# Forked thread: Meta portion of the "Class Acts" bard thread



## Asmor (Jun 22, 2009)

Note to viewers: this thread was the off-topic discussion culled from this thread. 

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

Jeez, man... Cool down.

You don't get any special brownie points for being the first to post "It's up" for everything WotC releases.

Admin here. I'm honestly not quite sure why you're being summarily rude, but this is a good example of a post that sure doesn't bring anything but insults to a thread. Please avoid this sort of thing next time. Thanks. ~ PCat


----------



## Thanee (Jun 22, 2009)

Reported for Spam/Advertisement (links to a commercial website with costs). 



Ok, not really.

But it would be useful to actually flag those threads with DDI-only or something, as I suppose the vast majority of the users reading this board are actually _not_ DDI-subscribers, and many probably jump into a thread like this only to find a huge "give us your money" sign and no information at all on the other end of the link.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2009)

Thanee, they're flagged with "Dragon." To me that denotes ddi. Would something more specific be useful?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 22, 2009)

It might make sense to have a Dragon/Dungeon (subscription) only and a Dragon/Dungeon (free) differentiation. Similar to the News page.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 22, 2009)

Aren't there free previews anymore?

Admittedly, this might be a bit hypothetical, but there simply is no way to tell from the title or the post or the link, that it is not useful for anyone who has no DDI subscription. There is a hint ("dragon magazine"), but that's it.

I can see it as being a bit annoying to follow a link like that, hoping for some information and only finding that you have to pay for that information.

Something more telling ("DDI subscribers") would probably prevent that (whether that is necessary is another question; I just think it is worthy of being commented on).

And as I said half in jest, the first post is actually very close to advertisement spam (it's basically on topic advertisement spam ).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 22, 2009)

Jeez, I thought a bunch of threads about actual gaming content would be a welcome respite from this weekend's edition war threads.  In any case, I was going to go back and add my thoughts to the threads, but I was told I had to go to bed, so I didn't get a chance!


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> Jeez, I thought a bunch of threads about actual gaming content would be a welcome respite from this weekend's edition war threads.



Oh, believe me, they are. They are.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 22, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Thanee, they're flagged with "Dragon." To me that denotes ddi. Would something more specific be useful?






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It might make sense to have a Dragon/Dungeon (subscription) only and a Dragon/Dungeon (free) differentiation. Similar to the News page.




Looking at the Editorial Calendar, the Dragon/Dungeon appellation indicates DDI-only content.  My suggestion would be to avoid using the term here to denote free articles.  Since the free articles cover a number of different subjects, and have different names, something generic should probably be used.  Honestly though, I'm stuck on what to call it.  Nothing good comes to mind.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 22, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Aren't there free previews anymore?



Of upcoming products? Yes.
Of Dragon or Dungeon articles? I don't think so, except maybe a short teaser.[/QUOTE]


But one thing to note - we have this "problem" with other sources, too. 
- A rulebook is not available to everyone.
- Other magazines (Kobold Quarterly for example)

I suppose something might be nice to indicate "subscription required for contents of article that is discussed". 



> but I was told I had to go to bed



Either you are still very young or still very married or in similar relationship? [/off-topic]

---

On the actual article - I notice that most of the path still seem to be better fit for a Bard than someone multiclassed into Bard...


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 22, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Either you are still very young or still very married or in similar relationship? [/off-topic]
> 
> ---




I'm 33


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 22, 2009)

LightPhoenix said:


> Looking at the Editorial Calendar, the Dragon/Dungeon appellation indicates DDI-only content.  My suggestion would be to avoid using the term here to denote free articles.  Since the free articles cover a number of different subjects, and have different names, something generic should probably be used.  Honestly though, I'm stuck on what to call it.  Nothing good comes to mind.



Why not just adopt the terminology of the editorial calendar?  By default, Dragon and Dungeon imply a subscription is necessary to view, but we can add a "free" tag to links from the editorial calendar that don't require a subscription.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 22, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> Jeez, I thought a bunch of threads about actual gaming content...




You see, for many members here it is not _actual_ gaming content, but just a page that says "put your money in here, please". 

Bye
Thanee

P.S. And please don't take all this too serious.


----------



## Gort (Jun 22, 2009)

I don't have a DDI subscription but I still like to read these threads so I can glean some of the content for free.

I'll probably subscribe sometime, and these threads make that more likely each time they come out.


----------



## guivre (Jun 22, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Jeez, man... Cool down.
> 
> You don't get any special brownie points for being the first to post "It's up" for everything WotC releases.
> 
> Admin here. I'm honestly not quite sure why you're being summarily rude, but this is a good example of a post that sure doesn't bring anything but insults to a thread. Please avoid this sort of thing next time. Thanks. ~ PCat




He may have made it rudely but he has a point. 

The OP doesn't bring anything to the thread either if you're being honest. If it's that important to post "It's up" for every DDI article that comes out a very small shell script hooked to the RSS feed. 

There's a large difference between commenting on an article and just posting to say it's up. I'm surprised that thread starts like that aren't banned with as heavy handed as the moderation is around here.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 22, 2009)

Gort said:


> I don't have a DDI subscription but I still like to read these threads so I can glean some of the content for free.



Ditto 

I'm also looking forward to the Dragon Magazine Annual 2009. I hope they manage to include most of the really essential stuff, like the race writeups.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2009)

guivre said:


> He may have made it rudely but he has a point.
> 
> The OP doesn't bring anything to the thread either if you're being honest. If it's that important to post "It's up" for every DDI article that comes out a very small shell script hooked to the RSS feed.
> 
> There's a large difference between commenting on an article and just posting to say it's up. I'm surprised that thread starts like that aren't banned with as heavy handed as the moderation is around here.



I'd rather have a post on ENWorld about it.  It's a good placeholder for comments, if nothing else.

Also, I check ENWorld more than I check my RSS feeds for WotC.  This is helpful information, and certainly more interesting than the Edition Wars of 1812.

-O


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 22, 2009)

guivre said:


> He may have made it rudely but he has a point.
> 
> The OP doesn't bring anything to the thread either if you're being honest. If it's that important to post "It's up" for every DDI article that comes out a very small shell script hooked to the RSS feed.
> 
> There's a large difference between commenting on an article and just posting to say it's up. I'm surprised that thread starts like that aren't banned with as heavy handed as the moderation is around here.




Well, a few folks that week in and week out tend to almost be in a race to start a thread for each and every single article on the DDI with nothing more than a post of "It's up!" and a link to WotC's paysite, well it borders on the obnoxious.

I'd be in favor of a single thread for each issue of the e-zine as was done for the print magazines or a subforum for DDI non-free articles.


----------



## avin (Jun 22, 2009)

guivre said:


> There's a large difference between commenting on an article and just posting to say it's up. I'm surprised that thread starts like that aren't banned with as heavy handed as the moderation is around here.




As a DDI subscriber I check Wotc early in morning, so these kind of posts per se are kinda useless.

That said, I like to see people's comments and reactions about the articles even before I read them, so I disagree about banning the "It's up" posts.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 22, 2009)

I'm grateful for the posts because (a) I know I can come here and find a handy link that goes straight to the article as soon as it's available, without having to navigate around WotC's site, and (b) as someone said above, it is a handy placehold for discussion of a particular article.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 22, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Well, a few folks that week in and week out tend to almost be in a race to start a thread for each and every single article on the DDI with nothing more than a post of "It's up!" and a link to WotC's paysite, well it borders on the obnoxious.
> 
> I'd be in favor of a single thread for each issue of the e-zine as was done for the print magazines or a subforum for DDI non-free articles.




But unlike the print magazines, these articles are published individually. Moreover the individual threads all seem to spark some conversation, enough to keep them on the top page for a couple of days (or more if they are rules heavy). Making them a single thread would make the thread unreadable, and the interest they generate seems to warrant individual threads.

I cannot say I love the first post mentality, especially since often it does not even include a comment beyond the link. But it is epidemic across the internet and happens for more than Dragon articles (heck it seems to be a race for OotS posts).

As for the link WotC DDI calendar or article, it is the same with starting a thread about any product that you have to pay for. Enworld is a place to talk about D&D so I think it would be weird not to have posts about new D&D material.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 22, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Well, a few folks that week in and week out tend to almost be in a race to start a thread for each and every single article on the DDI with nothing more than a post of "It's up!" and a link to WotC's paysite, well it borders on the obnoxious.
> 
> I'd be in favor of a single thread for each issue of the e-zine as was done for the print magazines or a subforum for DDI non-free articles.




As a counter-point, I'd say I vastly prefer having the ability to discuss each article and its topic independantly, rather than cramming them into a single thread. I can't imagine how you find the posting of the thread obnoxious - if it isn't a topic of interest to you, there is no need to read the thread!

But since many people clearly _do_ want to discuss these topics, I don't think its fair to state they should go away because you prefer otherwise.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 23, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> I'd be in favor of a single thread for each issue of the e-zine as was done for the print magazines or a subforum for DDI non-free articles.



Since you aren't at all interested in the game or in the subscription, why is it any more obnoxious than any other thread you're not interested in checking out based on the title - and why do you imagine your personal preferences have any effect on the matter?


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 23, 2009)

Shemeska - no need to comment on how others post. If you have a question, please contact the moderators.

mhacdebhandia - no need to be rude to others. Please feel free to report a post that you think needs moderating.

guivre - welcome to a three-day ban for questioning moderation in thread, rather than privately. And to answer your implied question, it's never been moderated because no one's ever reported a post for that before. Hard to believe, but we can't be everywhere.

The moral of the story? If you have a problem, please report a post or contact the mods.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 23, 2009)

I kind of like the announcements, personally, because (as someone said) they act as the default location for that topic's discussion. Handy.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 23, 2009)

Yikes. A guy creates a thread to discuss a new article, and people jump all over him for it. What gives? It's better to have a thread to discuss the article than to try to do it all in a single thread, especially considering the volume of D&DI subscribers who post here.

I don't understand the hostility...


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 23, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I kind of like the announcements, personally, because (as someone said) they act as the default location for that topic's discussion. Handy.






I do.  However, I do prefer when whoever posts actually comments on the article.  It shows they bothered to do the work, rather than rush for the link 

On the other hand, a designated "post the article" person isn't a bad idea.  I know I have been caught in commenting on a cool article, only to find that 3 other people posted with the exact same time stamp.  Having an "official thread starter" for the new articles will cut down some of the disjointed discussions that happen when a couple of threads get combined that cover the same article.


----------



## Asmor (Jun 23, 2009)

I just want to apologize if I came off as rude. It was not my intent.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 23, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I kind of like the announcements, personally, because (as someone said) they act as the default location for that topic's discussion. Handy.






Glyfair said:


> I do.  However, I do prefer when whoever posts actually comments on the article.  It shows they bothered to do the work, rather than rush for the link




That pretty much covers it for me. I want a forum entry discussing each article and not have multiple articles discussed in one thread. I preferred if even the first poster makes a quick summary or comment on the contents. 



> On the other hand, a designated "post the article" person isn't a bad idea.  I know I have been caught in commenting on a cool article, only to find that 3 other people posted with the exact same time stamp.  Having an "official thread starter" for the new articles will cut down some of the disjointed discussions that happen when a couple of threads get combined that cover the same article.




That sounds like a _fine_ house rule. 

I am not sure if we can "burden" someone with the task and expect him to always do it. 

What I'd like was a "standardized" format for the thread title, so it's easier to find and search, and it also helps people avoiding double posting the threat.

Maybe something like: 
Dragon [insert number] - [insert article name]. 

I am not sure what to do about free articles. In Theory, they are not Dragon or Dungeon articles, so WotC - [insert article name] might suffice.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 23, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> I don't understand the hostility...




What hostility exactly?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Morrus (Jun 23, 2009)

guivre said:


> He may have made it rudely but he has a point.
> 
> The OP doesn't bring anything to the thread either if you're being honest. If it's that important to post "It's up" for every DDI article that comes out a very small shell script hooked to the RSS feed.
> 
> There's a large difference between commenting on an article and just posting to say it's up. I'm surprised that thread starts like that aren't banned with as heavy handed as the moderation is around here.




Well, posting something some others don't find interesting is not a problem.  You're allowed to post something that "doesn't bring anything to the thread".  It's posting something _rude_ that's the problem.  "It's up" is not rude to anyone, regardless of how interesting or useful some folks might find it.


----------



## jensun (Jun 23, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Well, a few folks that week in and week out tend to almost be in a race to start a thread for each and every single article on the DDI with nothing more than a post of "It's up!" and a link to WotC's paysite, well it borders on the obnoxious.



It's a handful of posts amongst hundreds, none of which you have to click on.  How can that possibly be "obnoxious"?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2009)

As an internet phenomenon, "FIRST!" posts are very common... and kinda annoying, honestly.  

If you are only interested in being first, then posting merely that the content is up makes sense, but then it's just a "FIRST!".  There's nothing actually wrong with doing this.  It hurts nobody.  But as a practical matter it reminds many of fairly juvenile, one-upsmanship posting patterns they see elsewhere.  

It should not be worth announcing if the content is not worth discussing.  If you are interested in discussing the content, there is _no reason_ why you can't take the time to post, "It is up, and I thought it was cool because..."

I, for one, would take it as a courtesy if people put at least a little commentary in such posts.


----------



## Mark (Jun 23, 2009)

Umbran said:


> As an internet phenomenon, "FIRST!" posts are very common... and kinda annoying, honestly.





Allow me to be the first to agree with that sentiment.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 23, 2009)

Allow me to be the second.

I agree with the thought that it's nice to have a single thread to discuss the article.  However, I also agree with the sentiment that the posts should have some substance to them, and shouldn't just be "first" or "up".  If this means there may be a couple of threads on the topic... well, that's why mods can merge threads.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 24, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I, for one, would take it as a courtesy if people put at least a little commentary in such posts.




I agree whole-heartedly with this.

I don't find the posts annoying, but I would appreciate it if people were to add just a little commentary to them when they start them.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 24, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I kind of like the announcements, personally, because (as someone said) they act as the default location for that topic's discussion. Handy.




Exactly, I much prefer to have a specific thread for discussion of each article. Furthermore, I spend very little time browsing WotC site, so for me this threads are useful reminders of when new articles are available. I think that by now, it's very clear that the initial post in those this threads links to pay per view content and they are very easy to ignore... there are countless threads here that hold no interest to me and I just don't open them.

Edit: that said, I agree with those who think that some initial discussion would make those posts much more useful.


----------



## aurance (Jun 24, 2009)

The thread seems fine to me. It generated some relevant discussion about the article. As well, the original poster contributes thoughts himself a few posts down. Anyway, I prefer individual article discussion. I'll just skip the ones that don't interest me.


----------

