> Number 3 could be interpreted as mean-spirited or he could be having a go at sarcastic humor.  I have seen numerous (though not all) "humor" threads which could easily be interpreted as either sarcastic but ultimately harmless ribbing or as thinly veiled insults against other opinions.  <snip>




And given that the attempt at humor could be badly misinterpreted, why make the attempt without making darn sure that you did all you could to prevent misinterpretation? That's partly what smileys are for. To convey clues to the tone and intent.
Yes, people could do with thicker skins around here. And we could also do with fewer internet comedians cracking wise. At least until things cool down a little more.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> And the only way to do this in a forum environment is to make sure there are enough mods to do the job. They're the only ones that should have the power to "kick teeth in."




Another way to do it in a forum environment is to say, "That's the stupidest ing thing I have ever heard," if, in fact, a particular post is the stupidest ing thing you have ever heard.

But that's not appropriate here, and not what I am suggesting. 

I was simply answering Alex's question about why permissiveness and acceptance can encourage anti-social behavior (read here as "the public airing of really stupid ing opinions.")


----------



## Henry (Dec 4, 2007)

Tiew said:
			
		

> Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random.




*"The public floggings will continue until morale improves." *


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: To put it another way, the possibility that you will be publicly shamed, and/or possibly get your teeth knocked in, justifiably so, works far better towards discouraging anti-social behavior than the knowledge that there is a forum where your wack-job opinions will be welcomed and officially protected.




You can still do it with a modicum of civility.
"That is, in my opinion, the worst idea I've heard on this topic so far. Here's what I think is wrong with it..."

If the poster really is exhibiting anti-social behavior, the mods can crack down. If it's just a bad idea, tell the person it's a bad idea and tell them why. Bad ideas don't need to be publically _shamed_, they need to be _critiqued_. Intentionally bad behavior, that I'm in favor of publically shaming...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I can explain it, if you'll permit me some hyperbole that probably isn't applicable to ENWorld's specific 4e problems.
> 
> A, B, and C encourage folks to adopt positions that, in a sane world, would be roundly and publicly ridiculed.
> 
> Not all opinions deserve serious consideration, and not all issues have two equal sides.




Thanks Wulf, a good response. It reminds me of a problem we see all too easily in our UK news broadcasts nowadays - there is almost a mantra which says "there are two sides to every argument" and even if one side is represented by 95% of scientific opinion, they still give equal airtime to whack-jobs who oppose the idea "to give a balanced view".

Bah.

However, to come back to internet-land... I know that my enjoyment of and participation in internet forums is largely governed by how civil they are, how 'adult' they are in terms of conversation (this is the mythical 'adult' as in sensible, logical, self-controlled; I remember being shocked when I eventually reached adulthood that the behaviour of adults was actually not much removed from that of the schoolyard as it turned out. But that is another story).

When it comes down to it, (a) is the one that I'm most concerned about seeing here. If someone can present a stupid opinion in a civil way, and other people point out the fallacies in their  position in a civil way, then I'm a happy cute rodent of choice.

Cheers


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 4, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> You can still do it with a modicum of civility.
> "That is, in my opinion, the worst idea I've heard on this topic so far. Here's what I think is wrong with it..."
> 
> If the poster really is exhibiting anti-social behavior, the mods can crack down.




Again, I was answering Alex's question, not making a suggestion.

To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions _legitimizes_ them. 

Or is it your contention that, for example, Fred Phelps should be invited to the next Presidential debate to critique the merits of his opinions?

EDIT: That's it exactly, Alex!


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We are supposed to be mature adults, able to carry on a civil conversation.  We should not treat ourselves like schoolchildren, who cannot keep from fighting unless we are separated.  Are we so immature that we cannot keep civil tongues in our heads without labels to contain us?



The fact that Morrus just had to post this pretty much shows that there is indeed enough evidence to come to that conclusion.

Really, if the mods don't like the way the conversations are going, they need to:
1) Not just use the currently lame, vague, and wishy-washy "don't be rude please" posts in troublesome threads, or send some hidden "behind the scenes" email. They need to _publically_ in the thread call the offender(s) out _by name_ and quote their offending post(s) so _everyone can see_.

2) Use much more of the (awesome, IMO) "don't post in this thread anymore" tool. I don't see enough of this, and it's an excellent way to remove a troublesome poster but not going to the extreme of banning (if it's not quite warranted). The above is simply a fantastic tool of the mods and should be used more often, IMO.

3) Then use the 3-day bans (again, publically calling out by name and quoting the offending post).

Also, noting how many warnings, removal from threads, and bannings each poster has would also be a great tool (if feasible). There are enough posters here who've been banned at least once (or more) - and it's very obvious to see why. Repeat offenders should also be publically called out when they're being chastised again.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions _legitimizes_ them.
> 
> Or is it your contention that, for example, Fred Phelps should be invited to the next Presidential debate to critique the merits of his opinions?




Well, it certainly would be entertaining.

The other factor to consider is that the anti-social types we're talking about are likely behaving the way they are simply in order to garner attention. Responding to them, civilly or otherwise, only gives them what they so desperately crave.

Of course, you still need to flush 'em out in the first place, and that can only be done by initially responding to them, civilly or otherwise. So, in any forum I suppose there will always be a certain background level of troll-noise. *shrug*


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 4, 2007)

> If someone can present a stupid opinion in a civil way, and other people point out the fallacies in their position in a civil way, then I'm a happy cute rodent of choice.




I think the problem, though, is conflicting definitions of what presenting my (potentially stupid) opinion in a civil way consists of:

A. As long as the words are civil, or I can at least plausibly deny charges to the contrary, then I'm good.

B. Not only did I write my opinion, I obviously thought about it a bit first.  Moreover, I took the time to familiarize myself with the tone and recent content of the forum.  So, for example, if something very much like my opinion was critiqued last week, I didn't post the same argument and expect everyone to type their critique again.  And for sure, having been critiqued, I don't wait a few weeks, and post the same (stupid) point again--with absolutely no acknowledgement that I was roundly and completely answered then.

I think suprising number of "repeat" arguments that rachet up the rhetoric, would be far less inflamatory if the "repeater" would simply have the goodwill and self-awareness to acknowledge that such has gone before:  "I know we talked about this last month (link), but I think I have a different twist on it."  And then, even if I don't have a different twist on it, I'll probably still get a civil response, if only, "I don't think that new twist changes anything."  OTOH, posting the same two-line "argument" every week, and ignoring the thoughtful responses that were produced the last 176 times someone made essentially the same argument--is inherently uncivil, no matter how nice you word it.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 4, 2007)

*On threadcrapping, constructive disagreement and rutabaga candles*

A few random thought/responses to this thread. 

Threadcrapping - personally, I define threadcrapping not in language or tone used, but as a post which attacks the existance of the thread rather than addressing the subject. For instance, when a person starts a thread saying "How can I create a good weaning party ambiance without using rutabaga candles?" a response like "You can't of course, though Cafeteria Vegetablists like yourself have been making yourselves look silly trying for years," is threadcrapping, but so is "I use rutabaga candles" "Huh - why would you want to have a weaning party without rutabaga candles?" or a detailed thesis on the socially manufactured nature of ambiance. Threadcrapping, to me, is denying the validity of a discussion instead of participating in the discussion.

Which then goes to the point of whether "threadcrapping" is always bad. I mean, if the OP starts out with "Since everyone knows rutabaga candles are gross and they cause cancer, what are some good alternatives to use when the proles at my weaning party want a similar ambiance?" I don't think rutabaga candle fans should feel required to ignore flaws in the premise of the thread.    

On the subject of disagreeing while still being civil, my suggestion has always been *speak for yourself*. Literally. Stick to stating your own opinions and expereinces, without universalizing them or setting up strawmen of the opposite position. For instance, _"In no reasonable point of view can eggplant candles be seen as a substitute for rutabaga ones"_ adds nothing but attitude to the statement that you don't consider eggplant candles a good substitute. _"Well of course eggplant candles are just as good, tradition is completely meaningless, don'tcha know, in fact we shouldn't even expect a weaning party to have a weaned chihuahua, you can do whatever you feel like it and call it a weaning party to get the snausages,_" is just an insulting strawman. 

Some folks dislike IMO and such, but taking the effort to say "in my game", "for my group", or just "to me" makes all the difference in my read of a thread as being a discussion vs an argument. 

A final note on the joys of "thick skins". If being willing to say "this person's behavior is making my time on the site less enjoyable and I think I have the right to bring that to the mods' attention" is thin skinned, so be it. I don't consider putting up with bad treatment a virtue, and all the "tattletale" "thin skinned" "kindergardener" et al in the world isn't going to make me ashamed of doing my part to keep the site one I enjoy being at. If the mods make it clear by their action or inaction that their vision of the site is different than mine, that is a cue I will take in a heartbeat, but if there are guidelines I think make the site better, you bet I'm going to report their infractions.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Again, I was answering Alex's question, not making a suggestion.
> 
> To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions _legitimizes_ them.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, responding to them with ridicule doesn't exactly discourage them either. They just increase the heat alongside. After all, if the intent is to gather attention, responding to them with anything but the 3-day banhammer is only going to encourage them. 
Responding in a civil manner at least helps you figure out the difference between the person who is just way off base or a complete jackass without accidentally becoming one yourself.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Another way to do it in a forum environment is to say, "That's the stupidest ing thing I have ever heard," if, in fact, a particular post is the stupidest ing thing you have ever heard.
> 
> But that's not appropriate here, and not what I am suggesting.
> 
> I was simply answering Alex's question about why permissiveness and acceptance can encourage anti-social behavior (read here as "the public airing of really stupid ing opinions.")






			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *"The public floggings will continue until morale improves." *




Thanks, guys, those had me laughing out loud.

If I may add, what I am seeing is a problem of sparsity of real information about 4E, and as a result folks are forced into speculation or into simple reactions.  Put another way, the intensity is a measure of the tension caused by the gap between what we know, and what we would like to know.  (As a grognard with a large investment in the game, and in knowing all about it, I can say that that tension is coloring at least *my* attitude, and it gives me a vehicle to redirect any number of real stresses towards 4E.)


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 4, 2007)

I might suggest that what can be done HAS just been done.  About all you can really do is TELL people to calm down and be civil and then continue to ban those who are not, while possibly chastising (banning?) those who are calling in the mods rather than simply growing a skin.

Nobody NEEDS to be rude, even in responding to stupidity and insult.  Learn to PROPERLY identify what is rude and insulting and respond APPROPRIATELY.  Failure to do so should get you admonished and then banned.  Stating contrary opinions does not in itself constitute being insulting.  Stating contrary opinions also should not be done by BEING insulting or via threadcrapping.  And people WILL come into your "Wahoo!  4E!" thread and express negative opinions.  Be mature and learn to live with it.  People will come into your "Doom!  4E is the END!" thread and tell you you're wrong.  Simply doing so is not an inherent attack upon your parentage.

I think Henry actually has it exactly right.  Now that the request has been publicly made for a return of civility the beatings should simply continue until morale improves (and don't be afraid to jump on those who are being too thin-skinned and misusing/abusing the moderators.)


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 4, 2007)

Tiew said:
			
		

> Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random. Just grab any somewhat uncivil person you see, temp band them, make it public you temp banned them, and don't give any justification for why they deserved it more than the other somewhat uncivil people.
> 
> This is kind of how China accomplishes the almost impossible goal of censoring the internet. Rather than come up with an official list of bad sites, they arbitrarily send people to jail. This causes all the ISPs to very diligently self-censor.
> 
> The point is if there are clear lines you can always go right up to them and play around. If there aren't, and you know you could be punished unfairly, you'll stay as far away as you can.




I would think that would just drive people away.

People can't necessarily leave the country, the CAN go to another messageboard.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 4, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Some folks dislike IMO and such, but taking the effort to say "in my game", "for my group", or just "to me" makes all the difference in my read of a thread as being a discussion vs an argument.



 I think I'm having a deja vu trip to a previous thread, but to me  this should be implied.  Unless a poster writes something that specifically targets me and my game, I assume they are talking about their own opinion or about their own experiences.  



> A final note on the joys of "thick skins". If being willing to say "this person's behavior is making my time on the site less enjoyable and I think I have the right to bring that to the mods' attention" is thin skinned, so be it. I don't consider putting up with bad treatment a virtue, and all the "tattletale" "thin skinned" "kindergardener" et al in the world isn't going to make me ashamed of doing my part to keep the site one I enjoy being at. If the mods make it clear by their action or inaction that their vision of the site is different than mine, that is a cue I will take in a heartbeat, but if there are guidelines I think make the site better, you bet I'm going to report their infractions.



 But is a person's behavior against the rules, or are they just being annoying?  The impression I'm getting is that there is a lot of post reporting going on for people being annoyed by somebody else's post because they have a strongly held, different opinion.  That is overwhelming the Mods and making it more difficult for them to track down the posts that really are breaking the rules.  It is the kids constantly calling for Mom and Dad to resolve what are even minor disputes - it gets really tiring and sometimes you end up ignoring a dispute until it blows up.

As for enjoyment of the site, I don't think that is a specific part of the rules.  EN World is not here to provide anyone with a certain level of enjoyment.  If someone is attacking you, or saying things that are generally regarded as offensive, that is one thing.  If someone is just being annoying through snarky responses, or just not contributing to a thread, ignoring them is very effective, especially on a messageboard where you don't have to actually speak over them.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 4, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I might suggest that what can be done HAS just been done.  About all you can really do is TELL people to calm down and be civil and then continue to ban those who are not, while possibly chastising (banning?) those who are calling in the mods rather than simply growing a skin.
> 
> Nobody NEEDS to be rude, even in responding to stupidity and insult.  Learn to PROPERLY identify what is rude and insulting and respond APPROPRIATELY.  Failure to do so should get you admonished and then banned.  Stating contrary opinions does not in itself constitute being insulting.  Stating contrary opinions also should not be done by BEING insulting or via threadcrapping.  And people WILL come into your "Wahoo!  4E!" thread and express negative opinions.  Be mature and learn to live with it.  People will come into your "Doom!  4E is the END!" thread and tell you you're wrong.  Simply doing so is not an inherent attack upon your parentage.




I agree 100%.  As my low post count shows, I don't post too often.  But I read the boards all day, so I see a lot of this.  People should ignore the threadcrapper or rude post, and count on the mods to come along an delete it or ban the poster.

And if you DO choose to respond, do so in a civil manner, even if the original post was not.

Eventually the trolls will see that they don't get any traction and either stop being an ass or go elsewhere.

edit: just noticed my post count is 273 (274?) which may not be considered low, but I have been here since 2003, so averaged out that's not so many...


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions _legitimizes_ them.




I am not convinced that this is true.  However, unless you are personally perfect, and an objective authority on all things, uncivil response carries the great risk of itself being one of those truly obnoxious opinions.  That, in fact, is the _usual_ problem here.  It is called escalation, and it does not make the place better.

Seems to me, Wulf, that you're basically talking about intimidating people into behaving.  Around here, being rude back does not put people in their place so they shut up.  That only works where you can exert your force of personality - and text-only media with high levels of distance and anonymity aren't good at that.   

I note that folks are forgetting one possibility - we are discussing civil response and uncivil response.  There's a third option: keeping your trap shut.  When someone's truly obnoxious (or, in your opinion, stupid) you have the option of moving on and leaving it alone.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I note that folks are forgetting one possibility - we are discussing civil response and uncivil response.  There's a third option: keeping your trap shut.  When someone's truly obnoxious (or, in your opinion, stupid) you have the option of moving on and leaving it alone.



I agree, though I think that sometimes, this can be hard. Sometimes you really get ticked off, or sometimes you have a witty response you want to write. It's probably best to still let it be, even if it's hard. 

If in doubt, it might be best to err on the side of caution and not post a response. Wait until you get a better feeling for the situation, and then act accordingly.

Oh, and if someone feels annoyed or tired by an discussion, it is probably best to stop posting. Maybe (if you can do so in a civil manner) write that you want to stop discussing. You might aim for a "agree to disagree" resolution here, but sometimes you just have to "decide to disagree". 

On a side note: 
While some discussions in the 4E forum became difficult, tiresome or heated, I also noted that a few of them sparked a lot of creativity and thinking in me (more so then before), and I think that this alone might be worthy the negative things we encountered.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Seems to me, Wulf, that you're basically talking about intimidating people into behaving.




That's correct. It also happens to be the basis of all civilization, so I have that going for me.



> Around here, being rude back does not put people in their place so they shut up.




It's fortunate, then, that I wasn't making any suggestion at all about how to behave around here. I was explaining to Alex how permissiveness and acceptance can encourage anti-social behavior. Third time's the charm, I hope.


----------



## Patlin (Dec 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Thanks Wulf, a good response. It reminds me of a problem we see all too easily in our UK news broadcasts nowadays - there is almost a mantra which says "there are two sides to every argument" and even if one side is represented by 95% of scientific opinion, they still give equal airtime to whack-jobs who oppose the idea "to give a balanced view".




Tonight at 11: Renowned astronomer confirms that the sun _will_ rise tomorrow.  We'll also here from various experts asserting that the Sun will not rise tomorrow, that there has never been a sun, and that tomorrow will never come.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 4, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> As for enjoyment of the site, I don't think that is a specific part of the rules.  EN World is not here to provide anyone with a certain level of enjoyment.  If someone is attacking you, or saying things that are generally regarded as offensive, that is one thing.  If someone is just being annoying through snarky responses, or just not contributing to a thread, ignoring them is very effective, especially on a messageboard where you don't have to actually speak over them.



I think you misunderstood - I enjoy ENW in part because of the rules in place and as such I will act in the interests of my own enjoyment by reporting inappropriate posts. Rarely those ones which are directed towards me, actually. 

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't really see "false reports" as the cause of mods being overwhelmed, Morrus's OP seemed to me more about an increase in actual bad behavior. Thus I interpret the calls for "thicker skins" (combined  with regular use of such terminology on Certain Messageboards to indicate the superiority of not moderating objectively abusive behavior) as being about legitimate rules violations reports as well.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't really see "false reports" as the cause of mods being overwhelmed, Morrus's OP seemed to me more about an increase in actual bad behavior. Thus I interpret the calls for "thicker skins" (combined  with regular use of such terminology on Certain Messageboards to indicate the superiority of not moderating objectively abusive behavior) as being about legitimate rules violations reports as well.




Well, most of the OP is about how they're getting emails from both sides about how the other side is being naughty. He even uses the word truckload at one point.

So is the problem literally "false reports?" I guess not. It's probably more akin to a symptom, rather than the illness itself.

Fundamentally, the issue is that lot's of people are getting their feathers ruffled and for some reason they all feel that the normal strategies they usually employ for dealing with it aren't working. So, they use the only other strategy they know how to implement and start sending complaint emails to the Powers That Be.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Thanks Wulf, a good response. It reminds me of a problem we see all too easily in our UK news broadcasts nowadays - there is almost a mantra which says "there are two sides to every argument" and even if one side is represented by 95% of scientific opinion, they still give equal airtime to whack-jobs who oppose the idea "to give a balanced view".




Really? We have a whole channel devoted to that!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 4, 2007)

I think a lot of good can be done simply by keeping a topic to a single thread. Right now, it feels like every topic gets dragged into every 4E thread at some point, and that the same topic can have far too many threads talking about it. I think the whole "naming" issue is a very good example of this. At one point we had more than four active threads dedicated to the topic, and every other major thread (such as the Smites and Feat threads) had a lot of people discussing that issue in there.

If there was more encouragement to keep all of that discussion in one place, then a lot of the bad feelings from controversial issues may not spill into other threads and keep those threads at least a little more civil.

A rlated idea might be to temporarily ban polls in the 4E forum. They contribute a ot to the above problem, and most polls right now are of the "I am trying to prove that my stance is the correct/popular stance" kind, which creates a confrontational atmosphere.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It also happens to be the basis of all civilization, so I have that going for me.




The single basis of all?  I think not - Civilization has many legs: our tribal-based altruistic behavior patterns, and cognitive abilities leading to the application of enlightened self-interest also have major parts to play.

And thanks for the segway:  those latter two are what this site has always been based upon.  What folks have tended to forget is, despite our disagreements, we are still all gamers who love D&D - we may love different aspects of it, but we share many commonalities as well. And, it is in our own best interests to work together, rather than to try to browbeat each other....


----------



## Driddle (Dec 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is in our own best interests to work together, rather than to try to browbeat each other....




... Unless there's a honkin' magic item at stake, then it's every gamer for himself. How much experience do you get for browbeating the average board member?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Well, most of the OP is about how they're getting emails from both sides about how the other side is being naughty. He even uses the word truckload at one point.
> 
> So is the problem literally "false reports?" I guess not. It's probably more akin to a symptom, rather than the illness itself.
> 
> Fundamentally, the issue is that lot's of people are getting their feathers ruffled and for some reason they all feel that the normal strategies they usually employ for dealing with it aren't working. So, they use the only other strategy they know how to implement and start sending complaint emails to the Powers That Be.



 Right, the truckload of reports I took to mean that people were reporting for very minor things, many unwarranted, and that if people had "thicker skin" they would not be reporting as many posts that really did not violate the rules, but seemed to due to the fact that the heightened level of...aggrevation(?)...is making people more sensitive.


----------



## Keldryn (Dec 4, 2007)

I hate to say it, be we've become just like a Star Wars forum with one camp refusing to see anything positive about the prequels and leaping on every opportunity to tell people who like them how terrible the movies are, and the camp of those who like the prequel films leaping on everyone who criticizes them.

It always takes two sides, but in my experience, it's usually the "bashers"/haters who start the whole thing going.  Not by expressing their opinions or voicing criticism, but by the thinly-veiled insults that they express indirectly.  Many of the posts have an unspoken "and you must be an idiot if you actually like this crap" or "your tastes are not as refined as my own" or other equally condescending tone.  And because of this, every negative opinion is taken this way in very short order and everyone on the other side gets defensive now the haters "must be stupid if they can't see the positive qualities."

People at both extremes are prone to threadcrapping once passions start to heat up, and it doesn't really matter who started the whole thing at that point.  

If all that you can contribute to a discussion is a snide remark that essentially says one of:

 "You're obviously less intelligent than I am."
 "Well, your tastes just aren't as refined as mine yet."
 "When you've been playing as long as I have, you'll see things differently."
 "If you were willing to put as much time and effort into the game as I do, you'd see things differently."
 "Well, if a dumbed-down approach appeals to you, you're welcome to it."
 "If you weren't so afraid of change, you'd appreciate why this works better."
 "Well, if _those_ are the books/movies/whatever that you like, it's no wonder you think this way."

then don't say anything.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 4, 2007)

Tiew said:
			
		

> Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random. Just grab any somewhat uncivil person you see, temp band them, make it public you temp banned them, and don't give any justification for why they deserved it more than the other somewhat uncivil people.
> 
> This is kind of how China accomplishes the almost impossible goal of censoring the internet. Rather than come up with an official list of bad sites, they arbitrarily send people to jail. This causes all the ISPs to very diligently self-censor.
> 
> The point is if there are clear lines you can always go right up to them and play around. If there aren't, and you know you could be punished unfairly, you'll stay as far away as you can.



 

This post is impossible to respond to without violating the no politics rule!


----------



## Alt Boy! (Dec 4, 2007)

Sock Puppets are a big problem too.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 4, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I hate to say it, be we've become just like a Star Wars forum with one camp refusing to see anything positive about the prequels and leaping on every opportunity to tell people who like them how terrible the movies are, and the camp of those who like the prequel films leaping on everyone who criticizes them.
> 
> It always takes two sides, but in my experience, it's usually the "bashers"/haters who start the whole thing going.  Not by expressing their opinions or voicing criticism, but by the thinly-veiled insults that they express indirectly.  Many of the posts have an unspoken "and you must be an idiot if you actually like this crap" or "your tastes are not as refined as my own" or other equally condescending tone.  And because of this, every negative opinion is taken this way in very short order and everyone on the other side gets defensive now the haters "must be stupid if they can't see the positive qualities."
> 
> ...




No, no.  A real troll doesn't say those things.  

Instead of saying "Well, if a dumbed-down approach appeals to you, you're welcome to it," 

a real troll would say, "I'm growing _concerned_ that 4e is adopting a dumbed down approach to D&D designed to appeal to a generation of gamers raised on World of Warcraft."

See, now you're not talking about anyone in particular (so no mod problems! yay!) but you've managed to insult everyone who likes 4e AND everyone who likes World of Warcraft, all in one shot.

Post that enough times, and eventually somebody will say something rude to you and get banned.  Glee!

A true super ninja meta troll doesn't even say that.  He just quotes someone else who DID say that, and writes "QFT."


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A true super ninja meta troll doesn't even say that.  He just quotes someone else who DID say that, and writes "QFT."




QFT.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 4, 2007)

Alt Boy! said:
			
		

> Sock Puppets are a big problem too.








Why the hate?


----------



## Imp (Dec 4, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> My feeling is that real discussion, debate and intellectual process almost never happen in online forums. They decay into flame wars unless separated out into different boards/newsgroups, and strong moderation keeps things polite but eventually eliminates dissenters.




Having participated in online forums that have really made a fetish of "real discussion, debate and intellectual process" I have to agree with this sentiment, and my experiences with other places tell me that keeping things polite, while it may be desirable in itself, has got little to do with quality-of-debate.  But more importantly, quality-of-debate turns out to be kind of a bad goal to begin with.

ENWorld, and web forums in general, are pretty lousy venues for argument.  Here, people "win" arguments by arch passive-aggressiveness and simple grinding persistence, in other places it may be a cutting remark, a thorough takedown citing multiple sources, or smelling blood and using pack tactics, whatever, in no place anywhere does the "I am convinced by the logic of your statements, I am now a convert to your point of view, thanks you for this discussion" scenario happen except once in a blue moon.  Usually it's just an endurance and volume contest.  What forums are very very good at, however, is the sharing of ideas and perspectives, with an eye towards creativity, which is why the "how can I do X" or "how do I run Y" threads are such fun and filled with useful stuff and don't really have these problems.

But the 4E forum is different because it's essentially powerless.  It's the airings of hopes and grievances to the indifferent heavens, that concerns may possibly be answered.  So there isn't any sharing to be done, really, just trying to "win" arguments in the hopes that they'll have an impact.  You're not going to be able to change the spirit of this here, in this sub-forum.  The best you can do is kind of keep a lid on it.

...by the way, this place doesn't _have_ real trolls like you see elsewhere.  The mods are far too sensitive to allow such personalities to emerge (which is good).


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 4, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> QFT.




QFT


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Keldryn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




These two posts, in my mind, sum up the problem nicely. We have people (on both sides actually) making ad hominem attacks against large groups by inference. When a person in the attacked group eventually gets fed up and calls out the offending party, it seems they are the ones who get in trouble for it.

It has not helped the situation to occasionally see moderators, who are entitled to have an opinion, not enforcing strict neutrality. To whit, a mod who is himself anti-4e seems more likely to penalize the pro-4e party than the anti-4e guy making the ad hominem attack. And vice versa.

None of this is conducive to civil discourse. Moreover, and I've been guilty of this myself a time or two, we should all realize that if people react negatively to what we've said, and our response to them is to "lighten up," it's quite possible it's our own rhetoric that needs adjusting, and NOT their attitude.

I guess the only suggestion I can make is that the ops should peruse the thread thoroughly and call people out by name. Make sure to include the person who first started making ad hominem attacks (whether it's "WoW fanboyz" or "grognardz") and not just the people who bit back directly.

Public shame is usually a pretty good control mechanism.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: To put it another way, the possibility that you will be publicly shamed, and/or possibly get your teeth knocked in, justifiably so, works far better towards discouraging anti-social behavior than the knowledge that there is a forum where your wack-job opinions will be welcomed and officially protected.



I really think Wulf is on to something here, though I don't think it offers a solution for ENWorld.

Up until six months ago, I have never really understood the purpose of all the Nutkinland/Nothingland/Circvs Maximvs variants. Over the years I've checked them all out, sampled a few threads, but never really understood the point. Occasionally I would see some good stuff, but I kept asking myself the same question: Do I really need to use poopy words to talk about my half-elf bard character? And do I really need that so badly that I have to go to a special D&D board where such naughtiness is allowed?

But I've found, over the last six months, much better discussion of 4e over at Circvs Maximvs, where Gramma's gone and it's no holds barred. And I think that's directly due to the fact that really, truly stupid stuff gets called out for ridicule, and quickly. 

I think ENWorld's signature politeness -- normally, a wonderful thing -- can become a detriment during really uncertain periods like the one we're experiencing right now. The politeness allows some low-grade stupidity to perpetuate on and on and on and on. Individually, maybe none of these types of posts rise to bannable or even warnable offenses, but cumulatively it drags the whole discourse down.

I think it's a temporary but very unfortunate situation. The only suggestion I would have would be to wield the banhammer earlier and more often. It's not Gramma's way, but I don't know what else could be done.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Dec 4, 2007)

I have to admit the thin skin some have to the point of telling the mods really surprises me. From BOTH sides even. It's like Billy telling on Johnny at school when Johnny said Mary is ugly, and Billy thinks she pretty.

I'll admit I may have fanned the flames a bit; but I've received it, too. In all that, I've never felt the need to complain to the mods. They've got better things to do than babysit.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The single basis of all?  I think not - Civilization has many legs: our tribal-based altruistic behavior patterns, and cognitive abilities leading to the application of enlightened self-interest also have major parts to play.




Uh huh.

You show me a tribal-based altruistic behavior pattern and cognitivie abilities leading to the application of enlightened self-interest, and I'll show you two trogs with enough sense not to get the  kicked out of them by three trogs.


----------



## Raduin711 (Dec 4, 2007)

I think Pro- and Anti- tags are probably not going to help much, and I doubt the moderators will take this strategy.

For one, I think most people who make threads want a civil discussion between both sides, and thus will opt for a "neither" tag.  In any event, the problem usually isn't the original poster.

And what happens when a poster makes a Anti- thread, and a noted Pro- poster comes in with the full intention of bringing up a valid point?  And this point leads toward is Pro- opinions?  What then?  Where is the line drawn?   In the end, we haven't gotten anywhere.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Plane Sailing said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have a whole country devoted to that.   :\


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 4, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: To put it another way, the possibility that you will be publicly shamed, and/or possibly get your teeth knocked in, justifiably so, works far better towards discouraging anti-social behavior than the knowledge that there is a forum where your wack-job opinions will be welcomed and officially protected.





			
				Robert E. Howard said:
			
		

> Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.



It seems you share similar ideas...


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 4, 2007)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> I'll admit I may have fanned the flames a bit; but I've received it, too. In all that, I've never felt the need to complain to the mods.



And if all that 'flame-fanning' starts to interfere with the discussion, I have no problem reporting it to the mods.



			
				GeoFFields said:
			
		

> They've got better things to do than babysit.



Not until we stop acting like babies.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 4, 2007)

Subdividing posts into pro- and anti- is a bad idea, because you need differing view points. The same with separate forums. Also, I doubt any purely anti- place would receive much traffic. Part of the problem is that some people think the best way to register discontent with WotC is to post here and it's highly unlikely WotC staff would read an anti- forum for long.

Subdivision into 'discussion' and 'opinion' is even worse - everyone thinks what they have to say is serious discussion and what the other fellow says is mere opinion.

The heat will probably die down over time as most of the anti- crowd leave. This is already happening as can be seen from the changing results in the 'Will you buy 4e?' polls.

The question is are we prepared to wait for that to happen? If not there is only one solution - tougher modding. More tempbans and permabans until we play nice.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Instead of saying "Well, if a dumbed-down approach appeals to you, you're welcome to it,"
> 
> a real troll would say, "I'm growing _concerned_ that 4e is adopting a dumbed down approach to D&D designed to appeal to a generation of gamers raised on World of Warcraft."



Excellent analysis.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 4, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The question is are we prepared to wait for that to happen? If not there is only one solution - tougher modding. More tempbans and permabans until we play nice.



And longer tempbans. More warnings, a lot more. Or in general, more severe moderation.

Generally, I loath that, but then, ENWorld usually remained civil because the mods tried to keep the _spirit of civility_. I guess it's time to use actual _rules of civility_.

That's a bit sad and heavy-handed... but there are not many other options, that would feel even more awkward (like forum split, posting interval restriction, moving 4E discussion to CM).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The heat will probably die down over time as most of the anti- crowd leave. This is already happening as can be seen from the changing results in the 'Will you buy 4e?' polls.
> 
> The question is are we prepared to wait for that to happen? If not there is only one solution - tougher modding. More tempbans and permabans until we play nice.




So the solution is to be so obstinate that one side gets fed up and leaves?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 5, 2007)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> I have to admit the thin skin some have to the point of telling the mods really surprises me. From BOTH sides even. It's like Billy telling on Johnny at school when Johnny said Mary is ugly, and Billy thinks she pretty.




FWIW it is more often not a case of someone with thin skin telling the mods because they feel hurt, it is much more likely to be a bystander who can see something getting out of control

Regards,


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 5, 2007)

It all seems a bit Skub to me.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 5, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> FWIW it is more often not a case of someone with thin skin telling the mods because they feel hurt, it is much more likely to be a bystander who can see something getting out of control
> 
> Regards,



 Actually, if someones tattling to the mods, it's usually just diaglo.


----------



## Spinachcat (Dec 5, 2007)

I like my rule:  Before anyone is allowed on the internet, they must first live six months in either New York City or Los Angeles without a car.   Those that survive will have developed a thick enough skin to remember to wear their asbestos underwear while carrying flamethrowers. 

My suggestion is that YOU - the posters - put tags on your threads.  Put [Hate 4e] or [Love 4e] and then your thread title.  Then if you fall into one of these camps, you will know whether or not your nose is welcome there. 

Honestly, I am confused how people can have such fiery emotion for something that has not even been published yet.  NOBODY on this board even knows how this game plays! Once it comes out and you read the books and try it out, then decide if you love or hate the damn thing!  

It's weirder than hating movies based on the trailer.  You may not see a movie because of the trailer and that totally makes sense, but what kind of whackjob love or hates the final movie based only on the 2 minute trailer?

And for the record, my alignment is "interested in 4e, gonna buy it, can't make a decision about its worth as a game until I run it several times"  so you know my bias in this post.


----------



## Imp (Dec 5, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> But I've found, over the last six months, much better discussion of 4e over at Circvs Maximvs, where Gramma's gone and it's no holds barred. And I think that's directly due to the fact that really, truly stupid stuff gets called out for ridicule, and quickly.
> 
> I think ENWorld's signature politeness -- normally, a wonderful thing -- can become a detriment during really uncertain periods like the one we're experiencing right now. The politeness allows some low-grade stupidity to perpetuate on and on and on and on. Individually, maybe none of these types of posts rise to bannable or even warnable offenses, but cumulatively it drags the whole discourse down.



Right, this is exactly how less "civilized" forums work, they're much quicker at dealing with opinions outside the conventional wisdom because they're not interested in sparing anyone's feelings.  However, this sort of attitude can even in the best cases (lots of smart, articulate people) lead to a relentlessly negative and cynical community which can get pretty soul-crushing.

I guess I can't see a downgrade in discourse in this sub-forum to be a very bad thing, overall, because there isn't that much room for it to go up – you're still dealing with a bunch of disempowered people taking in spotty, questionable data and turning it into rampant speculation no matter what, it's a recipe for terrible arguments even if everybody were best friends.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Dec 5, 2007)

[POSTER IS FIRMLY AMBIVILENT ABOUT 4E]





			
				Imp said:
			
		

> ...in no place anywhere does the "I am convinced by the logic of your statements, I am now a convert to your point of view, thanks you for this discussion" scenario happen except once in a blue moon....




There must be a blue moon reigning over the threads I visit in the Rules forum then.. I stay on these boards simply because logic is, IME, fairly common around here *.

Regarding the OP, this sticky could help somewhat.. but the biggest issue is poster response to a threadcrap. Just like back in grade school... threadcrapper are looking for a reaction. We just need more people willing to ignore rude posts. Part of the problem is with 4E, we have more people coming to the boards seeking news...people who haven't spent time lurking or posting in the 'normal' forums. In a forum based on speculation.. well, the worst will out.

I didn't catch a response... does the 3 day ban work? I often get the same effect of a 3-day ban simply by not having access to the 'net.. about once a month. I don't think it would bother me  {Might even give me a reason to not procrastinate on my homework...  } 

I predict that the more crunch we see, the less doom-sayers will exist. Eventually this forum will be a nice place for debate.



* My experiences are framed by three things:
1 - I only post in threads I think I can add to
2 - I treat everyones posts as thier personal opinion
3 - I keep my screen name so others will think I am a total whack-job and not take offense at my posts...


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 5, 2007)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I think ENWorld's signature politeness -- normally, a wonderful thing -- can become a detriment during really uncertain periods like the one we're experiencing right now. The politeness allows some low-grade stupidity to perpetuate on and on and on and on.



"I'm sorry, you're too stupid to post. Out of the thread!"

Maybe not polite, but I bet it's remarkably cathartic...

Over the years we've been really pleased that people take responsibility for their posts; the self-censor before they ever hit send. That's been suspended by some people, and we're seeing the results.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 5, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> These two posts, in my mind, sum up the problem nicely. We have people (on both sides actually) making ad hominem attacks against large groups by inference. When a person in the attacked group eventually gets fed up and calls out the offending party, it seems they are the ones who get in trouble for it.




QFT.  Because, you were like 'escalating'.  Doesn't matter if they have made 50 nearly identical posts on the same theme.  Doesn't matter if in edition to responding to the person, you are involved in a productive discussion on the topic, and they are not.  Personal experience and observation, far too many times the original instigator gets off with either a verbal warning or nothing, while the person responding gets a more severe responce.

Granted, this has been improving - it isn't nearly as bad as it was a year ago or so - and I've seen some very positive behavior from mods lately where the are catching themselves and updating thier posts to reflect the fact that someone else was involved and they weren't exactly innocent.



> It has not helped the situation to occasionally see moderators, who are entitled to have an opinion, not enforcing strict neutrality. To whit, a mod who is himself anti-4e seems more likely to penalize the pro-4e party than the anti-4e guy making the ad hominem attack. And vice versa.




I haven't observed that sort of direct bias myself, and personally I'd credit this moderator staff with being above that.  However, I did observe that the moderator staff preemptively deligitimized criticism of 4e and enforced that and that that tone only changed only after some of the moderators began to adopt a critical view of 4e after which time criticism again became acceptable.   So maybe there isn't individual bias, but there does seem to have been a sort of institutional bias resulting from what the mods were saying to each other in private.  Since that time, IME, a large part of the problem is that they've been trying to pick up the peices from that.  



> Public shame is usually a pretty good control mechanism.




Frankly, I have the opposite opinion.  Public shame rarely works on the internet, and can really only be counted on within closed communities.  Trolls can't be shamed.  The attention - positive or negative - and the passion it instills, whether pride or anger or even shame - is what is driving them.   I personally think moderators themselves do themselves no favors by publicly shaming anyone.  They do themselves no favors by explaining thier actions publicly.  The red letters have been used alot less sparingly than strictly necessary the last two or three years.  They should act as clinicly, and as minimally, as possible.  Privately is a different matter.

Of course, I don't think temporary bans do much good anyway, so there is that.  IME, people's behavior won't change, and it just makes for drama.  If you temp ban them, then it is the same as saying 'We think you are valuable enough to stay', and in which case the temp ban is pointless.  99 times in 100, whenever a poster with more than a 3 digit post count is temp banned they are carrying on several perfectly reasonable discussions in other threads at the exact same time.  So, it isn't like the person generally is having a bad day, its that they are having a bad thread or that there is some particular poster that for whatever reason drives them nuts.  A three day ban means exactly what?  And if you don't think that they are valuable enough to keep around, then what's the point of a temp ban?

Of course, this perspective is from someone that normally moderates political websites.  There is a whole different level of animosity that is generally tolerated there, which I wouldn't want to see tolerated here.  YMMV. 

While I'm putting coals under the pot, speaking as a person whose been and is a moderator on other large forums, its rather bizarre that the public persona of the moderator is also the moderator.  In my experience, elsewhere, you aren't allowed to post opinions as a moderator, and you aren't even supposed to reveal that you are a moderator.  I think its way too late for EnWorld to change, and I don't think many of us that have been with EnWorld for years would want it to, but the divide between community member and moderator is unusually thin here.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Over the years we've been really pleased that people take responsibility for their posts; the self-censor before they ever hit send. That's been suspended by some people, and we're seeing the results.




This is my observation on self-censorship.  It is true that I conduct a conversation differently in person than I do over the internet.  This is because whenever I discover that the person holds a completely radically different opinion than myself IRL, I self-censor myself and take great pains to conceal my real feelings and opinions.  I do this because if I said what I really believed, it might make the person uncomfortable (and I'm not a small guy, so there is a physical aspect as well) or angry and would interfere with future relationships with that person.  I usually don't do that because I respect the person or thier opinion.  I do that because it isn't worthwhile to potentially create that animosity when all I really want to do is relate to them along some strictly defined social structure - like professional colleague or hair styist.  

Only after I believe the person worthy of respect am I going to be completely honest with them.  I'm not going to bother having a bitter argument with someone I don't mutually respect.  For example, I'd argue politics and religion more passionately with my family and feel freer to dissent than I would in virtually any other face to face social situation.  Why?  Because we know that it isn't personal, and we know each other aren't idiots.

I'm not normally prone to either coarseness in real life or on the internet, but I do enjoy being able to state my opinion in a forum where I think there is a reasonable expectation that because of the lack of physical proximity, the lack of verbal intonation, the lack of facial expressions and so forth, and the lack of any other social context that people can be reaonably expected to consider your opinion logically, rationally, and with proper emotional distance for having a dialogue.  I can short cut the whole feeling out whether the person is mature, intelligent, and reasonable and just make the assumption of the other person's matuity, intelligence, and reasonableness.  Most of the time, at least at EnWorld, those assumptions are borne out.  A few cases, they aren't, and I try to avoid having prolonged discussions with those people.

Anyway, which is more likely?  That the group dynamics of the EnWorld community as a whole have changed, resulting in a community that is harder to moderate.  That a fairly large number of disconnected posters have suddenly stopped being who they've always been, and changed thier personality in the same way at the same time?  Or that the moderator culture itself has changed, tolerating and encouraging things it might not have tolerated before, while discouraging or deligitimatizing things it might have previously tolerated, resulting in a community that is more annoying to moderate?

Those posters.  Things would be so much easier if they just stopped posting?  Why won't they ever learn to take responcibility for thier actions, eh?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 5, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> FWIW it is more often not a case of someone with thin skin telling the mods because they feel hurt, it is much more likely to be a bystander who can see something getting out of control
> 
> Regards,




Or those who have strongly held opinions in politics and such and see an opposing opinion.

I can't very well argue against it as it breaks forum rules, but I can report it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Anyway, which is more likely?




The posters HAVE changed.

People's posting habits went BERSERK in August.  Most of the people getting modded or low-post count lurkers or old-timers coming out of retirement.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Those posters.  Things would be so much easier if they just stopped posting?  Why won't they ever learn to take responcibility for thier actions, eh?



Goodness! Your sarcasm is incisive and biting!

In fact, it's a combination of several factors. The personal need for worried people to vent has continued to be a large portion of the ongoing issue.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Goodness! Your sarcasm is incisive and biting!



Actually, that's not entirely fair. You're in here because you care about the site. Sarcasm doesn't become me, either.

I think the moderators are guilty of allowing too much latitude. After the announcement, we really wanted to let people express themselves without cracking down in a hard-core "you must thing THIS way" attitude. They just had to do so politely. By doing so, however, we haven't done ourselves any favors in terms of site cohesiveness. Opinions have gotten more entrenched in a lot of cases, and that's made civility more challenging. 

I'm reading this thread with interest.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'm reading this thread with interest.




Hopefully you don't see IP adresses, you might discover a horrible truth.


----------



## Gumby (Dec 5, 2007)

Count me in on public bannings.  People here need to see what is considered unacceptable by the mods.  Don't rub their faces in their bannings like other sites do, but make it clear to others what they can't get away with.

Earlier, the subject of passive-aggressiveness was brought up.  This is a _huge_ problem here - there are many whiny babies here who can't take criticism of their views, even when they're completely vapid and distract from good discussion.

If there's a problem with people not being nice to each other, then a policy of "remind everyone to be nice to each other" just isn't going to cut it, and will just lead to more whining about how Steve wasn't nice to Josie and such.  It's very nice to be high-minded and tolerant of every idea or poster that comes down the path, but it doesn't make for a well-moderated forum.


----------



## Blackrat (Dec 5, 2007)

Gumby said:
			
		

> Count me in on public bannings.  People here need to see what is considered unacceptable by the mods.  Don't rub their faces in their bannings like other sites do, but make it clear to others what they can't get away with.



Me too. That could work. Another thing that might help a bit, at least with all the new members, is to fix the rules announcement. It's been broken at least two months, and a few of us have told about it in the meta. Or if fixing can't be done, (I believe Michael is bit swamped with EN2 right now) then sticky a thread with the rules to the top of the page.


----------



## Melan (Dec 5, 2007)

Cadfan and Imp have made very good points in this thread (so have others, but I _agree_ with these two.   ). However, I'll quote Garnfellow:


			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Up until six months ago, I have never really understood the purpose of all the Nutkinland/Nothingland/Circvs Maximvs variants. Over the years I've checked them all out, sampled a few threads, but never really understood the point. Occasionally I would see some good stuff, but I kept asking myself the same question: Do I really need to use poopy words to talk about my half-elf bard character? And do I really need that so badly that I have to go to a special D&D board where such naughtiness is allowed?
> 
> But I've found, over the last six months, much better discussion of 4e over at Circvs Maximvs, where Gramma's gone and it's no holds barred. And I think that's directly due to the fact that really, truly stupid stuff gets called out for ridicule, and quickly.
> 
> I think ENWorld's signature politeness -- normally, a wonderful thing -- can become a detriment during really uncertain periods like the one we're experiencing right now. The politeness allows some low-grade stupidity to perpetuate on and on and on and on. Individually, maybe none of these types of posts rise to bannable or even warnable offenses, but cumulatively it drags the whole discourse down.



Really, I think a lot of people on ENWorld have rose coloured glasses about the way this site was in the beginning. Back then, discussion was often heated and sometimes positively vitriolic. I don't remember a strict grandma rule, but I remember Ruin Explorer, Karin's Dad, Ashtal, Crypt King and others flaming the crap out of each other. What's more, I have *stacks* of archived threads to prove it.   Back then, there was no "Nutkinland" or "Circvs Maximvs"; all of that Grandma-annoying stuff happened _right here_ on Eric Noah's forums. Hell, people were flaming _Gygax_ and he was flaming them right back!

Of course, it all got more tightly enforced and civil later, mostly to the satisfaction of the community. However, we are once again in a period when opinions become heated and conflicts cannot be avoided. That's the rules of the game, that's what happens when the biggest game in the hobby changes editions. Also add to this that a lot of people who have contributed a lot to this community, to its discussions, now feel they have been slighted by the changes. Others are eager to embrace new things, and are just as vocal about it. In this kind of situation, you can't _expect_ every discussion to be perfectly self-moderated. What is more, you can't _enforce_ it - if you try, you'll only get the sort of poisoned climate and passive-agressive behaviour people are already warning mods about. This sort of thing _has_ been detrimental elsewhere - for a time recently, RPGNet was suffering from too much moderation.



> I think it's a temporary but very unfortunate situation. The only suggestion I would have would be to wield the banhammer earlier and more often. It's not Gramma's way, but I don't know what else could be done.



I think different. I think that temporarily, the mods should let the reins out a little. That doesn't mean they shouldn't maintain a certain _standard_ of civility (e.g. personal attacks should be a no-no), but they should realise the wisdom of intervening a bit less until things calm down a bit on their own. Sometimes the best course of action is refraining from doing something.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 5, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> "I'm sorry, you're too stupid to post. Out of the thread!"
> 
> Maybe not polite, but I bet it's remarkably cathartic...
> 
> Over the years we've been really pleased that people take responsibility for their posts; the self-censor before they ever hit send. That's been suspended by some people, and we're seeing the results.



You know, the image in my head of this site's Grandma was always one of those sweet, unbelievably polite midwestern grandmothers. The kind of lady who would look at the floor in silent embarrassment if you said something rude at the dinner table. The potential shame of hurting her feelings is more than enough to keep you in line.

But there are all kinds of grandmothers out there, aren't there?

Strong, proud, fierce grandmothers who protect their house and aren't afraid to call their grandchildren damned fools when it's warranted. You toe the line with these grandmothers because you know that she's not afraid to whup your ass, and good.

Everybody's got two grandmothers. Maybe it's time for this site to come under the rule of "Eric's Nanny."


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 5, 2007)

Melan said:
			
		

> Really, I think a lot of people on ENWorld have rose coloured glasses about the way this site was in the beginning. Back then, discussion was often heated and sometimes positively vitriolic. I don't remember a strict grandma rule, but I remember Ruin Explorer, Karin's Dad, Ashtal, Crypt King and others flaming the crap out of each other. What's more, I have *stacks* of archived threads to prove it.   Back then, there was no "Nutkinland" or "Circvs Maximvs"; all of that Grandma-annoying stuff happened _right here_ on Eric Noah's forums. Hell, people were flaming _Gygax_ and he was flaming them right back!



Ah, memories. I had forgotten a couple of those names, and your post made me recall a number of other choice former posters as well as some really radioactive threads from those antediluvian days. 

So, yeah, sure there were some real assmunches posting back in the day, and for that matter there have been plenty of assmunches on this board ever since. 

And yeah, there was turmoil in the beginning. (When did the Grandma rule first appear?) But I think your characterization is all wrong: for the vast majority of this site's life, it has been an exceptionally tolerant and polite place. You will find exceptions galore, but that's to be expected in a site of this size and age.

The difference between any flamewars in the past and what's going on right now is that most of those past, epic battles took place between a limited number of people in a limited number of threads. It was always easy for me to avoid that crap even without an ignore feature. I'd just have to look at who started the thread, the title, and how many posts it had, and I could make an informed decision about whether or not to read it. The problem then was always isolated.

The problem now is that the flaming seems pervasive across the board. Any thread right now (and it seems, nearly any poster) could possibly be trouble. I'm not sure I'd call the problem endemic right now, but it might be close.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Dec 5, 2007)

For what it's worth, as bad as it sometimes might seem to get, all it takes is a few minutes viewing the Wizards board for me to see how much worse it could get.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Anyway, which is more likely?  That the group dynamics of the EnWorld community as a whole have changed, resulting in a community that is harder to moderate.  That a fairly large number of disconnected posters have suddenly stopped being who they've always been, and changed thier personality in the same way at the same time?  Or that the moderator culture itself has changed, tolerating and encouraging things it might not have tolerated before, while discouraging or deligitimatizing things it might have previously tolerated, resulting in a community that is more annoying to moderate?




Speaking for myself and from personal experience, it's that this is a time when there are a lot of new posters here with very heated, very stupid opinions. It overloaded my self-censor.

And yes, I do believe that people need to be publicly called on the carpet from time to time-- as I did.

And as was quickly done to me, by a mod.

The time-out did wonders for my attitude.

Scratch that: It didn't help my attitude, but it did reboot my self-censor.

Many, _many_ times since, I have spent minute upon minute typing and retyping brutally eviscerating replies, only to delete them at last. It ain't worth it.

So I guess I am coming down on the side of heavier enforcement after all.  :\


----------



## Whisper72 (Dec 5, 2007)

Tiew said:
			
		

> Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random. Just grab any somewhat uncivil person you see, temp band them, make it public you temp banned them, and don't give any justification for why they deserved it more than the other somewhat uncivil people.
> 
> This is kind of how China accomplishes the almost impossible goal of censoring the internet. Rather than come up with an official list of bad sites, they arbitrarily send people to jail. This causes all the ISPs to very diligently self-censor.
> 
> The point is if there are clear lines you can always go right up to them and play around. If there aren't, and you know you could be punished unfairly, you'll stay as far away as you can.




I admit I did not read the entire thread, so maybe someone already jumped on this, but there is a seriously good idea in here. Make it clear that someone had been banned. Somehow add some tag to the sig / avatar area of someone, showing this person has been banned, how often, and for how severe a misbehaviour.

Take away a bit of the anonymity. Just a thought.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Dec 5, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself and from personal experience, it's that this is a time when there are a lot of new posters here with very heated, very stupid opinions. It overloaded my self-censor.
> 
> And yes, I do believe that people need to be publicly called on the carpet from time to time-- as I did.
> 
> ...




I'm not. I say, "let people flame out". And no, I'm not kidding. When message boards are too strictly moderated, it encourages passive-aggressive behavior. ENWorld was the exception to this rule, but I think that's about to change forever. This type of behavior has been happening at RPG.net for a while now. For years there....people would flame, people would fight, and yet it was cathartic. Posters would get the bile out of their systems, and then they'd be done with it. 

Sometime later, the moderation there became more suffocating, and it got a little boring. The place just didn't have the "magic" that it used to have. Even worse, the change in moderation encouraged people to flame each other without overtly breaking the "rules". I put "rules" in quotes, because the "rules" were and are different for each poster. You had people getting a free pass on trollish behavior based on how much they sucked up to the mods, and how well they got along with the right "clique".    

Anyway, this atmosphere created a climate of passive-aggressiveness that was simply POISON for the forums. The snark actually INCREASED, even though people were less overtly insulting. Conversation became less constructive from the more restrictive moderation, so out of frustration, posters resorted to passive-aggressiveness. When they couldn't flame an annoying poster directly, they'd never get the bile out of their system, so the flames would go on and on. RPG.net isn't quite as bad now, but quite frankly, it's one-fourth as fun as it was just a few years ago, and that's a shame, as it used to be the first place I'd visit on the Internet.

I'm saying this as a person who never got warned or banned, so I'm not just some random banned poster out to settle a score. I still visit there, because the site is still good, but it is no longer great.  :\ 

If you want to visit a nearly unmoderated forum on rpgs, go to www.therpgsite.com . People were slagging it because of its owner, but honestly, the flames there are much less than here, and the moderation is almost nil. There are three rules there:

1.) No racial epithets.
2.) No sock puppet accounts without permission.
3.) No spam.

I don't know if there's a rule against pornography, but people generally don't post porn there. I think I saw one thread in the past year that had nudity in it, and that's it. 

So there we go. There's an actual forum where posters talk about rpgs, have fun and constructive conversation, and they do it with almost zero moderation. Now....do people flame each other in those forums? Yep! It happens from time to time. But eventually they get over it for two reasons:

1.) Other posters can deride a troll when he's being obnoxious.   
2.) Because moderation is almost non-existent, people don't go into passive-aggressive mode nearly so much. They flame out, get the bile out of their systems, and move on. Flame-bait threads are long threads, but THEY'RE CONFINED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THREAD. Because of this "hands-off" style of moderation, the flames don't spread everywhere, because people are getting their "thirst for blood" in the flame thread.

What we see now on ENWorld, is a situation where people cannot overtly flame each other, thus, they're unable or unwilling to get the frustration of their systems. So now we have this fighting spilling out all over the place, with many posters fighting in a passive-aggressive way, and it goes on and on...

An "enforced politeness code" makes this continue, so this will continue, guaranteed. I know this isn't what you'd like to hear, but this is my belief. If 4e hadn't arrived so soon, or in this way, it might have been avoided, and ENWorld could have returned to its old, sweet self, but now I have my doubts.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> But eventually they get over it for two reasons:
> 
> 1.) Other posters can deride a troll when he's being obnoxious.
> 2.) Because moderation is almost non-existent, people don't go into passive-aggressive mode nearly so much. They flame out, get the bile out of their systems, and move on.




In my opinion it seems as if they don't so much get it out of their system, as embrace it, and because many other posters are of the same persuasion, it works there. They have found a common ground, where they can be aggressive at each other.

I don't think it would work here.

/M


----------



## Holy Bovine (Dec 5, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself and from personal experience, it's that this is a time when there are a lot of new posters here with very heated, very stupid opinions. It overloaded my self-censor.
> 
> And yes, I do believe that people need to be publicly called on the carpet from time to time-- as I did.
> 
> ...




I would pay real money to see those posts before you editted them   

My self-censor is a malfunctioning bit of hardware right now.  Worse, it is spreading over to other boards where I fly off the handle for the stupdiest things.

Maybe I need a ban


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 5, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And yes, I do believe that people need to be publicly called on the carpet from time to time-- as I did.
> 
> And as was quickly done to me, by a mod.




Same thing happened to me.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> I'm not. I say, "let people flame out". And no, I'm not kidding. When message boards are too strictly moderated, it encourages passive-aggressive behavior. ENWorld was the exception to this rule, but I think that's about to change forever. This type of behavior has been happening at RPG.net for a while now. For years there....people would flame, people would fight, and yet it was cathartic. Posters would get the bile out of their systems, and then they'd be done with it.




This is what I would like to see, and I agree completely with the notion that by clamping down on "flames" people get passive-aggressive and try to snipe at each other without overtly breaking the "rules".

And I HAVE seen different standards apply to different people, but that happens everywhere.

Honestly, I see many a thread get closed JUST when it was getting interesting...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 5, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Same thing happened to me.




What a coincidence.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 5, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Same thing happened to me.



Same here.

I was being a jerk---a mod called me on it---and now my posting habits are better for it. 

(I hope)


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 5, 2007)

Yeah, I got an email that adjusted my posting & thinking (I'd like to think) - an email I specifically thanked the mod for going to rather than straight to a ban.

It works, mods. At least, for most of us. But so would random bannings.


----------



## FickleGM (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> I'm not. I say, "let people flame out". And no, I'm not kidding. When message boards are too strictly moderated, it encourages passive-aggressive behavior. *ENWorld was the exception to this rule*



When?  EN World has long been a bastion of passive-aggressive behavior.  It's what the rules allow and is the preferred weapon of many posters.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said what I was trying to say, only better.  In particular, I think the "no personal attacks" always leads to a bunch of people finding a way to communicate their disdain via implication.  I find that they usually succeed.

The only reason I've never been banned from a forum is that I frequently "ban myself" for a few days.  The nice thing about a self ban is that you can make it as focused or as broad, as short or as long, as is necessary to accomplish the purpose.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> For years there....people would flame, people would fight, and yet it was cathartic. Posters would get the bile out of their systems, and then they'd be done with it.




This is an opinion that I've heard in many contexts (both real life and online) and I don't buy it. While it may work for some people, the majority of the time I see aggression begetting more aggression; it may or not prove cathartic for the person doing it, but other people can still end up hurt, which is not a good result in my mind (and this can include innocent bystanders and not just the subject to which the ire is vented).

Cheers


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 5, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This is an opinion that I've heard in many contexts (both real life and online) and I don't buy it. While it may work for some people, the majority of the time I see aggression begetting more aggression; it may or not prove cathartic for the person doing it, *but other people can still end up hurt*, which is not a good result in my mind (and this can include innocent bystanders and not just the subject to which the ire is vented).
> 
> Cheers




Bold emphasis mine.

This goes back to what others have said about people needing to develop thicker skin.  Nothing posted on a message board should really have the ability to "hurt" someone.  And if it does, that person needs to get a little tougher.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 5, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> Bold emphasis mine.
> 
> This goes back to what others have said about people needing to develop thicker skin.  Nothing posted on a message board should really have the ability to "hurt" someone.  And if it does, that person needs to get a little tougher.



Precisely.

Repeat after me, everyone: "There is no way nerd rage can hurt me. His/Her way of pretending to be an elf is not better than my way of pretending to be an elf. I can just ignore him/her/it."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 5, 2007)

It doesn't matter if people are _right_ to be hurt, the fact is that they are, and to use loaded language that can be reasonably expected to cause a flamewar is a problem at this point.

"I can say what I want, because people freaking out in response is unreasonable" might be true, in theory, but at this moment in time (and arguably, at every moment in time) is just going to cause more hassle than it's worth.

Civility is not a huge imposition and it's a pretty minor thing for the mods to ask for.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 5, 2007)

I approve of civility. I don't approve of being able to be hurt by messageboard text. My god, what must these folks do in the outside world?


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 5, 2007)

In a way I'm glad this all came up.  I've been wanting to discuss it for awhile now, but could never think of a way to open the door to the topic.

But recently I've seen a trend where the Mods are a little heavy handed to shut down what they term as a "flame war" which is really just spirited disagreement.  And 4E seemed to make it all worse.

Like I said earlier, I've seen many a thread shut down JUST as it was getting to be an interesting read, and one hint of a cantankerous poster caused it to be locked.  Now, I can see shutting down out and out insult-fests, but come on!  So people throw veiled insults at each other that flies under the radar and it all gets a little tedious.

I agree that we should all try to be civil to each other, but if your ego is so fragile that a post by some stranger on a messageboard can actually cause you one iota of distress after you've moved past the post then life in the real world must really wreck you.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 5, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Judging by the past few months, some people's Grandmas are backstabbing bitter old women who cuss like drunken rock stars on a one-nighter.



yup. she was.

but keep up the good work admins and mods. youse guys stay healthy and hang in there.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Dec 5, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This is an opinion that I've heard in many contexts (both real life and online) and I don't buy it. While it may work for some people, the majority of the time I see aggression begetting more aggression; it may or not prove cathartic for the person doing it, but other people can still end up hurt, which is not a good result in my mind (and this can include innocent bystanders and not just the subject to which the ire is vented).
> 
> Cheers



Fair enough. But I believe a greatly relaxed moderation style is not only easier on the mods, but it's easier on the posters too.

Hypothetical question. What if we were allowed to say almost anything on the forums, as long as we didn't stray off topic for too long? What if we were allowed to flame each other, and fight over 3e and 4e? What would happen? Let's imagine a theoretical exercise in which, say one week from now, ENWorld STOPPED MODERATING. Well, almost.   

Imagine the climate of the forums. If a thread was off-topic, it would be moved to the correct sub-forum. If someone spammed or issued racial epithets, then they'd quickly be banned. Sock-puppet accounts would be deleted. ENWorld does this already, right?

But here's where it gets tricky....  

Let's pretend the mods say this:

"Hey, guys...new policy. Aside from the basic moderation listed above, as well as maintenance, and bearing of news, WE'LL STAY OUT OF YOUR WAY. You can use nasty swear words. You now have the option of saying that 3e is stinkier than old fish, and that all who play it are mentally decrepit. You wanna inform the 4e players that they have the mental fortitude of a brain-damaged chimp? Knock yourselves out! But be aware of the fact, that if you deliberately troll, other posters will NOT hesitate to call you out on the way you act, and the things you say. When you present ideas, you invite criticism and debate, and if you cannot handle THAT, then you WILL be mocked pitilessly until you lighten the Heck up."   

"The reason for this astounding change, is that Eric's Grandma quite spontaneously travelled to Uruguay, met a cabin boy named Rodrigues, and is currently living in sin with said cabin boy on a houseboat on the South Atlantic Ocean.   Amazingly, she has no Internet connection, so we are now free of the risk of offending her most delicate eyes."  

So what would happen then? Utter chaos? Excitement? Laughter? Anger? Tears? Would the passive-aggressiveness be drastically reduced? All of the above? Would there be MORE tension in the forums LONG-TERM than there is now, or LESS? Would ENWorld be better for the change, or worse? Or would it be NEITHER better nor worse, but instead just....."DIFFERENT"?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> So what would happen then? Utter chaos? Excitement? Laughter? Anger? Tears? Would the passive-aggressiveness be drastically reduced? All of the above? Would there be MORE tension in the forums LONG-TERM than there is now, or LESS? Would ENWorld be better for the change, or worse? Or would it be NEITHER better nor worse, but instead just....."DIFFERENT"?




Based on personal past experiences with that kind of thing, one side would push the other out, through sheer volume, after a giant flame war. The forum would end up either pro or anti 4e with little to no room for anyone of the opposing viewpoint. After that time flames would die down, but as soon as someone of the opposite view decided to post, they would be flamed so hard that they would immediately leave, rinse, repeat.

At least that's what I've seen happen with non-rpg related things.


----------



## FickleGM (Dec 5, 2007)

Also, since this site does draw revenue in the form of supporter account purchases, I would assume that you want to be as inclusive as possible.  There will always be people who are turned off my rule A or lack of rule B, but in the end, what EN World does is probably what is best for EN World.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 5, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Based on personal past experiences with that kind of thing, one side would push the other out, through sheer volume, after a giant flame war. The forum would end up either pro or anti 4e with little to no room for anyone of the opposing viewpoint. After that time flames would die down, but as soon as someone of the opposite view decided to post, they would be flamed so hard that they would immediately leave, rinse, repeat.
> 
> At least that's what I've seen happen with non-rpg related things.




You can point to the dragonsfoot brouhaha a few years ago for exactly the same thing. Such purges create a type of harmony within the community, and in some circles are considered a good thing.

One of the biggest reasons ENWorld is so successful is that it started out as pro 3e site with comparatively little dissension. What dissension did arise was quickly spun off into sister sites when Eric Noah's board spawned this one.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 5, 2007)

But this is of course taking it to the extreme.  Nobody is advocating the removal of all rules, or suggesting that swears, personal attacks, and outright rudeness be tolerated.

You're right, it WOULD make this an unpleasant place to visit.

What I'm suggesting is that aside from TOTALLY derailing a thread with insults or attacks, cursing, or racially charged language (and keep the politics/religion ban) you let threads go where they may, perhaps popping in to issue a warning or banning someone if they cross the line.

Just a test, that's all.  A social experiment...


----------



## billd91 (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> So what would happen then? Utter chaos? Excitement? Laughter? Anger? Tears? Would the passive-aggressiveness be drastically reduced? All of the above? Would there be MORE tension in the forums LONG-TERM than there is now, or LESS? Would ENWorld be better for the change, or worse? Or would it be NEITHER better nor worse, but instead just....."DIFFERENT"?




We've already got that. It's called Circvs Maximvs and it does get a little testy over there. Most of it is reasonably good natured, but not all of it. For more useful, on-topic gaming discussion, I prefer ENWorld as it is.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 5, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> We've already got that. It's called Circvs Maximvs and it does get a little testy over there. Most of it is reasonably good natured, but not all of it. For more useful, on-topic gaming discussion, I prefer ENWorld as it is.



 Yep, I lurk on Circvs Maximvs once in a while when the mood strikes me, but I can only take it in small doses.  I much prefer the way EN World is, even when it gets a little bit testy because I know there is a limit to how far it can go before something is done by the mods.  

I deal with enough BS in real life, I don't need more of it on an internet message board.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 5, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> This goes back to what others have said about people needing to develop thicker skin.  Nothing posted on a message board should really have the ability to "hurt" someone.  And if it does, that person needs to get a little tougher.




It's not a matter of being "hurt". It's a matter of not wanting wanting to deal with unpleasantness. 

This a forum for discussion, not 'character building'. I would rather we all developed better manners rather than thicker skins.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 5, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of being "hurt". It's a matter of not wanting wanting to deal with unpleasantness.
> 
> This a forum for discussion, not 'character building'. I would rather we all developed better manners rather than thicker skins.




Ah, but that's why they invented the IGNORE function.  Never used it myself, but I'm told it works wonders...


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 5, 2007)

I wish I had some words of wisdom to offer.  However, Russ and the crew are in uncharted territory.  I appreciate their dedication to making this place as fun as it can be for the vast majority who are here.  

There will always be those who think there is too little moderation, and those who think there is too much.  And each of us will have our own little online "pet peeves" that we just wish would go away.  (My own is the rude/outraged 3E grognard -- those of us who were around when 3E was in development and brand new should be setting a good example of how to behave when a new edition is on the horizon, even if we aren't moving on to the new edition.)  

This is a very interesting time to be an ENW member.  I hope the golden rule -- post as you would have others post, lead by example -- will be every bit as applicable in ENW's future as it was in my era.


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 5, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> This is a very interesting time to be an ENW member.  I hope the golden rule -- post as you would have others post, lead by example -- will be every bit as applicable in ENW's future as it was in my era.




I do too, and I hope I'm not giving the wrong impression.  I'm not advocating a free-for-all, wild west landscape.  

Hey, whatever Russ decides to do I'll still be here every day when I SHOULD be actually doing the work my company pays me for.   

I've checked out a few other RPG sites but somehow I always end up back here.  And for good reason.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 5, 2007)

MojoGM said:
			
		

> Ah, but that's why they invented the IGNORE function.  Never used it myself, but I'm told it works wonders...




I use it.  Its remarkably unsatisfying, and has certain downsides.

The problem is that the people who annoy the crap out of me aren't the dyed in the wool trolls.  I know how to deal with them, I don't care what they think anyways, plus, the moderators usually ban those guys pretty quick.

The people who annoy the crap out of me are the ones who usually post reasonable things, but who post snide, unjustifiable, passive aggressive insults for every 10th post.  I've been hitting "Ignore" on some of them recently, and it messes up my ability to follow the threads in which those persons are being rational.  There's little as annoying as reading a thread that you really like, then noticing from who the other participants are quoting that the whole conversation has turned to discussion of some interesting points by someone you put on ignore.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 5, 2007)

Well, I seldom post here.

I will say that I *greatly* prefer low-moderation boards.  They're more fun and IMHO things tend to work a lot more smoothly when you can call people on their bull.  On the other hand, we already have a few of those.  I frequent the Circvs and therpgsite, for example, in addition to various other boards of Nutkinland descent.  I don't really think I need another.  I also respect the fact that what I want out of a messageboard isn't what everyone else does - some folks prefer snide, passive-aggressive swipes to hilarious aggressive-aggressive flames .  To each their own.

ENWorld with less moderation would just be a much bigger Circvs Maximvs.  I don't think there's anything to be gained by that.  If someone wants unmoderated discussion, they can just saunter on over there.  It's not like it's locked from new membership or anything.

-O


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> "The reason for this astounding change, is that Eric's Grandma quite spontaneously travelled to Uruguay, met a cabin boy named Rodrigues, and is currently living in sin with said cabin boy on a houseboat on the South Atlantic Ocean.   Amazingly, she has no Internet connection, so we are now free of the risk of offending her most delicate eyes."



Even if it doesn't bother EN himself, I vote we not make fun of his late grandmother, even with a smilie face attached.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 5, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I wish I had some words of wisdom to offer ... Russ and the crew. ...
> 
> (T)here is too little moderation, and ... too much ... of ... little online "pet peeves." ...
> 
> ...




These are interesting observations, Eric. A lot of insight to share, for those of us willing to read between the lines. Thank you.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 5, 2007)

Nah, no worries.  Her spirit does live on here.  And her spirit probably wouldn't mind a trip to Uruguay as long as Grandpa gets to go along.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 5, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> The ... ar...resting o...vations, Eric... i...s to share...us ... between t...ines. Thank you.




Yeah, you wish!


----------



## Driddle (Dec 5, 2007)

Not bad.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 5, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I ... k...illed ... Mo...ther ... The...ressa.




Oh my lord.  That's not even funny.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Dec 5, 2007)

Tiew said:
			
		

> Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random. Just grab any somewhat uncivil person you see, temp band them, make it public you temp banned them, and don't give any justification for why they deserved it more than the other somewhat uncivil people.
> 
> This is kind of how China accomplishes the almost impossible goal of censoring the internet. Rather than come up with an official list of bad sites, they arbitrarily send people to jail. This causes all the ISPs to very diligently self-censor.
> 
> The point is if there are clear lines you can always go right up to them and play around. If there aren't, and you know you could be punished unfairly, you'll stay as far away as you can.




EDIT: I'll remove my sarcastic comment for the sake of this discussion.
I'll just raise my eyebrow in wonder.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 5, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> "The reason for this astounding change, is that Eric's Grandma quite spontaneously travelled to Uruguay, met a cabin boy named Rodrigues, and is currently living in sin with said cabin boy on a houseboat on the South Atlantic Ocean.   Amazingly, she has no Internet connection, so we are now free of the risk of offending her most delicate eyes."



Gasp...you don't mean the Pundit, do you? If she's easily offended I think she'd be better off avoiding him...


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 6, 2007)

Here's a random brainstorm of possible solutions. I haven't taken the time to consider which, if any, would actually help anything; they're mainly just wild shots in the dark.

1) Except in extreme cases, permanently ban people from specific threads instead of temp banning them from the entire site.

2) Add a Snark forum. Let people be blatantly snarky there. Move threads that get too snarky there instead of locking them outright. However, what happens in the Snark forum stays in the Snark forum.

3) Limit each account to X number of reports allowed per week. That way, people will only report things that are really egregious instead of complaining about every little thing.

4) When someone reports a post they don't like, ask them as part of the reporting process if they would like to Ignore further posts from the same poster. Make "Yes" the default answer.

5) Make a list of ENWorld's most-Ignored posters publicly available. Allow people to add everyone on that list to their own Ignore list with the click of a button.

6) Allow posters who start threads to make those threads invisible to people on their Ignore lists.

7) Remove the Quote buttons from posts made by chronic trolls so people are slightly less inclined to respond to them.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 6, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> 2) Add a Snark forum.




Circvs Maximvs?


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 6, 2007)

*A Lawful-Neutral point of view...*

Honestly, I think that you guys (moderators) have done all that you are required to do.  You have presented the rules clearly, made them easy to find for future reference, and every single one of us has agreed to follow them in order to join the board.  So when one of us crosses the line and becomes uncivil,

and yes, *we all know when we are being uncivil*,

the moderators should not hesitate to temporarily ban us, or kick us out forever.  We know the rules, we agreed to them, and we know the consequences...and yet, for whatever reason, we chose not to heed them.  It is not the moderator's job to teach us civility...civility is a requirement to be here.  If we demonstrate a lack of the requirements, we obviously should be posting elsewhere.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Dec 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Even if it doesn't bother EN himself, I vote we not make fun of his late grandmother, even with a smilie face attached.



Late? Crap, I didn't know that. Sorry, Eric.


----------



## tsadkiel (Dec 6, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Oh my lord.  That's not even funny.




Eric Noah is my half-fiend love child.  By which I mean awesome.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 6, 2007)

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> Eric Noah is my half-fiend love child.  By which I mean awesome.




So, are you, Eric's Mom, or Eric's Dad, a Fiend?


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 6, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> So, are you, Eric's Mom, or Eric's Dad, a Fiend?




All of the above and more.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 6, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> 5) Make a list of ENWorld's most-Ignored posters publicly available. Allow people to add everyone on that list to their own Ignore list with the click of a button.



Indeed. In relation to this, I wish there was a way to show the number of temp-bans, kicked out of threads, and reprimands each poster has ever received (or those who've received a certain number of them). Easily lets everyone know who the perennial troublemakers are.



> 6) Allow posters who start threads to make those threads invisible to people on their Ignore lists.



This relates to my hope/wish I posted over in the Meta forum, in that I wish there was a feature in which I could put _myself_ on _other people's_ ignore lists. But yeah - the above would be awesome (and I'd like it to go right down to the post/quote level).


----------



## Nifft (Dec 6, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> This relates to my hope/wish I posted over in the Meta forum, in that I wish there was a feature in which I could put _myself_ on _other people's_ ignore lists.



 I'm quoting you just so *diaglo* can see.

Well, actually, I'm quoting you because your idea is hilarious... and terribly wrong. I imagine it would be fun to add yourself to someone else's ignore list and then follow him around and make fun of him.

It's also chilling in the context of moderation -- imagine if, instead of a ban, you were simply invisible. All of your posts were only visible to *you*. I wonder how long it would take people to figure out that they're being ignored. 



Spoiler



... and on that note, I don't expect a whole lot of responses. Snarky bastards, you lot.



Cheers, -- N


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2007)

l've got to be honest and say that, in my opinion, the mod squad is already doing their moderation the best way. Anything more obtrusive would probably drive away a part of the regular posters who don't like police state mentality on their message board, and anything less would let the 4E forum drown in flames.

I've been temp-banned once..the first time since I'm registered here..because I was caught with my thick skin down, during the phase when "if you're just negative about 4E, why don't you go post elsewhere instead" was the second-most used argument in pro/anti discussions. It was a mistake on my part, and I did learn from it. I had a pleasant email exchange with the mod in question, and had 3 funny days watching the 4E squabbles from a distance.

There's some things that drove the heat a few notches up here, that's for sure. One thing is the rampant speculation that started with the first snippets of 4E being released, and the instant creation of extremist camps. Another is the sudden influ of new users and the de-lurking of silent users, who chime in on the discussions out of the blue, and not always in a helpful manner either, which makes it feel like those accounts were created or reactivated just to come here and sow some discord. There's the tiresome repetition of sometimes very annoying phrases...the whole "Sacred Cow Slaughter", "Death to old-school D&D", "Anti-4E Out", "D&D is getting killed for the money", "I'm not paying money for previews" or "Dumbing down the game" rhetorics that were used ad nauseam by one or the other camp, often only in slight variations, has a tendency to get under your skin if it is used too often, and everywhere you look. Mix that with the usual offending ad hominem, hong-branded snarky or threadcrapping posts, and it's no surprise the mods look like firefighters in California when the wind picks up.

I don't think we need heavier moderation. I don't think we need lighter moderation. Wulf has one good point...each of us needs a more stable self-moderation module. If a topic promises interesting discussions, then discuss, don't argue. Don't feed trolls, no matter how polite they sound...report them. Not so the mods put the lock on the thread, but simply so they can keep an eye on it. If you find one poster to constantly get on your nerves...put him on your ignore list. I've done that to people of both sides of the spectrum, and it has increased my reading pleasure on ENWorld considerably. Maybe in a year, I'll put them off the list again, but right now I prefer not to have even more posts to clog my mental filter with. Also, remember that it is perfectly fine to post your opinion, as long as you don't do it just to have an excuse to insult somebody else...but at the same time, it's perfectly fine if your opinion simply gets no responses. Opinions are nothing that NEED responses either, they are no arguments or questions, they are a statement of personal preference on a certain thing. They don't need to generate posts, especially not of the ugly kind. And IF you feel like you need to post something ugly...no matter how justified it may look...don't post it. Follow Wulf's advice, type it, read it again, rewrite it, and if it can't be made prettier, delete it. And feel good that you managed to resist to get down into the mud and get dirty.

About Morrus' post...sometimes I wonder if the mods couldn't do with an ignore list, too, in order to shut out the whole "ENWorld is not impartial" complaints from either side.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> imagine if, instead of a ban, you were simply invisible. All of your posts were only visible to *you*. I wonder how long it would take people to figure out that they're being ignored.



That idea is the most awesome thing I've ever heard. I bow before your superior post count.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well, actually, I'm quoting you because your idea is hilarious... and terribly wrong. I imagine it would be fun to add yourself to someone else's ignore list and then follow him around and make fun of him.



clearly you've never had an "anti-fan" on a messageboard. I have, and it would be quite nice to not have to deal with the predictable, annoying sniping and digressions. (And before you say "just ignore them yourself", yes, they can cause digressions with much tedious responses of others to their little not-quite-trolls and such.) 

There are also a few pairs of mutual antagonists that I would love to have forcibly put on each other's ignore lists so they could both get off of mine (since they are somewhat useful when not engaging in unwinnable wars with each other).

Since following someone around to make fun of them would be against ENW rules anyway, it seems like a silly thing to use as an argument for or against an idea.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> 2) Use much more of the (awesome, IMO) "don't post in this thread anymore" tool. I don't see enough of this, and it's an excellent way to remove a troublesome poster but not going to the extreme of banning (if it's not quite warranted). The above is simply a fantastic tool of the mods and should be used more often, IMO.



What if the mods could click a button that removes the thread from your view as though it were a post by an Ignored user?  Like, a little mini-ban.  It might be more effective than just telling people not to post anymore.  If told to do so, they may comply, and still follow the thread, seething at every comment they're not allowed to rant against, only to unload in a different thread as soon as one of their opponents says something they disagree with.  Not being able to view the thread anymore means that you're less likely to remember to hold a grudge.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> It's also chilling in the context of moderation -- imagine if, instead of a ban, you were simply invisible. All of your posts were only visible to *you*.



Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 6, 2007)

"Forced ignore" or "forced invisibility" only works on someone when they are logged in.  It would simply be a matter of logging out and then you'd be able to see all of the stuff you were forced to ignore, or see that your own posts were not actually making it to the public eye.  I don't see it as an effective solution.  I think the term "passive aggressive" gets thrown around too much, but putting someone on forced ignore and not telling them seems to be the height of that.  If the mods don't want someone around they should just ban them.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well, actually, I'm quoting you because your idea is hilarious... and terribly wrong. I imagine it would be fun to add yourself to someone else's ignore list and then follow him around and make fun of him.



Why, I _never_ thought of that! 

But really, in the end, there'd be no point in following around and making fun of said person, as _everyone else_ can see you - including the moderators. And, it's no different than figuring out you're on someone's ignore list anyways... the ignore feature exists today, after all.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> What if the mods could click a button that removes the thread from your view as though it were a post by an Ignored user? Like, a little mini-ban. It might be more effective than just telling people not to post anymore. If told to do so, they may comply, and still follow the thread, seething at every comment they're not allowed to rant against, only to unload in a different thread as soon as one of their opponents says something they disagree with. Not being able to view the thread anymore means that you're less likely to remember to hold a grudge.



Sure. I'm all for the use of technology to improve things like this.

I just posted that one suggestion based on what the mods can do (and have done) _today_.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> "Forced ignore" or "forced invisibility" only works on someone when they are logged in.



Same goes for bans.  Register under another email address and post all you like for 3 days.  If you're going to be enough of a jerk to be banned, there are plenty of jerky ways to undermine the mod system.  I've got 50 invites kicking around on Gmail.  I could populate these boards with a horde of my baleful dopplegangers in under an hour.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 6, 2007)

First of all, I wanted to give a couple of big fat thumbs up to the mods, I personally think you are doing a great job, and that most discussions remain fairly civil (for a message-board discussion, that is..).

About handling the situation, as it is, you might want to use a more heavy-handed approach to  banning (faster and with less warnings). That will of course piss off a few people, but most will come back either way, and a lot might learn just where your limits are.

I realize this will probably give you some more work, on a short term, but I do think that it will help you get back your old standards. 

Just my 2 coppers,

Cheers, and keep it up,


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 6, 2007)

I've put this thought in a couple of threads so far, but I think it's worth keeping in mind.

In the context of a new edition being released, we should all realize that the way we play D&D isn't the only way to play D&D. Everyone plays the game a little bit differently. Where I think people are getting wound up is in the belief that the way they play is the way everyone plays (or ought to).

We all need to give WotC the benefit of the doubt that they are making the new edition of the game to appeal to the majority of their customers. That may mean that we don't agree with all their decisions. It may mean that some of the things they change are things we didn't particularly think needed changing, or even things that we didn't want changed.

That's an inevitable result of change. Some people will like it (or love it) and some will hate it. Many will be neutral.

People need to stop predicting "the death of D&D." People need to stop with the overdramatic claims that WotC is "destroying D&D" just because they're making the game different. The guys at WotC are gamers themselves, and we have to trust that they're making a game for the bulk of gamers.

That may mean we don't always agree with their decisions. It's not personal.

By the same token, someone disagreeing with how WotC is changing the rules may still have a point. I just wish we could discuss the changes themselves without people constantly harping about how this change or that is only good for people who enjoy "badwrongfun" or that "WotC is destroying D&D" "WoW is destroying D&D" or "grognards are destroying D&D."

We all play differently people. The sooner we realize this (and give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt that they aren't actively *trying* to destroy D&D), the sooner these boards will get civilized again.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Hm.  I feel partly responsible for this snarkburst due to my open letter thread.  But that said, I want to say something about some of these suggestions.

Suggestion: "Don't say anything that you wouldn't say if you were face-to-face."

Nonsense.  I don't post to messageboards to be the boring, rather quiet person that exists in the real world.  In text, I'm a different personality (yes, yes...  anonymity + audience ...).
But that's not a bad thing necessarily.  While it's hard on moderators, the boards are actually seeing LIFE again.  The threads being posted are pulling me back to ENWorld wheras before...  it was getting a little stale.  There's a bit of the old 3e rumors ghost about, and I like it.  Let's not kill that cat too soon.

Suggestion: "Stop threadcrapping."

Kind of hard to define.  How about we just draw a line at making things personal?  What's wrong with saying Wizards sucks or Wizards rules.  Fine do that.  Whatever.  If there's any merit to it at all (basically, it's not spam) then, let it be.  Sometimes people have valid points to make about suckage or ruleage.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In the context of a new edition being released, we should all realize that the way we play D&D isn't the only way to play D&D. Everyone plays the game a little bit differently. Where I think people are getting wound up is in the belief that the way they play is the way everyone plays (or ought to).
> 
> We all need to give WotC the benefit of the doubt that they are making the new edition of the game to appeal to the majority of their customers. That may mean that we don't agree with all their decisions. It may mean that some of the things they change are things we didn't particularly think needed changing, or even things that we didn't want changed.
> 
> ...




There's no requirement for people to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.  People will believe what they choose with the evidence they've seen to date.  It's not like we're completely ignorant of some of the changes that 4e is proposing.  There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with those changes or even believing that because those changes are bad there will be more bad ideas in 4e.  

Believing that doesn't make you a grognard.  Just someone with an opinion.  

I want 4e to succeed.  I'm personally not liking some of the things I'm seeing.  I'm going to say something about that.  Maybe changes that make me happier will make the cut.  Or maybe I'll howl at the wind.  I've had my quiet period of reflection on the current state of 4e and preview information.  I consider that period over now.  Commence gnashing teeth.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Suggestion: "Don't say anything that you wouldn't say if you were face-to-face."
> 
> Nonsense.  I don't post to messageboards to be the boring, rather quiet person that exists in the real world.  In text, I'm a different personality (yes, yes...  anonymity + audience ...).
> But that's not a bad thing necessarily.



This is a site for discussion of D&D. That should be the primary goal, not its theoretical value as a therapeutic tool.

No one is asking posters to be bland and lifeless. Again, all that's being asked for is _civility_. That's not too much to ask for, and if it is, there are countless sites that provide a more bare knuckle experience, if that's preferred.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> There's no requirement for people to give WotC the benefit of the doubt.  People will believe what they choose with the evidence they've seen to date.  It's not like we're completely ignorant of some of the changes that 4e is proposing.  There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with those changes or even believing that because those changes are bad there will be more bad ideas in 4e.
> 
> Believing that doesn't make you a grognard.  Just someone with an opinion.
> 
> I want 4e to succeed.  I'm personally not liking some of the things I'm seeing.  I'm going to say something about that.  Maybe changes that make me happier will make the cut.  Or maybe I'll howl at the wind.  I've had my quiet period of reflection on the current state of 4e and preview information.  I consider that period over now.  Commence gnashing teeth.




I think civility demands that we give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt *that they aren't actively trying to destroy D&D.* Many of them are members of this community and they deserve the same respect as anyone else. My issue is with people who have decided that the requirement to be respectful of the opinions of members of the community does not apply if those people happen to work at Wizards of the Coast.

You certainly have the right to disagree with the decisions the designers have made. And you can certainly base that decision on the previews we've gotten to date. However, the minute you decide to infer designer intent because they have a difference of opinion about the direction of the game, you've transcended civility.

That tends to make those of us who agree with them respond as if WE have been attacked. Constructive criticism is fine but claiming that "they're trying to destroy D&D" is ridiculous hyperbole.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> This is a site for discussion of D&D. That should be the primary goal, not its theoretical value as a therapeutic tool.
> 
> No one is asking posters to be bland and lifeless. Again, all that's being asked for is _civility_. That's not too much to ask for, and if it is, there are countless sites that provide a more bare knuckle experience, if that's preferred.




I agree with civility.  I do not agree with various other aspects of face-to-face conversation.  For example:
- Calmness
- Rational thought
- Understanding
- Sincerity

I support a poster's right to be a completely unhinged, lying, self-absorbed, drama queen.  As long as they're civil.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think civility demands that we give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt *that they aren't actively trying to destroy D&D.* Many of them are members of this community and they deserve the same respect as anyone else. My issue is with people who have decided that the requirement to be respectful of the opinions of members of the community does not apply if those people happen to work at Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> You certainly have the right to disagree with the decisions the designers have made. And you can certainly base that decision on the previews we've gotten to date. However, the minute you decide to infer designer intent because they have a difference of opinion about the direction of the game, you've transcended civility.
> 
> That tends to make those of us who agree with them respond as if WE have been attacked. Constructive criticism is fine but claiming that "they're trying to destroy D&D" is ridiculous hyperbole.




That is actually the one real problem with "civility" as a term.  I respect that the makers of the product we use are posters on this board, and personal attacks against them are bad.
But their products and the decisions made about those products?  That should be open for downright evisceration.  I respect their right to publish their work, but I reserve the right to critique it in any way I choose.

And until and unless a designer joins a thread to tell me what their intent is, all I can do is infer their intent.  That's basically what this board is about is inferring what we can about 4e because we don't have all the information.  

If those people who like 4e feel that they are being attacked because of some critique I made of 4e or of the inferred direction of 4e that's not my problem.  I'm not attacking anyone personally.  I'm talking about my opinions about a game.  Maybe it'll make somone respond uncivily towards me...  But that would be their bad, not mine.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> "they're trying to destroy D&D" is ridiculous hyperbole.




BTW, claiming that people are saying that Wizards is trying to create a failed product is probably also hyperbole.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I agree with civility.  I do not agree with various other aspects of face-to-face conversation.  For example:
> - Calmness
> - Rational thought
> - Understanding
> ...




Most people who are unhinged, lying and self-absorbed are not civil. In fact, I question whether it's possible for them to coexist.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> If those people who like 4e feel that they are being attacked because of some critique I made of 4e or of the inferred direction of 4e that's not my problem. I'm not attacking anyone personally. I'm talking about my opinions about a game. Maybe it'll make somone respond uncivily towards me... But that would be their bad, not mine.




Because you're attacking a concept, not a person. What often happens then is someone responds, and then they get personally attacked, accused of being a WotC plant, that they must like "dumbed-down D&D" and other similarly nasty accusations. That is making personal attacks but disguising them as game criticism.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> BTW, claiming that people are saying that Wizards is trying to create a failed product is probably also hyperbole.




I'm pretty sure I could dig up pretty much that exact quote. To find it, I might have to go back to one of the "it's the WoWification of D&D" threads.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Suggestion: "Stop threadcrapping."
> 
> Kind of hard to define. How about we just draw a line at making things personal? What's wrong with saying Wizards sucks or Wizards rules. Fine do that. Whatever. If there's any merit to it at all (basically, it's not spam) then, let it be. Sometimes people have valid points to make about suckage or ruleage.





			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> That is actually the one real problem with "civility" as a term.  I respect that the makers of the product we use are posters on this board, and personal attacks against them are bad.
> But their products and the decisions made about those products?  That should be open for downright evisceration.  I respect their right to publish their work, but I reserve the right to critique it in any way I choose.



Often times that's wildly unproductive to a group setting. If you're going to openly eviscerate something in a group that contains many people who like whatever that something is, you can virtually guarantee nothing good will come of that despite how within your "rights" you were. 

That's not to say you'd be necessarily wrong in expressing your opinion that way, though one could argue you would be more "right" if you use more tact, but it would certainly mean it would be unproductive to the group discussion. And seeing as this is a message board set up for the purpose of group discussion, you can see the conflict.

If you don't care that your evisceration will cause such a stir, of you think those concerns are beneath you, then maybe a place like this isn't the best place for you to be, you know? And I'm not saying that's right or wrong in the big sense of things, but that's just life. There's certain concessions you have to make when you put yourself into certain situations, and if you're unwilling to make those concessions, you're not doing anyone any good by putting yourself in that situation regardless. It just causes unnecessary drama.


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 7, 2007)

Sacrificial Lamb said:
			
		

> If you want to visit a nearly unmoderated forum on rpgs, go to www.therpgsite.com . People were slagging it because of its owner, but honestly, the flames there are much less than here, and the moderation is almost nil.




According to the main site, there were 54 people viewing the therpgsite a few minutes ago; ENWorld had 1747. I believe that's relevant. IME, the bigger a message board gets, the more contentious it gets. There are more people, so there are simply more opportunities for someone to aggravate someone else. 

There aren't that many flame wars on the site ]theRPGsite] now, but add another 1700 users at any one minute, and I wager that would change.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I support a poster's right to be a completely unhinged, lying, self-absorbed, drama queen.  As long as they're civil.



What are these "rights" that you speak of? This is a private message board; if Morrus wanted everyone to have to post without using the letter "m," it'd be his choice and he could ban anyone he wanted to that didn't comply.

For those posters getting online in a country that guarantees them free speech, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, they're free to create their own message board and post whatever they want there.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> If you don't care that your evisceration will cause such a stir, of you think those concerns are beneath you, then maybe a place like this isn't the best place for you to be, you know? And I'm not saying that's right or wrong in the big sense of things, but that's just life. There's certain concessions you have to make when you put yourself into certain situations, and if you're unwilling to make those concessions, you're not doing anyone any good by putting yourself in that situation regardless. It just causes unnecessary drama.




I've been a poster on these boards virtually since they started, and I've never been banned (mildly warned once or twice, sure).  The moderators can tell me to leave if they like, but it's not really your place to say.  Morrus owns the site.  He (or his designated authorities) can write the rules, and change all my words to monkey-speak if they like.  But I will not _conceed_ my right to criticize the work of Wizards of the Coast.  Regardless of the drama it causes.  What is the point of having a place to discuss without the ability to critique?


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> What are these "rights" that you speak of? This is a private message board; if Morrus wanted everyone to have to post without using the letter "m," it'd be his choice and he could ban anyone he wanted to that didn't comply.
> 
> For those posters getting online in a country that guarantees them free speech, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, they're free to create their own message board and post whatever they want there.




Agreed.  Morrus is within his rights to do as he wishes with this site, and he can bring down that ban hammer like John Henry if he likes.  Rarely a good idea though.  Besides, what exactly am I doing or proposing that you guys consider ban-worthy?  Disagreeing with other posters?  Pointing out things about Wizards that I don't like?  Sticking it to the Wizards via hyperbole?


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I've been a poster on these boards virtually since they started, and I've never been banned (mildly warned once or twice, sure).  The moderators can tell me to leave if they like, but it's not really your place to say.  Morrus owns the site.  He (or his designated authorities) can write the rules, and change all my words to monkey-speak if they like.  But I will not _conceed_ my right to criticize the work of Wizards of the Coast.  Regardless of the drama it causes.  What is the point of having a place to discuss without the ability to critique?



1) I didn't tell you to leave.

2) I never said no one should be able to criticize anything.

I was talking about when criticizing something becomes eviscerating something. It's the difference between "I don't like this, I don't think it's a good idea" and "This is ridiculous. It's the most boneheaded design I've ever seen, and I can't imagine how anyone would possibly think this would make for a fun game. They're destroying D&D."

The former statement is great and fosters discussion. The latter statement, however, is almost always disruptive to a group. That was my point.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 7, 2007)

Folks, I'm not sure it's a good idea to start that kind of argument in the exact thread Morrus started to remind us all to keep it a little more calm and peaceful, knowhutamsayin?


----------



## FickleGM (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I agree with civility.  I do not agree with various other aspects of face-to-face conversation.  For example:
> - Calmness
> - Rational thought
> - Understanding
> ...



 Interesting.  So, how are these things good for any sort of conversation?

You've basically just told EN World that your posts are worthless, because they may be a bunch of lies and irrationalities, strewn across the screen.

I suppose that destroying one's own credibility on a messageboard is one tactic to take, but not one that I would choose.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 7, 2007)

This is kind of like putting console gamers from [Gaming Console A] and [Gaming Console B] into a room, asking them to discuss the merits and problems with Console A, and telling everyone to be civil. Gamer's who like A don't see the downsides and B don't see the merits. The clash is legendary.

Part of it is the _need_ go to one camp or the other. Being neutral gets you drowned out, or worse people will use the facts that you pointed out merits/problems to ad homenem your points because you are seemingly contradicting yourself, even though you are talking about two different aspects of the game. It can also feel like a cause to some people. Then there's being in a group vs. switching all around, etc. There are many reasons for people to camp up.

We're all also a bunch of nerds who would die before we admit being wrong. This goes for both sides as well. We don't like to lose! Our mind is a phallus whose stubbornness is its size.


----------



## malladin (Dec 7, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Folks, I'm not sure it's a good idea to start that kind of argument in the exact thread Morrus started to remind us all to keep it a little more calm and peaceful, knowhutamsayin?




QFT. Sadly, its indicative of the scale of the problem when a thread about solving the problem becomes another indication of it (your opinion creates the problem stop doing it/no/your wrong not to.) Unfortunately my solution is just not to bother coming here as often, which is a pity as I used to enjoy it. It seems the reasonable majority are being droewned out by vocal minorities with a desperate need to be right. My only constructive suggestion is to try and encourage more consistent moderation, through peer review/assessment/discussion among moderators, which would alieviate some peoples resentment of perceived bias, mine included, and thats at least one step forward.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 7, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> through peer review/assessment/discussion among moderators, which would alieviate some peoples resentment of perceived bias, mine included, and thats at least one step forward.




FWIW there is a lot of discussion between moderators about both general and specific issues. I hope this doesn't make you think "oh noes", but rather that we discuss things in order to maintain as reasonable a degree of consistency as we can.

Cheers


----------



## FickleGM (Dec 7, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> QFT. Sadly, its indicative of the scale of the problem when a thread about solving the problem becomes another indication of it (your opinion creates the problem stop doing it/no/your wrong not to.) Unfortunately my solution is just not to bother coming here as often, which is a pity as I used to enjoy it. It seems the reasonable majority are being droewned out by vocal minorities with a desperate need to be right. My only constructive suggestion is to try and encourage more consistent moderation, through peer review/assessment/discussion among moderators, which would alieviate some peoples resentment of perceived bias, mine included, and thats at least one step forward.



 Yeah, I'm thinking about reporting Morrus.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 7, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm thinking about reporting Morrus.



Ugh, I know. What a concern troll.

   

Please don't ban me.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 7, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> FWIW there is a lot of discussion between moderators about both general and specific issues. I hope this doesn't make you think "oh noes", but rather that we discuss things in order to maintain as reasonable a degree of consistency as we can.
> 
> Cheers



A thought on the role and perception of mods. While the "unquestionablity" policy concerning moderator decisions is understandable (who really wants a 2 page backtalk digression every time a moderator steps in?) in cases like this it also can cause problems. Even attempts to question a decision in a separate thread in the Meta forum (something I have seen, not attempted, so this isn't a personal thing) can get shut down with no reason except "you can't publicly question a mod decision."

This is of course "within Morrus's rights", but my feeling is that it is not good for the long term health of the site. Mods are not perfect, they can try their best to be impartial but will not always succeed and they can make the same rhetorical mistakes in moderation that they chastise posters for making in posts. The ability to publicly question (in a clarification, not challenge manner whenever possible) moderation decisions in separate Meta forum threads *could* reduce feelings that mods take sides, play favorites or any other unpleasantness. Transparency of a process can increase confidence in a way that the theoretical ability to privately ask a mod questions in email really can't. Whether it's worth the possible hassles or not is a balancing question.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 7, 2007)

I've found that Piratecat or Henry are great if you have a question on a mod decision.  Even though they probably think I'm a total twit, they always respond to inquiries politely in e-mail.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 7, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I've found that Piratecat or Henry are great if you have a question on a mod decision.  Even though they probably think I'm a total twit, they always respond to inquiries politely in e-mail.



I'm thinking of the group orientation policy that says that if you have a question several others may as well and it's easier and more informative to have one person "get up the nerve" to ask the question publicly (thus informing everyone once) than have some but not all ask it privately after (thus informing some but not all at more work to the answerer.)


----------



## billd91 (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Besides, what exactly am I doing or proposing that you guys consider ban-worthy?  Disagreeing with other posters?  Pointing out things about Wizards that I don't like?  Sticking it to the Wizards via hyperbole?




Notice the spin _you_ put on the last one. "Sticking it to the Wizards". Anyone posting with that attitude dripping out of their comments is probably not being very constructive or civil and should rethink their approach.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Transparency of a process can increase confidence in a way that the theoretical ability to privately ask a mod questions in email really can't. Whether it's worth the possible hassles or not is a balancing question.




Anyone who wishes to can write to a moderator and ask about moderation - even if it wasn't done to them.  I get more e-mail from third parties than I do from the "offenders", and I do my best to make sure I answer each and every one.

The problem with public discussion of specific incidents is that it tends to folllow the same pattern as problem threads - if you stop the original, but allow discussion to continue, you don't actually see an end to the problem behavior.  It just continues in the new space.  

Note that we are quite willing to discuss general policies in meta, even if not specific cases.  If you want us to clarify how we think the Grandma rule works, we're open to that discussion.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Notice the spin _you_ put on the last one. "Sticking it to the Wizards". Anyone posting with that attitude dripping out of their comments is probably not being very constructive or civil and should rethink their approach.




I'm not a journalist.  Who said I was trying to be impartial?  My posts can be nice and helpful.  They can also be unfair or overly-filled with attitude.  Why exactly is "attitude" a problem?  Because people get offended by attitude?  Too bad.  I'm not spewing personal insults, I'm making a point using pathos.

Okay, people seem to think that's not "constructive."  Well, since the board has gone into a tizzy over feat names we've actually heard rumor of a feat name change within the playtest reports.  So perhaps there was something constructive there.  The term "constructive" itself though is way too subjective to mean anything.  "Civil" I'm fine with; "Constructive" I'm not.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Interesting.  So, how are these things good for any sort of conversation?
> 
> You've basically just told EN World that your posts are worthless, because they may be a bunch of lies and irrationalities, strewn across the screen.
> 
> I suppose that destroying one's own credibility on a messageboard is one tactic to take, but not one that I would choose.




I would personally recommend not placing too much credibility in an anonymous message board poster anyways.  The point of the post is that if there is a line which determines whether a post is good or bad: civility is it.  Not everything else which may or may not annoy you about a poster.

That said, don't believe a word of it.


----------



## FickleGM (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I would personally recommend not placing too much credibility in an anonymous message board poster anyways.  The point of the post is that if there is a line which determines whether a post is good or bad: civility is it.  Not everything else which may or may not annoy you about a poster.
> 
> That said, don't believe a word of it.



 Yes, but through time, some posters become less anonymous.  Especially those posters who I meet at GenCon, but even some that I don't ever physically meet.

The credibility of said posters determines whether or not I like them, wish to discuss topics with them or roll my eyes at them.  Like in "real life", interactions are not isolated and what I learn from one interaction will affect how I act in the next.

Civility is far less a concern of mine than honesty.  An honest, but uncivil, person can be dealt with, because you know where he stands.  A dishonest person can not be trusted.

I will admit that I have a huge problem with dishonesty, which includes having an "internet persona".  I will judge a person based on the information that I have at hand, and if that is irrational and/or dishonest posts, so be it.

So, to me, I'd rather you be uncivil and just let me know how you feel, rather than be dishonest or irrational.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> The point of the post is that if there is a line which determines whether a post is good or bad: civility is it.



That is your line. Mine is different. So, for that matter, is ENW's as a perfectly civil politically charged post will still count to the "bad" side under current policy.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> That is your line. Mine is different. So, for that matter, is ENW's as a perfectly civil politically charged post will still count to the "bad" side under current policy.




Ah, right.  I forgot about the taboo subjects addendum.  I've got no problem with that.
May I amend to say that as long as the subject is D&D, civility should be the dividing line?


----------



## Kesh (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'm not a journalist.  Who said I was trying to be impartial?  My posts can be nice and helpful.  They can also be unfair or overly-filled with attitude.  Why exactly is "attitude" a problem?  Because people get offended by attitude?  Too bad.  I'm not spewing personal insults, I'm making a point using pathos.
> 
> Okay, people seem to think that's not "constructive."  Well, since the board has gone into a tizzy over feat names we've actually heard rumor of a feat name change within the playtest reports.  So perhaps there was something constructive there.  The term "constructive" itself though is way too subjective to mean anything.  "Civil" I'm fine with; "Constructive" I'm not.




If this is your general desire, a blog would be a better outlet. "Attitude" on a message board is simply stirring the pot, and does nothing for civility.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Ah, right.  I forgot about the taboo subjects addendum.  I've got no problem with that.
> May I amend to say that as long as the subject is D&D, civility should be the dividing line?



you can, but it will remain your line, not the only reasonable one. For me personally, civility is included under a larger judgement of "contributory" which is my line.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 7, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> If this is your general desire, a blog would be a better outlet.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> If this is your general desire, a blog would be a better outlet. "Attitude" on a message board is simply stirring the pot, and does nothing for civility.






			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> you can, but it will remain your line, not the only reasonable one. For me personally, civility is included under a larger judgement of "contributory" which is my line.




Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (and no, I don't need to be shown the door).

I feel there is a place for harsh critique of published material (or even published previews of published material).  I won't take up any more time on this thread about it though.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (and no, I don't need to be shown the door).
> 
> I feel there is a place for harsh critique of published material (or even published previews of published material).  I won't take up any more time on this thread about it though.



For the record, I'm not talking about your posts or even your examples of things you might say, necessarily. I'm disagreeing in principle with where you draw the line for a good vs bad post, and yes, agreeing to disagree is fine with me on the subject.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Why exactly is "attitude" a problem?



Because the mods are trying to keep ENWorld from turning into a non-stop flamewar.

It's really that simple.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 7, 2007)

How about using the Warning Point system that's built into the board?  Seems to me that it's designed specifically to let people know they're pushing the limit, without resorting to a ban.  When someone gives a post that seems to be flaming, trolling, or just with a bad attitude, give them a warning point.  When someone gets to X number of points, they get a short vacation from the 4e forum.  If the system won't let you ban someone from a specific forum, make it work on the honor system, with a real ban in they don't follow it.  The handing-out of warning points could be public or private, depending on the situation, with disuputes always being private (in normal ENWorld fashion).


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 7, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> How about using the Warning Point system that's built into the board?  Seems to me that it's designed specifically to let people know they're pushing the limit, without resorting to a ban.  When someone gives a post that seems to be flaming, trolling, or just with a bad attitude, give them a warning point.  When someone gets to X number of points, they get a short vacation from the 4e forum.  If the system won't let you ban someone from a specific forum, make it work on the honor system, with a real ban in they don't follow it.  The handing-out of warning points could be public or private, depending on the situation, with disuputes always being private (in normal ENWorld fashion).



I had no idea that wasn't in use. My fiancee admins on another message board using the warning system, and that first warning point corrects the problem 90% of the time.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 7, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> …I want to say something about some of these suggestions.
> 
> Suggestion: "Don't say anything that you wouldn't say if you were face-to-face."
> 
> ...






			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> I agree with civility.  I do not agree with various other aspects of face-to-face conversation.  For example:
> - Calmness
> - Rational thought
> - Understanding
> ...






			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> That is actually the one real problem with "civility" as a term.  I respect that the makers of the product we use are posters on this board, and personal attacks against them are bad. But their products and the decisions made about those products?  That should be open for downright evisceration.  I respect their right to publish their work, but *I reserve the right to critique it in any way I choose….*Maybe it'll make somone respond uncivily towards me...  But that would be their bad, not mine.






			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> [W]hat exactly am I doing or proposing that you guys consider ban-worthy?  Disagreeing with other posters?  Pointing out things about Wizards that I don't like?  *Sticking it to the Wizards via hyperbole?*






			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'm not a journalist.  Who said I was trying to be impartial?  *My posts* can be nice and helpful.  They *can also be unfair or overly-filled with attitude.  Why exactly is "attitude" a problem?  Because people get offended by attitude?  Too bad.*  I'm not spewing personal insults, I'm making a point using pathos.




So let me see if I get this straight.  You use the anonymous nature of this board to try and spice things up here.  You think it is fair game to post insincere, lying, unhinged, drama-queen ridden, hyperbolic and unfair posts that are overly-filled with attitude, and in fact think it is a "right" as long as it is "civil", which you feel means "not making personal attacks".  You "reserve the right" to critique in any manner you choose, even if you know in advance it is likely to result in people making uncivil attack posts in reaction, and even if it is likely to offend people, because that is their problem and not yours.

Did I mischaracterize anything?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Did I mischaracterize anything?



Even if you did, he apparently believes it's your right to do so.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So let me see if I get this straight.  You use the anonymous nature of this board to try and spice things up here.  You think it is fair game to post insincere, lying, unhinged, drama-queen ridden, hyperbolic and unfair posts that are overly-filled with attitude, and in fact think it is a "right" as long as it is "civil", which you feel means "not making personal attacks".  You "reserve the right" to critique in any manner you choose, even if you know in advance it is likely to result in people making uncivil attack posts in reaction, and even if it is likely to offend people, because that is their problem and not yours.
> 
> Did I mischaracterize anything?




Accurate and a good summary.  Though mischaracterization would be rather uncivil, if it were to occur.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 8, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm interested. Why do you think
> 
> a) civility rules
> b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
> ...




Let me jump in here. I had this discussion with some of the mods on RPG.net, which did not go well, but I'm going to try to explain what can happen.

Poster A says, "Game X is the stupidest, most rotten game ever. I can't imagine someone liking it."
Poster B says, "I like it."
Poster A says, "Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course."

Poster B probably does not want to come back and say, "You know what? I feel dissed, and I'm mad about that." 

Because Poster A will reply, "Whoa, hoss. No reason to take it personally."

Of course, there is a reason to take it personally. But Poster A does not want to come back and say, "You're not taking this seriously, but I am actually mad and I'm going to reply to you in thread." 

So in the end, Poster A does not reply at all. They endure it, and if they get tired of it, they might leave the boards or something, or just quietly wait for Poster B to do something reportable.

Poster B is of course being "civil" in the sense of defusing, but they're only escalating the insult. 

The basic issue is, not every opinion is of equal value, or at its face is worth considering. "Game X is a stupid game" has a variable value depending on how stupid it actually is. If most people think it's stupid for reasonable reasons, "Game X is a stupid game" may be a little tactless but gets to the point, especially if one of the five fans of Game X tries to mount some kind of defense. On the other hand, if Game X is the most popular FRPG, "Game X is a stupid game" is out and out trolling anywhere play of Game X is discussed. 

In general, people should not say, "Game X is a stupid game." Context, exceptions, etc. 

In my view, "People make the same complaints about 4e that people did about 3e" is untrue enough to be insulting. Similarly, "4e is a money grab for suckers" is really insulting to someone who is attracted by what they hear about 4e. And each statement is similar enough to "You can't please everyone" and "WotC is primarily running a business" that they can slip under the radar of discussions.

A general rule of thumb: "civility" or "neutrality" inevitibly favors the status quo. Since the non status quo tend to be riled enough already, it can lead to prickly feelings. 

I think the mods should definitely be sensitive to when "neutrality" isn't soothing anyone feelings. The most important things are to preserve bandwidth and keep the discussion going, not to make sure everyone tolerates any given discussion. Some topics are simply going to be too close to the heart for civility to prevail. 

Also, "civility" generally isn't compatible with critical analysis. Discussing the merits of a game is at heart critical analysis.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 8, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The basic issue is, not every opinion is of equal value



You got that right. But we have to pretend. It's what being civilized is all about.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2007)

I'll make an effort to be more civil.


----------



## med stud (Dec 8, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The basic issue is, not every opinion is of equal value



Until there is a way to quantify the value of an opinion the best way to handle differing opinions is to treat them as equal and let people defend them the best they can.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 8, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You "reserve the right" to critique in any manner you choose, even if you know in advance it is likely to result in people making uncivil attack posts in reaction, and even if it is likely to offend people, because that is their problem and not yours.




For the record (given that the person being spoken about has confirmed this is accurate), this is _not_ compatible with EN World.  If you know (or think it's likely) it's going to cause offence, you don't post it.  Period.  We don't care whose "problem" a poster believes it to be or what "rights" they choose to "reserve".

Just so we're clear: we're not interested in "justice", "fairness" or "rights"; our one, sole concern is to keep the boards calm and friendly, and everything we do is toward that goal.

Circvs Maximvs is available for those who would rather be more outspoken - you can be as direct, blunt, or "honest" as you like there.  If you don't like the atmosphere there, that should tell you something about why such behaviour isn't allowed here; but you don't get to say "I don't like those characteristics [there] unless I'm the only one using them [on EN World]"; you need to join other people who are accepting of that manner, and I've provided an entire website for you to do so.

That got a little more general than just addressing the post in question - Simplicity, it's not all directed at you, don't worry.  I just felt a point needed to be made.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 8, 2007)

Morrus, I think this suggests a change in policy.  The three golden rules via the rules page (which I have read): (1) Keep it civil, (2) Keep it clean, and (3) Keep it on topic.

Elaboration of "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. 

Now, I agree with *everything* said in those rules.  I'm not looking to post obscene content or anything.  I want to post civil, clean, and on-topic posts about 4e, and yes, sometimes I want to put some emotion into it.  Does anyone honestly believe that if I wrote a accurate, yet harsh critism of 4e, *someone* in the pro-4e camp wouldn't get offended by it?    Similarly for overly rosey praise for 4e and the anti-group.

Maybe I just have a different definition of offend.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Morrus, I think this suggests a change in policy.  The three golden rules via the rules page (which I have read): (1) Keep it civil, (2) Keep it clean, and (3) Keep it on topic.




If you don't consider "honesty" to be a part of civility, then we need to add (4) Keep it honest. Nothing's worse than a discussion being derailed by people lying about the topic at hand, especially when it's a situation like 4e where there's so much rumor and speculation flying around already.


----------



## Simplicity (Dec 8, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If you don't consider "honesty" to be a part of civility, then we need to add (4) Keep it honest. Nothing's worse than a discussion being derailed by people lying about the topic at hand, especially when it's a situation like 4e where there's so much rumor and speculation flying around already.




Everybody likes honesty.  That said, some of the most classic ENWorld posts have been completely insincere.  For example:
1) The Bugaboo classics (I won't spoil them here)
2) billdoor's goat sacrifice post.
3) The April Fool's series

Sure, there's a fine line between trolling/misinformation and humor.  But it's not drawn at sincerity.  It's drawn at malice.

Okay, I'm getting sucked into the thread again, and I really should just shut up.  I'm clearly just overly parsing things.


----------



## JayBrickwall (Dec 9, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> Until there is a way to quantify the value of an opinion the best way to handle differing opinions is to treat them as equal and let people defend them the best they can.




Isn't that what sites like plastic and digg do with their user +'s and -'s of thread comments? Set your filter where you may, and the EN community as a whole will slide trolls/flames/insults right off your page. 

But, I like the fact that at sites like plastic you have to "earn" your moderation points. 

Not sure it would work here, just saying that there are working models of forums that "quantify" the value of opinions.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 9, 2007)

JayBrickwall said:
			
		

> Isn't that what sites like plastic and digg do with their user +'s and -'s of thread comments? Set your filter where you may, and the EN community as a whole will slide trolls/flames/insults right off your page.
> 
> But, I like the fact that at sites like plastic you have to "earn" your moderation points.
> 
> Not sure it would work here, just saying that there are working models of forums that "quantify" the value of opinions.



This sounds similar to the Slashdot method, which I enjoyed. I found it better than most rep systems in that it was less a personal statement on the poster and more a judgment on the "value" of the post itself in the context of the thread. I like it slightly better than top down moderation because it combines a more distributed "community standards" feel* with the choice of how much noise each poster wants to put up with.

*meta moderation was also used to control the use of plus/minuses in personal vendettas or to attack one side of a discussion thread. If a randomly selected third party found your 'moderation' unfair, you wouldn't get points to spend as quickly.

I agree that it's a different kind of system that might not work on a board like this, but there are options between lack of moderation and top down moderation, and systems with options between everyone having to put up with a borderline post and no one getting to see it.


----------



## rounser (Dec 9, 2007)

> I like it slightly better than top down moderation because it combines a more distributed "community standards" feel* with the choice of how much noise each poster wants to put up with.



Unfortunately, groupthink moderation also encourages "the truth" to get moderated down or deleted when it doesn't make intuitive sense or toe the party line/political correctness/personal beliefs.

Happens on Wikipedia a fair bit I gather, where "the truth" as posted by some expert seems unlikely to the layman (who far outnumber said expert), doesn't match their beliefs or takes too long to explain, so keeps on getting deleted in favour of fallacy that seems to make intuitive sense, or reflects the world as people wish it was.

Imagine an enworld poll for each post, determining whether it should get shown or not.


----------



## broghammerj (Dec 10, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> The posters HAVE changed.
> 
> People's posting habits went BERSERK in August.  Most of the people getting modded or low-post count lurkers or old-timers coming out of retirement.




I am not sure what you're directly referencing about August but I would offer a word of caution.  Post count is a double edged sword.  A low post person can have a well thought out opinion or statement just as much as a high post count person.  They may have arrived on board late or simply spend their time doing other things rather than be on the internet.

This board has been around long enough that I am starting to think some of the high post people get a lot of leeway in what they say.  By that I mean that they may make a joke or respond in an almost private conversation that is off topic (threadjack) without any repercussions.  They may contribute nothing to the thread, but everyone knows (so and so) and no one seems to mind.


----------



## broghammerj (Dec 10, 2007)

Whisper72 said:
			
		

> Take away a bit of the anonymity. Just a thought.




I guess that is why my last name is my forum name.


----------



## Melan (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> stuff



Yes indeed, to all of that. Well stated.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 10, 2007)

So we have to tiptoe around everyone and pray our use of language doesn't offend someone?   That's utter crap.  If I were to say Game designer X' idea is lame, that does not equate to insulting Game designer X.  He may in fact be a wonderful person with a lame idea.   I've had plenty of those myself.  But if we are to follow this stupid policy, I hereby declare the use of the word "the" off limits, as it offends me.  Posters who use that word should be banned immediately.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 10, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> So we have to tiptoe around everyone and pray our use of language doesn't offend someone?   That's utter crap.  If I were to say Game designer X' idea is lame, that does not equate to insulting Game designer X.  He may in fact be a wonderful person with a lame idea.   I've had plenty of those myself.  But if we are to follow this stupid policy, I hereby declare the use of the word "the" off limits, as it offends me.  Posters who use that word should be banned immediately.




Can you see the difference between:

_"Game designer X's idea is lame"_

and

_"I think that proposed rule X is lame because as far as I can see it makes rogues completely useless, treading on their toes as a scout"_

The former is implicitly saying that game designer X has lame ideas, and is mere name calling since there is nothing to back it up.

The latter is impersonal, puts the focus on the rule that you are concerned with and expresses the reason why you think it is lame.

Admittedly the second option takes a bit more work to think about and write up, but it is much more conducive to discussion, since it is a discussable opinion rather than just an assertion.

In general opinions make better discussion points than assertions, IME.

Cheers


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, groupthink moderation also encourages "the truth" to get moderated down or deleted when it doesn't make intuitive sense or toe the party line/political correctness/personal beliefs.
> 
> Happens on Wikipedia a fair bit I gather, where "the truth" as posted by some expert seems unlikely to the layman (who far outnumber said expert), doesn't match their beliefs or takes too long to explain, so keeps on getting deleted in favour of fallacy that seems to make intuitive sense, or reflects the world as people wish it was.
> 
> Imagine an enworld poll for each post, determining whether it should get shown or not.



yes, there are drawbacks to the method. They are sometimes different then the drawbacks to the top down moderation method or the unmoderated method, but personally I don't find them to be universally worse. The comparison to Wiki seems inapt to me, as we are not trying to establish any sort of "truth" here, but maintain a discussion board. 

And really, the same thing happens in all methods, the process just changes. In an unmoderated or lightly moderated board, the truth gets shouted down with insults (it's amazing how self righteous some people can be in their ignorance) and on a moderated board, more subtle insults are declared acceptable by moderators who share the poster's point of view, or at best a remainder is made to be civil in a way not so subtly indicating the discussion at hand is just a matter of opinion.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> But if we are to follow this stupid policy, I hereby declare the use of the word "the" off limits, as it offends me. Posters who use that word should be banned immediately.




I'm okay with that, and I'll abide by your ruling as soon as you assume total ownership and control over EN World, or maybe even start a forum of your own which I find worthwhile enough to register to.

The majority of those posting here don't have to tip-toe and pray they don't offend. They simply don't use the kind of language or argumentative techniques that offends. It is possible to be civil and still express very critical opinions of rules and their implementations, and I wager most posters pull off that feat with ease.

/M


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I'm okay with that, and I'll abide by your ruling as soon as you assume total ownership and control over EN World, or maybe even start a forum of your own which I find worthwhile enough to register to.
> 
> T
> 
> /M





See, I find the above much more insulting than someone insulting my game of choice, but apparently it's okay to suggest I'd never have any kind of a forum worth a crap.  But god forbid I criticize some fanboys idol's  golden shower feat.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> See, I find the above much more insulting than someone insulting my game of choice, but apparently it's okay to suggest I'd never have any kind of a forum worth a crap.  But god forbid I criticize some fanboys idol's  golden shower feat.




Well, you call them as you see them. I know my preference for games and settings, and I have read a lot of your posts over the last year, so I know our tastes differ, and that I probably wouldn't enjoy your forum. I'm not saying other people might not enjoy it, or that it wouldn't be a high quality site for other people. I wouldn't fault anyone for not providing me with a forum that's exactly fitted to my tastes, nor would I call it "crap", which is a word you yourself chose to use.

There are plenty of forums out there for me to join. They all have their standards or lack of standards. That doesn't make them crap, but it makes some of them not suited for my posting habits.

/M


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> And really, the same thing happens in all methods, the process just changes. In an unmoderated or lightly moderated board, the truth gets shouted down with insults (it's amazing how self righteous some people can be in their ignorance) and on a moderated board, more subtle insults are declared acceptable by moderators who share the poster's point of view, or at best a remainder is made to be civil in a way not so subtly indicating the discussion at hand is just a matter of opinion.



Hmm, good points.  And admittedly it does seem to work on Slashdot.  But Slashdot is keyed towards religion and politics flamewar stuff on occasion, so probably needs the supermoderation powers that large razor gangs of moderators bring.  (Some people still make a point of browsing Slashdot on -1 for the reasons discussed, though.  Not me, but they exist apparently.)

Nevertheless, I think we can trust a small group of well chosen people more than people in general.  Thank goodness democracy only occurs once every few years in countries where it's employed, imagine the mess we'd be in if it was used for every decision.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> See, I find the above much more insulting than someone insulting my game of choice, but apparently it's okay to suggest I'd never have any kind of a forum worth a crap.  But god forbid I criticize some fanboys idol's  golden shower feat.




It's not a question of criticizing the feat. It's the way you do it. Don't be a jerk when you do it. Don't question the designer's intelligence or suggest ulterior motives. Don't insult the people who like the feat. Don't engage in hyperbolic hysterics.


----------



## Kesh (Dec 10, 2007)

This thread is *really* padding out my Ignore List. I find that depressing.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> This thread is really padding out my Ignore List. I find that depressing.



You've got the right to ignore whoever you want, but I find this a bit of a headscratcher.  This thread seems very civil and constructive.  But you'll probably never read this if you've ignored me.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 10, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> I am not sure what you're directly referencing about August but I would offer a word of caution.  Post count is a double edged sword.




Me.

I've gone from lurking to posting over 4e.  I have a low-post count and came back just for 4e.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 10, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Me.
> 
> I've gone from lurking to posting over 4e.  I have a low-post count and came back just for 4e.




Speaking of which - Charwoman, I remember when you first appeared on ENworld, and I'm sure it was after someone found that a spell checker (or something similar?) suggested 'Charwoman Gene' for some other phrase. Soon after that you registererd, but for the last six months I've been racking my brain to try and remember what that original phrase was. 

Do you remember?


----------



## Terramotus (Dec 11, 2007)

Ok, I'm mostly a lurker who occasionally finds useful things to post about or who has the occasional question to ask.  I've been coming to these boards for the same thing I came to Eric Noah's for when 3E was coming out: people dissecting and disseminating information about the new edition, and extrapolating from there what we might see.

But there's too much bile being spread for me to effectively find that, and I've found myself compelled to post more often in the last month or so because of it than in a long long time.

It seems to me that what I'm seeking should be the default aim of a 4E forum on a D&D news site.  Am I wrong?

I come to this forum for information, not to listen to people who presume to tell other people how they must run their game.  And, to me, that's all the anti-4E stuff is - telling me that I shouldn't be running my game a certain way.  I also think it's uncalled for, especially since I haven't seen people verbally defecating all over older editions these past years.  I'm like Tommy Lee Jones from The Fugitive at the dam scene.  "I'm not buying Fourth Edition!"  "I don't care!"

And honestly, I do think the "anti-4E" sentiment is responsible for the civility problem.  Because it's easy to ignore someone who's slightly more enthusiastic than you are, but it's hard to ignore someone who thinks that what you're interested in is a lump of garbage.

That sentiment isn't going to go away, though.  Not anytime soon.  I think the only solution is one posted earlier in the thread: separate the 4E forum into a Discussion and Opinion forums.  That way, at least, people who are looking for information can stick only to the Discussion forums and not have to deal with the people who want to duel online over which play style is superior.


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 11, 2007)

How can you discuss something without having an opinion though?


----------



## Terramotus (Dec 11, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> How can you discuss something without having an opinion though?



For example, discussion would be taking the information about Dragonborn and speculating about how they are created from the information leaked and whether they fill the niche of the strong PC race instead of Half-Orcs in the new edition.

Opinion would be whether or not you like Dragonborn over the Half-Orcs and whether or not you will allow them in your game.


----------



## JayBrickwall (Dec 11, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> How can you discuss something without having an opinion though?




Have you ever watched CSPAN?   

But seriously, EN has entered the agree to disagree phase of 4e speculation. Posts that denounce the whole edition because of one leaked "still-being-worked-on" rule tidbit, or one name that might sound foolish seem to serve no purpose other than to add that poster's name to the "stand-up-and-be-counted" list. 
Conversely, posters who fawn over every announced change (and even some that aren't), rationalize every pantheon or campaign setting redux and who already have pages of expository backstory for their first 4e homebrew seem like the extreme other end of the bell curve. 

Not that either of them are in the wrong, far from it, they are opinionated and enthusiastic... they just make it harder for the big mass of us in the middle to parse and assimilate in shades of gray. 

Much like the other posters who have mentioned coming here for 3e news and leaks; I am one of you, and it just seems... harder this time around to get information and discussion that is HELPING me to make up my mind, as opposed to making me recoil from the threads. Doesn't mean I will stop reading, though!   

Moderation is a tough job, but somebody's got to do it, and someone ELSE isn't going to be happy when its all said and done.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 11, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> See, I find the above much more insulting than someone insulting my game of choice, but apparently it's okay to suggest I'd never have any kind of a forum worth a crap.  But god forbid I criticize some fanboys idol's  golden shower feat.



In what possible way do you consider this argument to be okay?

JRR, stay out of the thread, please. If you can't post without sniping at one another, don't post.


----------



## lkj (Dec 11, 2007)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> For example, discussion would be taking the information about Dragonborn and speculating about how they are created from the information leaked and whether they fill the niche of the strong PC race instead of Half-Orcs in the new edition.
> 
> Opinion would be whether or not you like Dragonborn over the Half-Orcs and whether or not you will allow them in your game.




I can't believe I'm posting in this thread, as I usually ignore all the meta talk. But heck in the past I rarely posted at all. I've proudly been lurking since early 3E (Eric's site)

I don't know if splitting the board would really be a good idea or not. I'm sure there are repercussions I wouldn't guess at or that it might end up being unfair or annoy more people than help, etc. etc. I'll leave that to the mods.

But my two cents is this: The split wouldn't really be 'Opinion' vs. 'Discussion', not exactly-- since discussion will inevitably involve some opinions. But the example that Terramotus describes works pretty well for me. 

There's two things, in general, to talk about with regard to the info we are getting about 4e:

There's Speculation-- Here's what WotC has told us. Let's speculate about what that might mean, what form in might take, how it might suggest other rules. What does this mean about a potential design philosophy, etc. One can certainly discuss these things without having or giving a strong opinion about whether it's good idea or not. We can even argue heatedly about what we think the final product will look like without getting into whether we think it sucks or not.

There's Judgement-- Do I like what WotC has told us? Do I like what it might mean? Do I like what I'm speculating it means? What should WotC do about it? 

As it happens, I much prefer the first. That's me.

 I think it's perfectly valid to not like what you are seeing, form an opinion about it, and want to express that opinion. I think it's valid to argue with that opinion and say that it's a misinterpretation or based on too little info. Forming judgments is the prerogative of the poster. (It's just how that opinion is stated and whether it involves rudeness to other posters. I certainly don't think you have to personally respect the opinion-- re: Wulf's argument-- but in the context of ENWorld I don't think it has much value to rudely point out just how much you don't respect it. What's the point?<-- just my opinion). 

At any rate, making judgments might be cathartic or fun or help you have a discussion. Just not my thing when it comes to D&D. And I find that I'm having a lot less fun reading these boards lately because I'm wading through piles of posts of people arguing with each other about their personal judgments. And all I really want to see is 1) the info and 2) the fun speculation about that info from the really smart group of people who frequent these boards.
I suspect with regard to #2 that we'll find out we were way off base most of the time, but that's part of the fun as well.

So, yes, if there were a way to separate the speculation from the judgments I'd love it. Maybe you don't need a board split. Maybe just a tag for the threads. I already avoid all threads that are titled in a way that obviously won't interest me ("Going to 4E", "Not going to 4E", etc.). But that doesn't save me from having to wade through the pointless (in my opinion) arguments about whether this change sucks or rocks that seem to permeate most threads now. It kind of makes me want to hang out less. I'm posting more often lately, but some of that is just trying to see if I can turn a discussion to an arena of more interest to me. Chances are I'll give up on that eventually. I'm just not as passionate as the 'haters' and 'lovers' about the whole thing. But if we could separate the type of discussion, I think that would be great. And yes, I realize there are gray areas. But I'm perfectly happy with letting the wonderful moderators around here draw whatever lines they think best. 

Well, blah, blah. I've rambled enough. I don't know if my comments are worth much. I hope they are. I've really liked hanging out here. I'd love to continue to like it.

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 11, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Do you remember?




I Copied this off of an archived post I found on Google

The Best two phrases are "If you a shovel have" and "Of the charwoman gene pursued"


-------------

Eric Noah once translated his front page into German and back, just for a laugh...

The "Charwoman Gene" is what translates back from "Chargen" referring to the Character Generator included in first print D&D PH's.


Message: (if you a shovel have, please fill email I or out the form for feedback)

May 30, 2000

Liquid on the boards:

Scott Mathews of the liquid maintenance communicated somewhat goodies more rueber on the board message of the software É. Feel free to fall by message the board and to divide your thoughts or questions. I just thought that I would throw a line and a saying hello to drop and from any info. over the charwoman gene.

1. Built up-to-date for the PC Mackanal still into consideration by Wizards up. No channel Linux is expected.

2. Dispatched with the August output kite and the manual of the player, which are suitable here naturally out at GENE of this year Con. Internally at the liquid, we call this version of the charwoman gene the "demo version" it are a designation, which I really regret, because it is misleading a little (you see down).

3. In the demo version you can any category structure and print, which is found in the manual of the player. Any running, any adjustment. That is, it is completely functional. They can still structure not prestige categories or monster categories, or adapt you your character page. This adding for the full "version" are regarded, which dispatches with collecting main aids. That and the thousands adding, which we hear by the boards.

4. Of the charwoman gene pursued, one which certified characters consists. E.G. if you output all ability points, which are assigned to you, then ramp down its INTERNAL (this ramp down also over sake DM sought out), then is thrown the character in errors, (it to have had more ability points output, than it to your character have assigned). They can protect a character in the error, but you cannot print it.

5. Changing cube role methods not in demo supported, but will become in the collecting main aids to be.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 11, 2007)

Ah, the days when a post really _meant _something!

Thanks for digging it up


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 11, 2007)

Out of curiosity, I translated part of today's front page to german, and then back, using Google.

Here are some of the funnier bits:



> Cleric: ...*And the heads of state and government are in a position to grant an increase to this capability .* In summary, clerics will no longer be asked to heal, as they used to, and can take part in battles. It is also said that clerics are not as strong compared to the other classes, as they 3E, and that *the summons were magic spell from their lists (probably in a later band)*.




So Clerics need to seek out a head of state and government to improve their healing, and will get a boost from bards perhaps since they must summon a band later to do it.



> Wizards: schools of magic are gone, replaced by Priority (ball, personnel, magic wand, with more to come in later books possibly). The priorities include *ground ball* and retaliation effects and the perception that *staves ranged radiation, bars and long-distance calls* and defense. Besides the magic, wizards will also have rituals, the creation of items. Meta Magic benefits are gone when magic can still be increased by Wizard powers and other benefits. In addition, because characters can buy any kind of services they want, it is mentioned that one of a magician in a 3E style Warmage or Dusk Blade through the purchase of weapons, armor and attack melee benefits, as *4E Wizards no longer suffer arcane spell failure in the arms.*




Wow, Wizards seem to play kick ball, blast things with radiation, and make a lot of calls on their staff-shaped cell phones (assuming they have the bars for the call).  And they don't have arcane spell failure, but only for their arms.  The rest of their bodies, however, will continue to suffer spell failure.



> Warlord: As described above, but also an example of a warlord power called "Feather Me Yon Oaf!" (You often use humorous titles such as stand-ins until the real one). When the warlord uses this ability, his allies will receive an *immediate action to a rocket weapon and shoot the warlord designated target.*




Nice! A rocket weapon, but only at the designated Warlord target.  Seems kinda like a specialized situational attack!


----------



## Zurai (Dec 11, 2007)

On topic...

I found that my more destructive urges disappeared almost completely at the same time I realized I could "shrink" the RPG Forums header so that I had to very specifically go to the 4E forum to see any threads about 4E. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say. Since I was worried about leaving my PbP games in the lurch if I got out of hand, that was a big relief to me.

For the record, if anyone else wants to try it, if you go to the main forum listing (where it shows all the forums and sub-forums grouped by header) there's a tiiiiiiny little grey box to the far right of each main forum. If you click that, it shrinks the entire grouping to just the title of the main forum (RPG Forums, in this case).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 12, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> For the record, if anyone else wants to try it, if you go to the main forum listing (where it shows all the forums and sub-forums grouped by header) there's a tiiiiiiny little grey box to the far right of each main forum. If you click that, it shrinks the entire grouping to just the title of the main forum (RPG Forums, in this case).




Funny, I never noticed that!

(I get to spend time around all the forums of course, so I can't use it myself, but I bet others might find this handy)


----------



## Riley (Dec 14, 2007)

lkj said:
			
		

> There's Speculation-- Here's what WotC has told us. Let's speculate about what that might mean, what form in might take, how it might suggest other rules. What does this mean about a potential design philosophy, etc. One can certainly discuss these things without having or giving a strong opinion about whether it's good idea or not. We can even argue heatedly about what we think the final product will look like without getting into whether we think it sucks or not.
> 
> There's Judgement-- Do I like what WotC has told us? Do I like what it might mean? Do I like what I'm speculating it means? What should WotC do about it?




I would _really_ like to have threads and/or a subsection dedicated to "Speculation," where "Judgement" for good or ill would not be welcome.  It wouldn't be a Pro-4e section, and it wouldn't be an Anti-4e section - it would be a "What will it be?" section.

Some very clever people have made some very clever observations on 4e, based on the clues we have.    But most of the threads containing such clues and thoughts have promptly been buried in a pile of 'yea' and 'nay' posts.

There would still be room for us to have our rants and arguments elsewhere.


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 14, 2007)

Riley said:
			
		

> I would _really_ like to have threads and/or a subsection dedicated to "Speculation," where "Judgement" for good or ill would not be welcome.  It wouldn't be a Pro-4e section, and it wouldn't be an Anti-4e section - it would be a "What will it be?" section.
> 
> Some very clever people have made some very clever observations on 4e, based on the clues we have.    But most of the threads containing such clues and thoughts have promptly been buried in a pile of 'yea' and 'nay' posts.
> 
> There would still be room for us to have our rants and arguments elsewhere.




I hardly ever post.  I just lurk.

But I'll come out for this idea!   

I come here to learn, not to argue.  And, most especially, not to assassinate the characters (or even the opinions) of others.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 15, 2007)

I notice topics often devolve into arguments over something that isn't really the point of the thread. The classic is Golden Wyvern Adept taking over random threads, but there are other threads that have fallen way off the topic of the thread though I won't name names. That's usually fine, except there are threads specifically on these topics, and arguments bleeding over is extremely annoying. I'd like it if we had these topics confined to only threads directly concerning them so that we could talk about other things. This is really starting to get under my skin, and so far I've kept myself from commenting, but that's kind of the opposite of what I want to be dong here.


----------



## megamania (Dec 16, 2007)

Is there any way to creat a thread that is locked out from posters to just ONLY list confirmed or highly likely 4e news?


Much of the problem is getting clear uninterrupted information without all the varying opinions involved.   For those on the fence or climbing onto the fence (like myself) this may be very useful.

Thankyou and may the dieties bless you for dealing with this ... chaos.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 16, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> Is there any way to creat a thread that is locked out from posters to just ONLY list confirmed or highly likely 4e news?
> 
> 
> Much of the problem is getting clear uninterrupted information without all the varying opinions involved.   For those on the fence or climbing onto the fence (like myself) this may be very useful.
> ...




I thikn what you're looking for is a news page.

I and the newshounds search through the chaos here and elsewhere on your behalf.


----------



## adamx20 (Dec 16, 2007)

I registered just so I could quote this because around the same time people over at WotC started threatening to leave their forums to come over here.   




			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Folks, this is an ultimatum: calm down and be civil, or we're gonna boot you.
> 
> We're barraged with complaints that we're creating an anti-4E forum from those who like it.  We're barraged with complaints that we're "anti-grognard" from those who don't.  Somehow we're both.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 16, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I thikn what you're looking for is a news page.
> 
> I and the newshounds search through the chaos here and elsewhere on your behalf.




And we love you for it.

No ... literally!   

It's a real and very positive contribution.  Thank you.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 17, 2007)

I find the bright red "threat" text of an angry moderator to be very, _very_ exciting. You know, exciting in THAT way.   

Anyone want to disagree with me so I can call you a moron? HUH??? Anyone?! Come on, ya big wussies!....


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 19, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I find the bright red "threat" text of an angry moderator to be very, _very_ exciting. You know, exciting in THAT way.
> 
> Anyone want to disagree with me so I can call you a moron? HUH??? Anyone?! Come on, ya big wussies!....




Clearly EVERYONE agrees with you.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 19, 2007)

Personally, I've attained my own "separate peace" so to speak.  I did it by placing about 20 people on ignore.  One comment that's dumb to the point that I think its offered insincerely, and Ignore time!


----------



## Driddle (Dec 19, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Personally, I've attained my own "separate peace" so to speak.  I did it by placing about 20 people on ignore.  One comment that's dumb to the point that I think its offered insincerely, and Ignore time!




Sadly, this sort of attitude has become pervasive in society overall. People have learned it's easier to ignore anything they don't like, even at the risk of missing otherwise useful information or learning to develop social skills to work through differences with others.

I think it does a disservice to any message board to allow more than three "ignore" markers at a time, and I allow for that number only because I recognize the possibility of extreme cases of duress.

(Ironically, the people I might have directed this at have already blocked my messages.)


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 19, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Personally, I've attained my own "separate peace" so to speak.  I did it by placing about 20 people on ignore.  One comment that's dumb to the point that I think its offered insincerely, and Ignore time!



Be careful to not accidentally attain your own "separate world" by ignoring too many ppl.
Oops, 21?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 20, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Sadly, this sort of attitude has become pervasive in society overall. People have learned it's easier to ignore anything they don't like, even at the risk of missing otherwise useful information or learning to develop social skills to work through differences with others.
> 
> I think it does a disservice to any message board to allow more than three "ignore" markers at a time, and I allow for that number only because I recognize the possibility of extreme cases of duress.
> 
> (Ironically, the people I might have directed this at have already blocked my messages.)




Just speaking from personal experience here, but I guess that's what everybody here does...sometimes it's not about ignoring being the "easy way out".

I've placed a few people on my ignore list as well since the whole 4E thing started. Mainly people that I had the continued impression that, no matter what they posted, they were either trying to blow sugar into my eyes about 4E (no matter WHAT topic), or those who were spewing nothing but bile about it. Also, there is one or two people that no amount of social skill can manage to work around because they've made being annoying and obnoxious an art and their favourite pastime, and with whom the signal-to-noise ratio is far too high, even if they are able to post interesting comments now and then.

Using my ignore list has made reading (and participating in) the interesting discussions easier.  I don't expect it to stay that long for the rest of my stay on ENWorld, and I expect the baseline to get back to "normal" after 4E has hit the stands, and people can stop going to extremes about it...or those who DO will start finding different pastures. But right now, a little bit of filtering does a whole lot of good.


----------



## Driddle (Dec 20, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> (said something)




I would compliment your insight, except that you're on my ignore list. Heck, I'm not even sure how I know you posted anything at all ...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 22, 2007)

I'm tempted to start a thread about "Is it okay to have an opinion?"

There appears to be a lot of division, not just about being a "Wotc Fanboy" or a "4e hater", but also "It's too early to have an opinion" vs. all ready making decisions. 

I mean, what do you _do_ when say, 95% of what has come out about 4e pleases/displeases you? What does that Make you? Is that OK? Can you talk about it? Where should you talk about it?


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm tempted to start a thread about "Is it okay to have an opinion?"
> 
> There appears to be a lot of division, not just about being a "Wotc Fanboy" or a "4e hater", but also "It's too early to have an opinion" vs. all ready making decisions.
> 
> I mean, what do you _do_ when say, 95% of what has come out about 4e pleases/displeases you? What does that Make you? Is that OK? Can you talk about it? Where should you talk about it?




Early on we were expressly forbidden from voicing a negative opinion, so I think the answer is, "It isn't ok." and "Not here."

Which at this point is for me, "Ok.", because really, I don't have much interest in talking about things I don't like.  I've said what I could, enraged alot of people for saying even that, and thats it.  My participation in 4e forums is likely to be minimal.  I foresee that over time, the number of threads which will be on something I find interesting enough to comment on will diminish, so I'm likely in my last phase here at EnWorld.  Old players never die, they just fade away.  Kinda sucks, but what can you do.

I only comment, praise, or flame topics I care about and 4e, success or not, is quickly going into my mental bargin bin to gather dust.

My suspicion is that this particular contriversy is going to go away almost completely regardless of what the moderators do or don't do or say or don't say, for the simple reason that sooner or latter the board is going to be overwhelmingly those that are interested in the current game.  The closest we will then get to this again is 'edition wars' where someone who hated earlier editions of the game provokes those that like both the current and early versions by disparaging both the earlier edition and the people who played it.  But people who generally dislike 4e are going to leave or at least reduce participation.  That's just the nature of the thing.  

Everyone should find that reason to chill.  If you don't like how the boards are now, just wait.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 22, 2007)

There are 2 kinds of behaviour:
- people that complain about a rule they don't like, or feel that it's silly, broken or plain stupid, but because they love the game and whish it to be better; 
and
- people that complain about rules or aspects of the new edition because they just don't like it or don't want it, or want it to fail, and complain to prove everyone that the previous edition is better and the new edition surely sucks.

I've seen the second one a lot. The opposite to this behaviour obviously exists, the so called "fanboy", but the distinction between them is that the "fanboy", being right or wrong, cynical or not, does care about the 4E, and the other, the "nay-sayer-hater" simply doesn't. 

If you really don't care about 4E, think twice before posting on 4E forums, because there is a great chance that you will fall for that second bad behaviour, and that's pretty unconstructive.

So, I believe the main problem starts when people talk, positively or negatively, about things they don't care. 
If you don't care about it, then what are the motives to talk about it in the first place? Only bad motives come to my mind as the answer.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 22, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I've seen the second one a lot. The opposite to this behaviour obviously exists, the so called "fanboy", but the distinction between them is that the "fanboy", being right or wrong, cynical or not, does care about the 4E, and the other, the "nay-sayer-hater" simply doesn't.




Right, because somebody can mindlessly LOVE something without any other reason than its existence and care for it, but HATE something mindlessly for no other reason than its existence and not care for it.

Sorry, doesn't compute. Both sides care for the thing in question, otherwise there would be no passion involved. You simply attribute the "positive" attitude of the _f4nboy_ to caring for 4E and the negative attitude of the _h4ter_ to not caring. Doesn't work that way. Somebody who doesn't care about 4E in the first place doesn't get riled up about it in either direction.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 22, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> You simply attribute ...



I'm not attributing anything. I'm not saying the cause for fanboysm is this, and the cause for hatism is that, I'm just pointing a kind of behaviour I think is bad for the forum and often leads the thread to an unsconstructive discussion or fight.



> So, I believe the main problem starts when people talk, *positively or negatively*, about things they don't care.
> If you don't care about it, then what are the motives to talk about it in the first place? Only bad motives come to my mind as the answer.



.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 22, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I'm not attributing anything. I'm not saying the cause for fanboysm is this, and the cause for hatism is that, I'm just pointing a kind of behaviour I think is bad for the forum and often leads the thread to an unsconstructive discussion or fight.




Just out of personal curiosity then...this part here



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> I've seen the second one a lot. The opposite to this behaviour obviously exists, the so called "fanboy", but the distinction between them is that the "fanboy", being right or wrong, cynical or not, does care about the 4E, and the other, the "nay-sayer-hater" simply doesn't.




...does not say that the fanboy is a fanboy (= overdone but positive attitude about 4E) because he cares about 4E, and that this differentiates him from the hater, who is a hater (= overdone but negative attitude about 4E) because he doesn't care about 4E, and that the first is preferable over the second?

Just would like to get that cleared up if you don't mind. English is not my first language, and I still get some things wrong now and then.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 23, 2007)

Sorry, what i've meant is that there are two sides, those who complain and those those cheer about 4E. In both cases there are people that actually don't care about the new edition, they are decided not to shift, but stay in the 4E forums talking about something they don't care.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 23, 2007)

Ah, okay, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 23, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm tempted to start a thread about "Is it okay to have an opinion?"
> 
> There appears to be a lot of division, not just about being a "Wotc Fanboy" or a "4e hater", but also "It's too early to have an opinion" vs. all ready making decisions.
> 
> I mean, what do you _do_ when say, 95% of what has come out about 4e pleases/displeases you? What does that Make you? Is that OK? Can you talk about it? Where should you talk about it?



 IMHO it really depends on if you have anything interesting to say. Interesting things would be news, rumors and discussion regarding 4e.

An unconditional "I love 4e!" is just as uninformative and pointless as an unconditional "I hate 4e!", and honestly I want to hear neither. However, in this forum, we get a lot of the latter, and I haven't seen much of the former at all. So in theory they're equally useless and annoying, but in practice only one of them annoys me.

When is an opinion like or unlike a discussion? When you can be swayed, or when you are open to talking about it. "I hate 4e and am never buying it!" -- yeah, lots of room for discussion there. (Again, just as much as "I love 4e and have already pre-bought every book WotC will publish!", but I don't see tons of those posts.)

Basically, how much something pleases or displeases you is irrelevant to how much I want to hear from you. How interesting your point is -- and open you are to discussion about it, be that discussion agreement or disagreement -- is totally relevant.

One man's opinion, -- N


----------



## Hairfoot (Dec 23, 2007)

It seems to me that most posters in the 4E forums feel that 4E is moving D&D _away _ from them and the game they want to play, or _toward _ it, although it oftens feels like both.

For my part, the simplification of rules is moving it toward my my playing style, which makes me say "yay 4E", but the flavour and fluff is feeling downright alien and quite unlike D&D as I know it, which puts me in the "boo 4E" camp.

What it boils down to is that, with exceptions, most people aren't entirely pro- or anti-4E, just opinionated on particular aspects.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 23, 2007)

I have doubts and concerns about several aspects of 4e but I never express them on this forum because:

1) There's far too much negativity as it is and I don't want to add to it.
2) It's 99% likely that someone at WotC made the same point at a meeting two years ago and the issue has been addressed but not publicised yet.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 23, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 2) It's 99% likely that someone at WotC made the same point at a meeting two years ago and the issue has been addressed but not publicised yet.



That's my personal Tao.
Yes, I'm a humble person.
Yes, I trust WotC.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 23, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm tempted to start a thread about "Is it okay to have an opinion?"




[snark] No. Thanks for playing [/snark]

[real_answer] The biggest thing I see on the boards is not pro/con, but the attitude from some that "I could have done that better".

Everyone who has ever played D&D has been encouraged to "tinker". Fix this, houserule that. No other game I can think of has as many homebrewed setting, houserules, and extensive rules-rewrites than D&D. Hell, D&D has ENCOURAGED it at various times (OD&D was chock-full of "make up your own rules" areas, even 3.5 has "Unearthed Arcana".) 

This has lead many people to think of themselves not as players or DMs, but as "amateur game designers" The early d20 glut came from a lot of people who held that opinions (notice the only real surviving companies are helmed by *gasp* professional game designers?) So there are plenty of people who cobbled a version of D&D using whatever edition we like as a baseline and modified to suit their own personal/group preferences (both in terms of world-building and game design) who now look at 4e (with its own version of house-rules and homebrew implied setting) as nothing more than another designers attempt to supercede thier own "superior" material with this new, official bullocks. 

Its obvious in every "I wouldn't have done THAT" post that appears down the pipes. Many are simply preference issues (I'd rather tieflings remained a monster and gnomes a PC race) but many of the most hateful, spiteful, and vile posts come from this attitude that "I know better than WotC, and if they don't develop the game according to my tastes, I'll quit make them pay!"


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 23, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Yes, I trust WotC.




Agreed. Which is far more than I could ever say about TSR. I have memories of a 13-year-old kid receiving a cease-and-desist letter with a familiar logo on it because he posted some D&D characters on a website.


----------



## malladin (Dec 24, 2007)

edit *inappropriate location*


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 24, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> It would help if one group were stopped from being allowed to call the other's choice crap in the title of threads and then it wasn't just left. You wonder why there's problems and animosity!



Did you report the post?

If you see it as a problem, report it and a moderator will take a look. If you haven't reported it, it's sort of self-defeating to be annoyed that it wasn't addressed.


----------



## malladin (Dec 24, 2007)

Sorry, don't know how to report. Will edit post but would appreciate info on reporting.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 24, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> Sorry, don't know how to report. Will edit post but would appreciate info on reporting.



Fair enough! And thanks.

Take a look at the bottom left corner of my post. You'll see a button there that looks like an exclamation point inside of a triangle. Click it, and you'll be able to send the mods an email asking them to look at a specific post (or a thread) that you think is a problem.

This is by far the fastest way to address a problem when you see something weird.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 24, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> This has lead many people to think of themselves not as players or DMs, but as "amateur game designers" The early d20 glut came from a lot of people who held that opinions (notice the only real surviving companies are helmed by *gasp* professional game designers?)




Huh?

Fantasy Flight Games continues to thrive as a board game company, and is packed with full-time professional game designers, but is "dead" in the 3e sense.

Necromancer Games continues to thrive as a 3e company and is helmed by a full-time lawyer (and amateur game designer).

Moreover, the only quantifiable measure of "professional" game designer is someone who gets paid to design games. So your definition is somewhat self-selecting: if they are still making and selling games, they are professionals-- but if they stopped, they are not?

And congratulations if you can point me to a single 3e game designer with any formal "professional" game design accreditation.

The only things necessary for success in the 3rd party market are talent, enthusiasm, and committment. Necromancer Games' crew, for example, has these in spades.

Given those three things, the money will come, and "Poof!" you're a professional in the only sense that matters.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 24, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> When is an opinion like or unlike a discussion? When you can be swayed, or when you are open to talking about it. "I hate 4e and am never buying it!" -- yeah, lots of room for discussion there. (Again, just as much as "I love 4e and have already pre-bought every book WotC will publish!", but I don't see tons of those posts.)



What bothers me is that many people who have made up their mind to _not_ go to 4e... are still here. They still feel the need to post in several threads "I've been left behind, WotC fired me as a customer, this isn't D&D, I am not switching." If the decision is made... why continue to draw attention to it? Just go on enjoying 3e to your heart's content. 



> It seems to me that most posters in the 4E forums feel that 4E is moving D&D away  from them and the game they want to play, or toward  it, although it oftens feels like both.



I don't disagree with this statement. I'm in the latter category. 

And oddly, I've seen little to come down the pike with which I _disagree_ with. I have a few concerns, but be it rules or fluff, it's stuff that I see and go, "Oh, cool", or "Huh, sure that works." It utterly stuns me the things that cause a huge blowup. Like the ever legendary quest card thing. I've grown suspicious that the 4e designers can do no right, with some - that, if WotC put out a box of free money, they would come to the forums complaining about the way the bills were folded.


----------



## malladin (Dec 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> Fantasy Flight Games continues to thrive as a board game company, and is packed with full-time professional game designers, but is "dead" in the 3e sense.
> 
> ...




Saved me a post


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 24, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> An unconditional "I love 4e!" is just as uninformative and pointless as an unconditional "I hate 4e!", and honestly I want to hear neither. However, in this forum, we get a lot of the latter, and I haven't seen much of the former at all.



Interesting. I've seen equal amounts.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 24, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Interesting. I've seen equal amounts.




I think the perceived tone of threads will partially depend on people's ignore lists.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 24, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What bothers me is that many people who have made up their mind to _not_ go to 4e... are still here. They still feel the need to post in several threads "I've been left behind, WotC fired me as a customer, this isn't D&D, I am not switching." If the decision is made... why continue to draw attention to it? Just go on enjoying 3e to your heart's content.



When a gamer has made up his own mind he still can share his opinion. It might be because he is interested in game design in general, or because he feels the community is going in a direction he would like to see rectified, or because he would like to find people like-minded he wouldn't have identified if he didn't post his own opinions... there are many different reasons why someone who made up his mind would keep on posting on any particular topic.

What bothers me, personally, is the tendency of posters to tell others what to do or not do based on the opinions they have. That rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Huh?




Most of those companies you mentioned started out amateur, and grew into full time production companies. I recall the younger days (that first year or so) that there were PLENTY of little one-shot mom-n-pop presses that made a couple d20 books (or PDFs) and tried to make a quick buck off them. They were sub-par rules, poor editing, and no understanding of the perils of printing. A hobbystore by my house is still littered with those rejects, they can't GIVE them away. Some great stuff came out during that period also (much by talented amateurs, many posting on this messageboard) but nearly 3 times as much failed.

Who survived the d20 collapse? Paizo (lots of former Dungeon/Dragon talent), Necromancer's (boosted by Paizo), Green Ronin (Pramas), Malhavoc (until Monte quit d20), Goodman Games (a great example of talented amateurs you cite) and Troll Lord Games (who has the Mighty Gygax helping them out).

But, my point is that just because I've played D&D for 10+ years and designed my own world or houserules doesn't mean I know what's best for D&D and how-dare-WotC-not-share-my-opinion as a few has alluded to...


----------



## Rechan (Dec 24, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> When a gamer has made up his own mind he still can share his opinion.



I didn't say he couldn't. The source of my question is "Why _drag on_ letting everyone know you're not going?"

If it was about connecting with people of like minded, hey, that's easy - there's threads like "Not going to 4e". If it's "To voice your opinion", sure. Several people have . But that doesn't explain why they do it at every opportunity in every thread they come to. The 'I decided three months ago to not go with 4e, and yet I'm still here...' is IMHO, silly. 

It comes off as saying "That's it, I'm out of this party. I'm leaving. I am gone. See me leaving? I'm walking to the door. I'm moving towards the door. You guys are going to miss me. I am so gone. Later everybody. See you. Bye. Here, I'm AT THE DOOR. Totally going to leave. Don't want to stay here anymore. Can you guys see me? Because here I am, my hand on the doorknob. I'm totally turning it. Going to leave here in just a second. Yep, outta here."



> What bothers me, personally, is the tendency of posters to tell others what to do or not do based on the opinions they have. That rubs me the wrong way.



So you don't think that people should act on their opinions?

If I hate pickles, yet I continue to stay in the room for pickle eaters and, continue to eat pickles, and continue to _complain_ about pickle-eating, eventually someone is going to turn to me and say "Well if you hate them WHY ARE YOU EATING THEM?" After a while, it comes off as either the individual being masochistic, or just liking to complain. 

The person with the opinion has the right to say it - and the next person has the right to express their opinion of what the first person said. 

I'm not questioning the right to say it. I'm questioning why they continue to remain to say it long after the decision has been made.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 24, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Interesting. I've seen equal amounts.



Even if there ARE equal amounts, which I'm not prepared to accept, they are not equivalent activities.  Unconditionally loving something and unconditionally hating it are not two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 25, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> The biggest thing I see on the boards is not pro/con, but the attitude from some that "I could have done that better".
> 
> Everyone who has ever played D&D has been encouraged to "tinker". Fix this, houserule that. No other game I can think of has as many homebrewed setting, houserules, and extensive rules-rewrites than D&D. Hell, D&D has ENCOURAGED it at various times (OD&D was chock-full of "make up your own rules" areas, even 3.5 has "Unearthed Arcana".)
> 
> This has lead many people to think of themselves not as players or DMs, but as "amateur game designers"



Sounds just fine to me so far.  Instead of trying to build the whole game for us, the designers just design (and provide) the tools we can use to build our own.  What's wrong with that?







> Its obvious in every "I wouldn't have done THAT" post that appears down the pipes. Many are simply preference issues (I'd rather tieflings remained a monster and gnomes a PC race) but many of the most hateful, spiteful, and vile posts come from this attitude that "I know better than WotC, and if they don't develop the game according to my tastes, I'll quit make them pay!"



With 4e, they're not only building a new game but are redesigning and updating all the tools in the toolbox.  However, not all of us are prepared to throw out all our old tools - which have served us well and that we know how to use - and would prefer instead to find ways of using our 1e screwdriver, 2e wrench, 3e hammer, and shiny new 4e power drill to build a playable game.  Thus, when some news tidbit comes out that makes it rather obvious that the 2e wrench has to be tossed because 4e is using a different standard (cf metric vs. imperial) of course there's going to be squawks...particularly if it appears that 4e's version of a wrench is going to be more difficult to use.  So yes; "I wouldn't have done THAT" is a perfectly legitimate statement, provided it's followed with "Here's what I would have done (or not done) instead..."

Lanefan


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 25, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Most of those companies you mentioned started out amateur, and grew into full time production companies.




The thrust of your post was a bit of elitist . 



> I recall the younger days (that first year or so) that there were PLENTY of little one-shot mom-n-pop presses that made a couple d20 books (or PDFs) and tried to make a quick buck off them. They were sub-par rules, poor editing, and no understanding of the perils of printing.




I agree. But that has nothing to do with the professionalism of anybody who jumped in and succeeded, and whether or not they continue to publish today. To say that the only companies that succeeded were the ones started and staffed by established "professional" game designers is ignorant of the facts.

So: Talented, enthusiastic, and dedicated people are still publishing. Capitalism works. 



> But, my point is that just because I've played D&D for 10+ years and designed my own world or houserules doesn't mean I know what's best for D&D and how-dare-WotC-not-share-my-opinion as a few has alluded to...




Mike Mearls did ok for a scrappy little upstart, now didn't he? I guess he friggin well DOES know what's best for D&D, since he went from this to Lead Developer.

Mike Mearls pretty much puts a bullet through the heart of your argument.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 25, 2007)

Tone down the hostility, please.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 25, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Sounds just fine to me so far.  Instead of trying to build the whole game for us, the designers just design (and provide) the tools we can use to build our own.  What's wrong with that?With 4e, they're not only building a new game but are redesigning and updating all the tools in the toolbox.  However, not all of us are prepared to throw out all our old tools - which have served us well and that we know how to use - and would prefer instead to find ways of using our 1e screwdriver, 2e wrench, 3e hammer, and shiny new 4e power drill to build a playable game.  Thus, when some news tidbit comes out that makes it rather obvious that the 2e wrench has to be tossed because 4e is using a different standard (cf metric vs. imperial) of course there's going to be squawks...particularly if it appears that 4e's version of a wrench is going to be more difficult to use.  So yes; "I wouldn't have done THAT" is a perfectly legitimate statement, provided it's followed with "Here's what I would have done (or not done) instead..."
> 
> Lanefan



Honestly, I don't really understand to what the toolbox examples could refer to in the game. I have only third-hand knowledge of AD&D, but I really fail to see how there is a difference in the "toolbox" used between 3rd and 4th edition that would be bigger then between 2nd and 3rd. 

But, well, it's not really on topic, is it? This is a "meta" discussion on how to conduct a discussion. But maybe it still highlights something
Avoid general statements. Give concrete examples of what you like, why you like it. Give concrete examples of what you do not like, and why you don't like it. 

Statements like "It's not D&D anymore", "It's videogamey", "WotC is firing me as a customer!", "It's the best game ever", "it's better balanced", "it will be easier to DM", all these statements don't tell my how the person came to this conclusion. I might not agree with the reasoning that will be given for any such statement, but at least give me a way to understand them. If I don't agree, I will probably present an alternative interpretation, but all these things serve the discussion, because they give people food for thought and material to discuss.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 26, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> When a gamer has made up his own mind he still can share his opinion.



What's the point if he's that set in his ways? Ultimately it stops being a discussion and becomes an (unwelcome) attempt to proselytise. 


> It might be because he is interested in game design in general



Then shouldn't he post on a forum devoted to game design in general?  


> or because he would like to find people like-minded he wouldn't have identified if he didn't post his own opinions...



If he's looking for 4e haters this forum is, or should be, and is rapidly becoming, the wrong place to look.


> or because he feels the community is going in a direction he would like to see rectified





> What bothers me, personally, is the tendency of posters to tell others what to do or not do based on the opinions they have. That rubs me the wrong way.



Wanting to see other people's opinions 'rectified', and expressing it, is an example of telling others what to do based on the opinions they have.

It seems to me you're saying proselytising is fine provided it goes one way.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 26, 2007)

(angry stuff edited out)


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 26, 2007)

Lets not inspire one of the mods to close a thread opened by Morrus himself due to outbreaking hostilities. It starts to sound like the plenty of other threads that arose around the topic of "who may post here", and that's not helpful, as those threads have demonstrated.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 26, 2007)

I apologize. It's all sour grapes. I won't be visiting the 4E forum any time soon.


----------



## thorian (Dec 26, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What bothers me is that many people who have made up their mind to _not_ go to 4e... are still here. They still feel the need to post in several threads "I've been left behind, WotC fired me as a customer, this isn't D&D, I am not switching." If the decision is made... why continue to draw attention to it? Just go on enjoying 3e to your heart's content.



I think there are a lot of us who would like to show that there is still widespread support for 3E/3.5E.  If people don't get to see that there is fan support, they will be less likely to decide to put out material.

Others of us would like to be able to express our opinions on the way we would like 4E to go, and sometimes, that means being critical of 4E.  Most of us on ENWorld love D&D.  We should all be able to express our opinions freely and without censorship as long as we aren't firing off personal attacks.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 26, 2007)

thorian said:
			
		

> I think there are a lot of us who would like to show that there is still widespread support for 3E/3.5E.  If people don't get to see that there is fan support, they will be less likely to decide to put out material.




It doesn't work like that.  Internet posts will not pay for product development; people need to _buy _ 3.5 material if they want more of it.

EN Publishing can't afford to put out any more 3.5 books, because we know nobody will buy them.  We have to finish _War of the Burning Sky _ because people paid in advance for it, but believe me when I say each adventure at present is just another financial drain.  We're not putting any other 3.5 stuff out; we just can't.

In short: stop posting, start buying.  Or 3.5 will disappear forever.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> STUFF




Really, how does it help to tell people what they, in your opinion, should post and where. There are site admins and mods to deal with inappropriate behaviour and posts. I thought the point of this thread was to encourage positive discussion, which isn't helped by one sides opinions being devalued. Yes these boards are changing, but if it's through driving people, such as Oldahan for example, away because they don't feel they can speak freely within the board rules, I don't see how this is a change for the better. And you may think people are 'haters' but that doesn't make them such and calling them it doesn't contribute to open discussion or reduce hostility.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 27, 2007)

Thank you Morrus. That is better than what I could've said, since you have the weight of a 3e publisher.



			
				thorian said:
			
		

> Others of us would like to be able to express our opinions on the way we would like 4E to go, and sometimes, that means being critical of 4E.  Most of us on ENWorld love D&D.  We should all be able to express our opinions freely and without censorship as long as we aren't firing off personal attacks.



First, I don't think _anyone_ here is saying anything about _censorship_. I am not saying "Hey, you don't like 4e, get the hell out." 

Second, as to "opinions on the way we would like 4e to go", 4e is going in a direction, with or without you. Sure, the complaints over Dragon Tail Cut go heard, but I really don't think that WotC is going to turn the direction they've been going for the last - what, two years? - based on some posts on the message boards. Tieflings are in, Gnomes are Out. Warlocks are in, Bards aren't. Those are decisions that are probably set in stone, and no amount of criticism is going to save it.

Besides, do you think that WotC would listen to the overly dissatisfied customers over 4e? From the way some people around here talk, they would have to overhaul the entire thing just to please some people. They've made the decision, set their course, and it will alienate some people. I believe they're banking on it drawing in more people than it alienates. 

Thirdly, my point boils down to this: 4e is coming, with you or without you. You will ultimately have to make the choice, "Do I play 4e or no?" If _no_, then isn't it both a little futile, and doesn't it frustrate yourself, to stick around in a place devoted to an edition you _won't_ play, seeing information that makes you _mad_ because it's not the direction you want to go, all for the purposes of saying "I don't like this"? 

A period of voicing your feelings of disappointment, understandable. Yet, how long are you willing to do that, with regards to something _you don't like_? Two weeks? Two months? Two years? 

Deciding not to play 4e is a valid choice. But there comes a time when I have to ask, "Okay, your complaints far outweigh your positive feelings in this situation. What does that say to you? And what will you do about it?"


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 27, 2007)

thorian said:
			
		

> We should all be able to express our opinions freely and without censorship as long as we aren't firing off personal attacks.



Enworld does not permit broad scale attacks, general attacks, untargeted attacks or any other style of message board attack. It is a private message board and the mods will do what is needed to keep the board’s aura of civility. If someone has a reasonable complaint, Enworld will in all likelihood let that person express it. But when that complaint comes off as rude, argumentative or unsupported, mods here will step in.


----------



## Horacio (Dec 27, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It doesn't work like that.  Internet posts will not pay for product development; people need to _buy _ 3.5 material if they want more of it.
> 
> [...]
> 
> In short: stop posting, start buying.  Or 3.5 will disappear forever.




That's the best reasoned argument I've seen in a while. 

And not only because it comes from a publisher  AND forum admin, but because it's a great truth. The most valid support for 3.5  now is wallet support.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Thank you Morrus. That is better than what I could've said, since you have the weight of a 3e publisher.
> 
> 
> First, I don't think _anyone_ here is saying anything about _censorship_. I am not saying "Hey, you don't like 4e, get the hell out."
> ...




So, EN World isn't a place for all editions of D&D with a sub-forum for forth edition. If thats the case why doesn't the site owner say so and non 4th ed people can move on. Otherwise this is the second post on this page that seems to me to effectively say, despite claiming not too, well if all you want to do is state your opinion and its not positive to 4th ed clear off. Unfortunately I think you'll get your desire. Most provokers seem happy playing the passive aggressive game to avoid moderation problems- and unfortunately the quality and variety of opinions and discussion on the site will go down because of it. Very sad to see


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It doesn't work like that.  Internet posts will not pay for product development; people need to _buy _ 3.5 material if they want more of it.
> 
> EN Publishing can't afford to put out any more 3.5 books, because we know nobody will buy them.  We have to finish _War of the Burning Sky _ because people paid in advance for it, but believe me when I say each adventure at present is just another financial drain.  We're not putting any other 3.5 stuff out; we just can't.
> 
> In short: stop posting, start buying.  Or 3.5 will disappear forever.




So people can't do both?


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

I saw this elsewhere and it says it all about the situation I find from a not going to 4th ed position.

Thorn #1 are the handful of posters that are "on my side," but they don't stop and stating what they don't like about 4th edition, they don't stop at saying they aren't planning on buying it. They have to go the extra mile and say that WOTC is intentionally putting out crap, that they have never put out good products, and that ever since they bought TSR, they have been engaged in a grand conspiracy to "force" us to buy crap and then sit back and laugh at us. I'm not happy with WOTC right now, and there have been some products I had little use for, or that I thought could have been a lot better . . . but if I didn't like any of their work, why did I buy everything I did? And furthermore, when you have hyperbole machines going full steam "on your side," it makes it hard for people to cut through all of that to see the actual good points made by some of the anti 4th edition types.


Thorn #2 is the 4th edition supporter that doesn't really want to debate anything. He wants to answer every single 4th edition thread, and when people show a preference to the way things used to be presented, he tries to dismiss any personal preference by saying that those that have a personal preference don't realize that D&D is a game, and that such people with preferences are lost in a fantasy world and can't deal with reality. Our petty concerns are beneath him . . . or at least they are far enough beneath him that he can dismiss them, but not far enough that he doesn't feel obligated to pop in and respond to remind us that they are beneath him.

Seriously, I want to hear everyone's opinion on this thing, and I realize I'm not always going to agree with people, and from time to time, I'm going to loose it and say something dumb. I'm sorry for that, but I really, really, am getting tired of every thread on 4th edition going like this:

Thorn #1: X bit of information about 4th edition just proves that WOTC sucks. Its more of the horrible crap they have been selling for years, and its obvious they have no talent and only care about money, and they are intentionally making D&D into horrid crap, and trying to force us to buy it.

Thorn #2: I'm amazed that anyone cares about X. If you don't like it, you can ignore it, but if you are emotionally connected to any of this, then you obviously can't distinguish reality from fantasy. Its clear that the designers are make a great game, and if you realized it was a game, then you would realize that things can change at any time if it is even remotely good for game design. In fact, I like X, but if they change X next week without any explanation, I'd be fine with that, because a devotion to continuity is the sign of a diseased mind.

Maybe we should just not try to be thorns!


----------



## Morrus (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> So people can't do both?




They're welcome to do both.  Only one of them will make any difference though.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> They're welcome to do both.  Only one of them will make any difference though.




Fair enough, you strongly believe this and thats cool. As with most of life I'm sure individuals can decide where their efforts are best spent and as your not saying they can't, thanks for elabourating, thats reassurring.


----------



## Kesh (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> So, EN World isn't a place for all editions of D&D with a sub-forum for forth edition. If thats the case why doesn't the site owner say so and non 4th ed people can move on. Otherwise this is the second post on this page that seems to me to effectively say, despite claiming not too, well if all you want to do is state your opinion and its not positive to 4th ed clear off. Unfortunately I think you'll get your desire. Most provokers seem happy playing the passive aggressive game to avoid moderation problems- and unfortunately the quality and variety of opinions and discussion on the site will go down because of it. Very sad to see



 That's a rather strong bit of hyperbole there. No one's saying "get off my lawn" here. But we're tired of folks trolling the 4e forum. And honestly, that's what it boils down to: people who come in here to complain, not to offer constructive opinions. If you want to post about other games, that's fine. Older editions of D&D, that's fine. But coming here just to slag WotC or 4e is counter-productive and hostile, neither of which is conducive to a healthy forum.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> That's a rather strong bit of hyperbole there. No one's saying "get off my lawn" here. But we're tired of folks trolling the 4e forum. And honestly, that's what it boils down to: people who come in here to complain, not to offer constructive opinions. If you want to post about other games, that's fine. Older editions of D&D, that's fine. But coming here just to slag WotC or 4e is counter-productive and hostile, neither of which is conducive to a healthy forum.




As pointed out above though 3.5 people are probably equally tired of perceving their concerns and criticisms as being dismissed as inconsequential, see Thorns post above. My argument is its not your, my or any other posters job to decide what is or isn't acceptable, constructive, or trolling, its the admins and mods and they should be left to do it. Jumping in saying someone else's view is illegitimate just because it isn't your own,from either side, doesn't help. My view is it's better to stand up for what you believe will make a healthy forum, not just the kind of one you want, than just slink away because other people are determined to shout louder, and from my perspective I see this happening. Sadly, i'll probably give up soon as well though, my gamings not affected by people here and how they choose to treat others over something as irrelevant as a game, but i'll be sorry to feel a disconnection with a site I've enjoyed so much in the past.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It doesn't work like that. Internet posts will not pay for product development; people need to buy 3.5 material if they want more of it.
> 
> In short: stop posting, start buying. Or 3.5 will disappear forever.




Not sure if this is the right place, I've put it here as it links directly to previous discussion; please move accoirdingly, but if your encouraging people who are interested in keeping 3.5 alive through buying Phil Reed has been talking about this:

He never calls the idea "3.75" but he does mention that in The Digital Front Podcast the possibility of some of the PDF publishers getting together and releasing what amounts to the 3.5 SRD cleaned up some and with some minor tweeks and releasing it as a free download/at cost Lulu print product and with that develop their own 3.5 fantasy brand. Reason he gave why the PDFer may do this is: The PDFers are able to still make a profit while selling at smaller quantities. He begins talking about this at about 33 minutes into the podcast.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> As pointed out above though 3.5 people are probably equally tired of perceving their concerns and criticisms as being dismissed as inconsequential, see Thorns post above. My argument is its not your, my or any other posters job to decide what is or isn't acceptable, constructive, or trolling, its the admins and mods and they should be left to do it. Jumping in saying someone else's view is illegitimate just because it isn't your own,from either side, doesn't help. My view is it's better to stand up for what you believe will make a healthy forum, not just the kind of one you want, than just slink away because other people are determined to shout louder, and from my perspective I see this happening. Sadly, i'll probably give up soon as well though, my gamings not affected by people here and how they choose to treat others over something as irrelevant as a game, but i'll be sorry to feel a disconnection with a site I've enjoyed so much in the past.



Malladin- this has been bugging me for a while as you post in this thread, so I'm just going to say it.

You seem to have no ability to differentiate between:

1: EN World
2: The Fourth Edition Sub Forum at EN World.

These are not the same thing.

If there was a "Third Edition D&D Sub Forum" at EN World, the people there would have every right to be irked by constant visits from fourth edition fans going on and on about vague, impressionistic reasons they don't like third edition.  Even the ones who weren't intentionally being annoying would get really old, really fast.

Stopping that from happening is one of the convenient benefits of having sub forums.

Which we do.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Malladin- this has been bugging me for a while as you post in this thread, so I'm just going to say it.
> 
> You seem to have no ability to differentiate between:
> 
> ...




So we have a only positive comments on 4th edition sub forum not a general discussion, pro and con. Once again a user is judging the legitimacy/value of comments, not the people responsible for the site. Are you arguing thats how it should be or is, personally I've never seen it officially stated posters can't disagree with the OPs position on the 4th ed or any other forum. Am I wrong? And if its so necessary why doesn't this site make this the policy and problems solved! I suspect your right in regards to the 4th ed forum being a less contentious if 3.5 people stayed out but its still sad that a community comes down to that!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> My argument is its not your, my or any other posters job to decide what is or isn't acceptable, constructive, or trolling, its the admins and mods and they should be left to do it.



Aren't you doing that yourself when you say things like -


> Jumping in saying someone else's view is illegitimate just because it isn't your own,from either side, doesn't help.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 27, 2007)

Constructive criticism of 4e = good
Purely negative criticism of 4e = acceptable
Nothing but negative comments from the same poster = unacceptable
Opposed to the existence of 4e = unacceptable


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Aren't you doing that yourself when you say things like -




I am, your right, I apologise. It doesn't negate the point that people are doing it, indeed it was the perceived attitude of your post that caused me to make this comment, and shouldn't and it demonstrates that thinking how you might come across negatively, as your post did to me and I did in mine, is worth doing.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Constructive criticism of 4e = good
> Purely negative criticism of 4e = acceptable
> Nothing but negative comments from the same poster = unacceptable
> Opposed to the existence of 4e = unacceptable




I agree, but the definition of where opinions fall in these groups is proving to be the problem. No easy solution!


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> So we have a only positive comments on 4th edition sub forum not a general discussion, pro and con. Once again a user is judging the legitimacy/value of comments, not the people responsible for the site. Are you arguing thats how it should be or is, personally I've never seen it officially stated posters can't disagree with the OPs position on the 4th ed or any other forum. Am I wrong? And if its so necessary why doesn't this site make this the policy and problems solved! I suspect your right in regards to the 4th ed forum being a less contentious if 3.5 people stayed out but its still sad that a community comes down to that!



What I'm pointing out to you is that your comments about how, you know, woah is me, I'm being chased from EN World, etc, etc, etc, are completely out in left field.  _Even if_ someone _really was_ chasing you, it wouldn't be away from EN World.



> Sadly, i'll probably give up soon as well though, my gamings not affected by people here and how they choose to treat others over something as irrelevant as a game, but i'll be sorry to feel a disconnection with a site I've enjoyed so much in the past.




Comments like that, for example, don't make sense.  Since the 4e forum didn't exist in the past, I assume the connection you felt was to sub forums like "D&D Rules" or "General RPG Discussion."  These sub forums still exist.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 27, 2007)

I don't think anyone who hates subject matter X should ever be posting on a thread/forum/messageboard or whatever devoted to X. Whether X is 4e, 3.5, 1e or model trains. For example, I can't stand Planescape. If I behaved like some people on the 4e forum do that would mean I post in every Planescape thread saying something like, "Just thought I'd let you know that I still really hate Planescape". On what planet would that be a good thing? Or even acceptable?


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> So we have a only positive comments on 4th edition sub forum not a general discussion, pro and con.



But we really don't need pros and cons to have a good and construcitve discussion. If we had only neutral people, or people that has not yet decided to go to 4E or not, we could have a good discussion.
I'm saying "pros" and "cons" considering the 4E as a whole. If we will discuss Elven Accuracy, we need people to give pro arguments and people that give con arguments. Nothing new here.

The problems start when some people, that already made up their minds, start behaving unconstructively because of that decision. They decide to not go to 4E, and then enter in an anti-4E crusade, trying to show the worst in every new preview, looking for problems in details, hyperboles or corner cases, but mostly using the same old points, and complementing Cadfan, they get really old, really annoying, really fast.
OR they decide to go to 4E and try to prove everyone that the designer's choice was the best and most correct one, even when the designer himself is not yet sure of that. The "dragon tail cut" was a very fun episode. Some people really wasted a lot of effort to somehow prove that name was ok, and then the designers just came and said, nah this is not a nice name.

I think a good way to handle it, (or How to Survive Enworld 4E Forums), is to not get it personal. If I say something about D&D, good or bad, I'm not saying it about your game, I'm saying it about WotC's game.


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Since the 4e forum didn't exist in the past, I assume the connection you felt was to sub forums like "D&D Rules" or "General RPG Discussion."  These sub forums still exist.




No i'm talking about the site as a whole, which 4th ed is now part of and so effects the overall feel especially as EN World is primarily a D&D site. Not saying woah is me, i'm saying it'd be nice to see less hostility and judgement, which I sense-could just be me but I'm not the only person to say it, I'm on a thread about it and its been commented about on other sites. I'm sorry if you consider liking a site for its atmosphere and the behaviour of its posters bit strange and disliking negative impact on these things out of left field   But since what I say makes no sense and those people chasing me might be here soon I'll leave. If you want discuss what I'm talking about I'll try to reply if they haven't got me


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But we really don't need pros and cons to have a good and construcitve discussion. If we had only neutral people, or people that has not yet decided to go to 4E or not, we could have a good discussion.
> I'm saying "pros" and "cons" considering the 4E as a whole. If we will discuss Elven Accuracy, we need people to give pro arguments and people that give con arguments. Nothing new here.
> 
> The problems start when some people, that already made up their minds, start behaving unconstructively because of that decision. They decide to not go to 4E, and then enter in an anti-4E crusade, trying to show the worst in every new preview, looking for problems in details, hyperboles or corner cases, but mostly using the same old points, and complementing Cadfan, they get really old, really annoying, really fast.
> ...




Excellent points and just the sort of productive tone and content I've always associated with these boards. It's that non entrenched discussion I think is important and is being lost in people taking sides and decrying other people rather than discussing their ideas with them, which I've done but try not too, or saying there ideas don't belong.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> If you want discuss what I'm talking about I'll try to reply if they haven't got me



They are coming!!!!


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who hates subject matter X should ever be posting on a thread/forum/messageboard or whatever devoted to X. Whether X is 4e, 3.5, 1e or model trains. For example, I can't stand Planescape. If I behaved like some people on the 4e forum do that would mean I post in every Planescape thread saying something like, "Just thought I'd let you know that I still really hate Planescape". On what planet would that be a good thing? Or even acceptable?




I agree but as Ainatan points out fanatical support is no more productive


----------



## malladin (Dec 27, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> They are coming!!!!





Where Can I Hide


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> If I behaved like some people on the 4e forum do that would mean I post in every Planescape thread saying something like, "Just thought I'd let you know that I still really hate Planescape". On what planet would that be a good thing? Or even acceptable?



I agree and that happens a lot in the 4E forums. That can be pretty annoying sometimes and it is unproductive.
But comments like "You can change the name if you want to" or "you can just house rule it" or "so 4E is not for you" aren't very productive either, and can also be very annoying for the person that is making the complain and IS honestly trying to build a common agreement about that issue so maybe the designers hear it and think: "hmmmm, guys, maybe Tome is not a very cool idea for a wizard focus, let's think about it one more time, shall we?".


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 27, 2007)

malladin said:
			
		

> I agree but as Ainatan points out fanatical support is no more productive




If I go to a Dark Sun message board and list all the reasons I hate Dark Sun and I go to a Planescape D&D board and list all the reasons I love Planescape (note: I do not hate Dark Sun!), which is most likely to create a more productive thread? This 4e forum is made up of more pro-4e people than anti-4e people, and it will probably remain that way unless  something goes terribly terribly wrong in design. I'm not trying to make any judgment calls, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Yes, critique is fine. When someone sees something that they specifically have reasons to be doubtful of its final form in the PHB, they have a right to speak up. However, for people who are overwhelmingly anti-4e, this is probably not going to be the best place to express these views, especially after the books are released next year. I don't really like 1e D&D. I do not point this out on these forums! And, for good reason, I like to think.

Right now, 4e hasn't been released yet. I think the general lack of information is why its okay to harp against it right now. I don't like it, personally, but it makes sense being that none of us should be personally attached to 4e yet, logically, since we haven't seen it. It doesn't work like that in real life, but it really should. Oh well, nobody ever said people were logical. Certainly nobody says that about the internet. Well, with a straight face anyway. 

We don't know if its going to be good. We don't know if its going to be bad. One person speculates it'll be great, another that it'll tank, and nobody can say for certain yet. So, we're free to randomly speculate as we see fit. _But_, doing so comes with a price, and that price is flaming, passive-aggressive posting, and trolling. And, as far as I can see, that's just the way it is. I'd love it if it weren't, and I try my best not to involve myself in any of it, but I'm not going to pretend to be surprised that that's what happening.


----------



## thorian (Dec 28, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It doesn't work like that.  Internet posts will not pay for product development; people need to _buy _ 3.5 material if they want more of it.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> In short: stop posting, start buying.  Or 3.5 will disappear forever.



If there are publishers that continue to support 3.5, then I will certainly buy.  I bought EVERY 3E/3.5E product from WotC until they canceled Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine.  I have subscribed to the aforementioned magazines, and own every issue that has come out since 3E.  I have paid for a community supporter account on ENWorld for several years.  I have bought many, many third-party d20 publications.  I subscribed to Kobold Quarterly when Wolfgang announced it.  I own complete sets of every miniature WotC put out.  I could go on ad nauseum, but don't find it necessary.

I buy plenty of 3.5 material, and I will continue to do so as long as someone puts it out.  I'd still like to post the occasional opinion, however.  Furthermore, I'd like to see ENWorld continue to have 3.5 forum support, even if the publishing arm of the company doesn't find it profitable to put out anything 3.5.

Thanks.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> as to "opinions on the way we would like 4e to go", 4e is going in a direction, with or without you. Sure, the complaints over Dragon Tail Cut go heard, but I really don't think that WotC is going to turn the direction they've been going for the last - what, two years? - based on some posts on the message boards. Tieflings are in, Gnomes are Out. Warlocks are in, Bards aren't. Those are decisions that are probably set in stone, and no amount of criticism is going to save it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e is coming, with you or without you.



This is true. Therefore, for me the most interesting posts and threads are those which try to understand the game-design assumptions behind the 4e changes, and try to predict and analyse the implications for play of those changes. I'm less interested in whether or not any particular poster wants to play that sort of game. I assume that WoTC has good enough market research that they've already answered that question to their own satisfaction.

Debates over names, and whether any particular game element (monster, classs, race, whatever) should be in the first set of published books, I really see as very secondary issues in comparison to the mechanics. The 4e mechanics will determine the way the game is played, and therefore (given D&D's gateway role) the way most people are introduced to RPGs as a whole, for many years to come. I think this is a lot more important for a great many more people (really, the whole of the RPGing community) than whether or not their are official racial feats for Gnomes.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is true. Therefore, for me the most interesting posts and threads are those which try to understand the game-design assumptions behind the 4e changes, and try to predict and analyse the implications for play of those changes. I'm less interested in whether or not any particular poster wants to play that sort of game. I assume that WoTC has good enough market research that they've already answered that question to their own satisfaction.
> 
> Debates over names, and whether any particular game element (monster, classs, race, whatever) should be in the first set of published books, I really see as very secondary issues in comparison to the mechanics. The 4e mechanics will determine the way the game is played, and therefore (given D&D's gateway role) the way most people are introduced to RPGs as a whole, for many years to come. I think this is a lot more important for a great many more people (really, the whole of the RPGing community) than whether or not their are official racial feats for Gnomes.



/thread


----------



## Set (Jan 13, 2008)

One thing I find helpful when I post a concern about some announced feature of 4E and am beset by people calling me names like 'hater' and 'grognard' and whatever other tedious things they can get away with without getting banned is to request that they point out a *specific* thing they _like_ about 4E, rather than just mindlessly naysay anyone who points out a thing that they don't like.

It encourages the 'attack posters' to contribute to a meaningful dialogue, and weeds out the approximately 50% that don't actually seem to have any positive contributions to make, and live only to concern troll other viewpoints and attempt to goad posters they don't agree with into posting something that they consider report-worthy.

Those that do reply often have some good insights.  There's a lot of stuff about 4E that I read and think, 'About time, I've been doing that since 1st edition, when it was the basic assumption.'  (Elves being wild, fey, unpredictable and very much not human in their views, for instance.)

Getting people to contribute useful dialogue, rather than 'nuh-huh' and 'uh-huh' and throwing around denigratory slang like 'fanboy' or 'hater' is the way to go, IMO.


----------



## Yttermayn (Jan 14, 2008)

Hand selected volunteer moderators + banning/suspension abilities = gradual increase in civility.  Coding in new changes to the forums and making more rules and laws will just increase the workload and detract from the value of the forums.  Of course, if folks would just observe the Golden Rule, we wouldn't be here.  But I expect that's too much to ask.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jan 21, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> One thing I find helpful when I post a concern about some announced feature of 4E and am beset by people calling me names like 'hater' and 'grognard' and whatever other tedious things they can get away with without getting banned is to request that they point out a *specific* thing they _like_ about 4E, rather than just mindlessly naysay anyone who points out a thing that they don't like.




(Set, this isn't directed at you by any means, I just wanted to respond to this topic.)

I think the key is always to try to self-moderate your tone.  The people that tend to annoy me will put in a comment like, "Just another reason to not go with 4E."  That will spring the "hater" reflex in me, then I tend to discount everything else.  People that instead say things like, "Well, I'm not sure why they would do that, it doesn't make much sense right now," spring the "reasonable skeptic" reflex in me.  I don't mind reasonable skeptics, but hating gets annoying, especially when I'm looking for some discussion on what a change is and what it might be hinting at.

I'll also admit that while I'm generally positive, there are some things that I wish made the 2008 cut--basically gnomes and druids with a side order of psionics.  But if they're cut in 2008, then I'll find a way to make do on my own until they officially show up, or I'll do without.  Some people seem to act like there will be 4E police coming to their tables to make sure that everyone follows the rules in the books exactly word-for-word.  That hasn't happened in my 3E/3.5E games, and somehow I doubt Wizards will suddenly come up with the funding to do it in 4E.

Basically what I'm saying is, the tone matters almost more than the message.  And repeated negativity everywhere just makes me wonder why someone is choosing to hang out on a messageboard that is about a subject they're really not interested in.  If we were to split the forums eventually to 3.xE and 4E forums, then we'd be looking for the 4E interested people to not go into the 3.xE forums and start flinging the negativity around about what's new in 4E and how it's sooooooo much better than 3.x.  

Civility remains the watchword.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jan 26, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> (Set, this isn't directed at you by any means, I just wanted to respond to this topic.)
> 
> I think the key is always to try to self-moderate your tone.  The people that tend to annoy me will put in a comment like, "Just another reason to not go with 4E."  That will spring the "hater" reflex in me, then I tend to discount everything else.  People that instead say things like, "Well, I'm not sure why they would do that, it doesn't make much sense right now," spring the "reasonable skeptic" reflex in me.  I don't mind reasonable skeptics, but hating gets annoying, especially when I'm looking for some discussion on what a change is and what it might be hinting at.
> 
> ...




I'm in agreement here. So called "edition wars" have been on the implied "prohibited discussion" list forever, yet what should be a site for speculation and positivity has become a soapbox for a vocal minority determined to try and get as many people to avoid the new edition as possible. What the motive is behind this is a mystery, but whatever.

Maybe a seperate forum for "Anti-4E" discussion should be created, so the rest of us don't have to put up with it all the time?


----------



## malladin (Jan 28, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> I'm in agreement here. So called "edition wars" have been on the implied "prohibited discussion" list forever, yet what should be a site for speculation and positivity has become a soapbox for a vocal minority determined to try and get as many people to avoid the new edition as possible. What the motive is behind this is a mystery, but whatever.
> 
> Maybe a seperate forum for "Anti-4E" discussion should be created, so the rest of us don't have to put up with it all the time?




Alternatively how about a seperate pro 4th ed board so people who want to discuss multiple views on 4th ed don't have to put up with being labelled haters and grognards! See it works both ways. So civility, not segregation, is probably a better way to go!


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 28, 2008)

Yep. Neither of those is going to happen. Learn to get along.


----------



## AZRogue (Jan 28, 2008)

Segregation would be a mistake, IMO. People get upset, especially when talking about things they care a lot about. It's natural that they want to agree because it validates them a little bit. It's just normal. What we have to remember is to not cross the line. My not agreeing with someone isn't reason enough to attack them.

Besides, if people want to be honest, no matter what happens with 4E we will all learn to deal with it. We'll take what we want and throw out the rest. Kind of like, you know, after every other edition. 

Just post with a little perspective and realize that none of the changes are reason enough for animosity.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 6, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Yep. Neither of those is going to happen. Learn to get along.




While that would be ideal, from what I've seen that's not going to happen. It hasn't happened yet, it's not happening now and certain segments are becoming increasingly intrenched in their opinions and polarized over 4e. The vibe here has become increasingly un-fun. So as much as I hate to say it, separating it into two boards may be the only answer. At least until a few months after the release.

Any time WotC reveals a new tidbit, you have a certain segment violently opposed it, confronted by those vehemently for it, and each side goes at one another trying their best to fly under the mod's radar (with mixed success).

Call me crazy, but I would have thought with a new edition coming out of the game we all love to play coming out, that this would (generally speaking) be a _good_ time to be on the boards... Not a time to get wound up in indignant rage over some of the most absurdly trivial things I've seen on this board.  

I mean if this is what it's come to here - make two separate boards. The attitudes here are not going to change and every new reveal WotC makes will inevitably fall into anti- and pro- arguments.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 6, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> While that would be ideal, from what I've seen that's not going to happen. It hasn't happened yet, it's not happening now and certain segments are becoming increasingly intrenched in their opinions and polarized over 4e. The vibe here has become increasingly un-fun. So as much as I hate to say it, separating it into two boards may be the only answer. At least until a few months after the release.




While I understand your POV, I have to wonder - how would you enforce this?  How would you keep the pro-4E and anti-4E folks from going into each others forums?  Right now, this is a 4E forum, and yet many people come in here who have no interest in 4E and no (stated) intention to play 4E.

I just don't see how it can happen.  We are at a point in the D&D universe where there's going to be a lot of strongly held feelings in both directions, and I think we're just going to have to muddle through as best we can.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 6, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> While I understand your POV, I have to wonder - how would you enforce this?  How would you keep the pro-4E and anti-4E folks from going into each others forums?  Right now, this is a 4E forum, and yet many people come in here who have no interest in 4E and no (stated) intention to play 4E.
> 
> I just don't see how it can happen.  We are at a point in the D&D universe where there's going to be a lot of strongly held feelings in both directions, and I think we're just going to have to muddle through as best we can.



Perhaps it’s enough to create a separate Criticisms & Critiques style board. I don’t how that would fly, and maybe you’re right and there is nothing that can be done. But let me throw the ball back into your court for a moment… ultimately, what do you want this board to accomplish? What do you hope people will get out of coming here during the lead-up to 4e, in a 4e forum? What do hope newcomers and older players who are returning to the game will get out of coming here?

There’s a lot of good discussion here, it’s still my favorite board. But I didn’t come here to fight an edition war (which is real easy to get caught up in here) or try to wade through one to find the interesting discussions.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but I would have thought with a new edition coming out of the game we all love to play coming out, that this would (generally speaking) be a _good_ time to be on the boards....



It's an *excellent* time to be on the boards.   Just about every day we get something big and shiny and new to hash over...does it get any better than that?! 

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 6, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> what do you want this board to accomplish?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I didn’t come here to fight an edition war (which is real easy to get caught up in here) or try to wade through one to find the interesting discussions.



Obviously I can only speak for myself - but I come here to see what others are thinking about the implications of 4e for D&D, for RPGs in general, etc, and to participate in the discussion about design and mechanics that surrounds that. A lot of that involves engaging with those who feel more affinity for earlier editions, or have objections to the design direction of 4e. Splitting the boards would eliminate the possiblity of that discussion.

I don't think that the problem is one of pro- or anti-, but rather one of civility. I am broadly a pro- person, but there are plenty of those who are anti- with whom I've had worthwhile discussions. I don't care if someone doesn't like 4e, as long as they are prepared to express their opinion in a considered way that acknowledges that others might have different preferred playstyles. And likewise for those who are pro-.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 6, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> While that would be ideal, from what I've seen that's not going to happen. It hasn't happened yet, it's not happening now and certain segments are becoming increasingly intrenched in their opinions and polarized over 4e. The vibe here has become increasingly un-fun.



Huh. Actually, I think things have improved dramatically in the last month and a half.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 6, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Perhaps it’s enough to create a separate Criticisms & Critiques style board. I don’t how that would fly, and maybe you’re right and there is nothing that can be done. But let me throw the ball back into your court for a moment… ultimately, what do you want this board to accomplish? What do you hope people will get out of coming here during the lead-up to 4e, in a 4e forum? What do hope newcomers and older players who are returning to the game will get out of coming here?
> 
> There’s a lot of good discussion here, it’s still my favorite board. But I didn’t come here to fight an edition war (which is real easy to get caught up in here) or try to wade through one to find the interesting discussions.




I kind of left my thought incomplete in my previous post - when I said we'll have to muddle through, I meant we'll have to muddle through until the rules actually come out.  My suspicion is that the bulk of the arguments here come from people guesstimating what the rules will be, or projecting their own feelings onto things.  As the actual rules come into sharper focus, and finally are released, I think that a lot of the acrimony will die out.   Once we're actually talking about facts and not opinions, things will qiet down significantly.


----------



## Roland55 (Feb 7, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Huh. Actually, I think things have improved dramatically in the last month and a half.




Oh, it has ... it has.   

Somehow the real 'punch' seems to be slowly seeping out of all the sniping.  It seems the Forumites can't hardly be bothered to loathe one another any more.

Where, oh where, has all the hating gone?


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 9, 2008)

Roland55 said:
			
		

> Where, oh where, has all the hating gone?



Oh but it's still around... lurking in the corner cases of the forums... praying to unholy cows... and evoking the forces of scientific chaos to slowly drive us mad!


----------



## PowerWordDumb (Feb 12, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It wouldn't hurt to recall the days of the original Eric Noah 3rd Edition News & Rumors Site, where the guideline was the "Grandma Rule." Pretend your grandma is over for dinner. Would you be this rude to other people at the table while your grandma was watching?




You want to be reeaaaaaally careful who you ask that, cause some of our grandmothers were the first to throw a punch.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Feb 13, 2008)

Pretend that Eric's grandmother (or Morrus' or mine--even my mother would work).


----------



## PowerWordDumb (Feb 13, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Pretend that Eric's grandmother (or Morrus' or mine--even my mother would work).




I can play games full of wizards, trolls, and demons, but I'm not sure my suspension of disbelief extends that far.  

Nonetheless, I do make the effort.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 14, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I think the term "passive aggressive" gets thrown around too much,





I'm glad someone finally said it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 14, 2008)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I'm glad someone finally said it.



Do you remember how in the 90s the reason anyone did anything bad was because they had low self-esteem? Now, no one has low self esteem but we're all passive aggressive. It's the pop psychology buzz phrase du jour and means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Kesh (Feb 16, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Do you remember how in the 90s the reason anyone did anything bad was because they had low self-esteem? Now, no one has low self esteem but we're all passive aggressive. It's the pop psychology buzz phrase du jour and means absolutely nothing.



 It actually has a very specific meaning. But, like most specific terms, most people use it incorrectly.


----------



## hong (Feb 16, 2008)

Passive-aggressiveness is so munchkin, it's almost videogamey.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Dear EN World-

Please stop quoting in full from people who are just trolling the forum.  I have placed these people on ignore.  When you quote them in full, you are undoing my work.  Please simply excerpt the relevant material.  I know that smacking down willfully obtuse ninnies is half the fun of the internet.  For you.  I love it too, really.  But I can't always do it within the Marquess of Queensbury rules this forum imposes.  So I block these people.  And then you UNblock them.  Please stop.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

For those of you who have Cadfan on ignore:



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Dear EN World-
> 
> Please stop quoting in full from people who are just trolling the forum.  I have placed these people on ignore.  When you quote them in full, you are undoing my work.  Please simply excerpt the relevant material.  I know that smacking down willfully obtuse ninnies is half the fun of the internet.  For you.  I love it too, really.  But I can't always do it within the Marquess of Queensbury rules this forum imposes.  So I block these people.  And then you UNblock them.  Please stop.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> For those of you who have Cadfan on ignore:



 Okay, that was funny. 

@Cadfan - your request is unreasonable and unrealistic.  Proven trolls are banned, so I'm assuming you mean people that you feel are trolls.  Since you can't very well tell us who you have on ignore, we are going to have to guess who to quote/how much to quote.  I wouldn't go to that trouble for my wife, so I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark at how far I'll go for you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Okay, that was funny.
> 
> @Cadfan - your request is unreasonable and unrealistic.  Proven trolls are banned, so I'm assuming you mean people that you feel are trolls.  Since you can't very well tell us who you have on ignore, we are going to have to guess who to quote/how much to quote.  I wouldn't go to that trouble for my wife, so I'll let you take a wild stab in the dark at how far I'll go for you.



My guess would be something around 60-80 cm, since this seems to be the distance between the left side of the keyboard and the mouse?


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

All I'm asking is that if you're responding to someone in order to engage in the sort of low-heat flame war so common on this forum, don't quote them in full.  It clutters up the forum.  Just look at the person to whom you're responding- are they being a nicey-nice jerk?  Are they the sort of person that others probably have placed on ignore, possibly for having the same argument you're having with them now, over and over again, in multiple threads across the entire forum, littered with obnoxious little digs like "IMHO, 4e is designed to appeal to 12 year olds?"

If so, consider not inflicting them on the rest of us.  Its an extension of the "don't feed the trolls" general rule of the internet.  Feed them if you must, just do it on your own.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> All I'm asking is that if you're responding to someone in order to engage in the sort of low-heat flame war so common on this forum, don't quote them in full.  It clutters up the forum.  Just look at the person to whom you're responding- are they being a nicey-nice jerk?  Are they the sort of person that others probably have placed on ignore, possibly for having the same argument you're having with them now, over and over again, in multiple threads across the entire forum, littered with obnoxious little digs like "IMHO, 4e is designed to appeal to 12 year olds?"
> 
> If so, consider not inflicting them on the rest of us.  Its an extension of the "don't feed the trolls" general rule of the internet.  Feed them if you must, just do it on your own.



 Now I understand.  Your request is no longer as ludicrous as your prior post...and yes, I was being an ass before.


----------



## Kesh (Feb 22, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Now I understand.  Your request is no longer as ludicrous as your prior post...and yes, I was being an ass before.



 Does that make you a proven troll?


----------

