# Rules question: personal attacks on game designers



## Sacrosanct (Dec 2, 2019)

Question for possible discussion.  Just tossing ideas out there.  There have been relatively frequent attacks on game designers who may or may not be active members of the forum.  I'm not talking about criticisms of games (which I think should never be quashed), but actual personal attacks on the designers themselves.  For example, Mearls and Crawford have frequently been called liars, lazy, incompetent, stupid, intentionally sabotaging the game because they want it to fail, etc.  I'm assuming Mearls and Crawford aren't members of this forum, because otherwise I'd expect moderation of said personal attacks just like any other poster, and they aren't, ever.

There is another forum I won't name, but one of the rules there was that game designers were afforded the same protections as posters.  One of the reasons given was because when you have a community that has frequent name calling and attacks on designers themselves, no game designer will want to be part of that community and put themselves in the line of fire with that kind of aggressive behavior.  And wouldn't we want the people who actually design the games be part of the community to answer questions?  It also just gives a bad impression of the community when members can just sling out personal attacks whenever without recourse.

I am not saying instituting a rule where public figure game designers are afforded same protection as active posters is the answer.  I just think we should have a discussion, and see if it is, or if there's a better solution.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Yeah. Those guys put alot of hard work producing something they love and really want millions of people to just have fun and enjoy themselves. We really shouldn’t personally attack them.  

every product ever made was someone’s baby.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 2, 2019)

I can see what you're getting at, but there are times when it would be tricky. I think ad hominem attacks and insults should be moderated. But we have to allow for criticism of their work and make sure that won't necessarily be modded down. For example, I think someone should be able to say "I think xx really doesn't understand what impact his words will have" or "I don't know what yy was thinking with this" without expecting to be moderated.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 2, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I can see what you're getting at, but there are times when it would be tricky. I think ad hominem attacks and insults should be moderated. But we have to allow for criticism of their work and make sure that won't necessarily be modded down. For example, I think someone should be able to say "I think xx really doesn't understand what impact his words will have" or "I don't know what yy was thinking with this" without expecting to be moderated.




I think it could be handled just like it's handled now with active posters.  Criticism of the content vs criticism of the person.  I'm not arguing they should get special treatment, only to get the same treatment as if they were active posters.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 2, 2019)

Anytime I see some post 
‘This designer is lazy!’ ‘No work ethic!’ Etc. I know that poster isn’t someone worth paying attention to. 

So yeah.


----------



## GMMichael (Dec 2, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> game designers were afforded the same protections as posters.



This is fair.  Sounds like it should go without saying.



Sacrosanct said:


> One of the reasons given was because when you have a community that has frequent name calling and attacks on designers themselves, no game designer will want to be part of that community and put themselves in the line of fire with that kind of aggressive behavior. . . It also just gives a bad impression of the community when members can just sling out personal attacks whenever without recourse.



But now you have Twitter's new problem: how do you fairly and generally define a type of speech?  What's an "attack" and how is it different from an "opinion?"  Cmad has the right idea: skip the post if you don't like the poster, but just in case, I think the forum has Ignore User capabilities as well.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 2, 2019)

DMMike said:


> This is fair.  Sounds like it should go without saying.
> 
> 
> But now you have Twitter's new problem: how do you fairly and generally define a type of speech?  What's an "attack" and how is it different from an "opinion?"  Cmad has the right idea: skip the post if you don't like the poster, but just in case, I think the forum has Ignore User capabilities as well.




I'm not just talking about me, or my interpretation, but as a forum culture as a whole.  If you host large groups of people, and one of them smears feces on the wall, you wouldn't tell people who complain just to ignore it.  You'd probably not want feces smearing going on, because by ignoring it, you're sending a message to others that's what kind of behavior you allow, and why would people want to join your events?

As far as defining speech, see my answer above.  We already have those rules here.  But for some reason, when someone personally attacks a designer, they are allowed to without recourse.  And if Mearls or Crawford also happen to be members here (I don't know, haven't seen them post), then we've also set a standard that it's OK to make personal attacks on fellow posters as long as they are designers.  I don't think that's a good policy (indirectly or not) to have, especially if you'd like to have designers also be part of the community.

Again, not asking for special treatment, only the same treatment every other poster gets.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm assuming Mearls and Crawford aren't members of this forum




Some time ago, we knew that Mearls was reading EN World, but did not post.  At this time, I don't know that they engage wit the site in any way... or not.  Lurking is easy.



> ... because otherwise I'd expect moderation of said personal attacks just like any other poster, and they aren't, ever.




With respect, this isn't true.  We don't come down on them like a ton of bricks all the time, but I recall just recently taking someone to task for calling designers lazy. 



> There is another forum I won't name, but one of the rules there was that game designers were afforded the same protections as posters.




We did that for quite some time, and for the same reasons.  But, designers didn't stick around a whole lot.

While we would like it for designers to come and answer questions and such... I think it turns out that activity isn't of much value to the designers. 

There's also a major issue - being active in such a forum can produce a major issue for a designer - if a designer is known to be active here, and someone mentions an idea, and something similar ends up in the designer's work, accusations of "stealing ideas" come fast and furious.  Whatever value contact with fans and detractors may be for them, it probably is not worth dealing with this.



> I am not saying instituting a rule where public figure game designers are afforded same protection as active posters is the answer.




If the question is, "How do we get designers to interact with us?" such moderation rules would be required, yes, but past experience says that would not be sufficient.

If I had to hazard a guess, a designer can use feedback, but for it to be valuable it needs to be rather more structured and focused than a messageboard discussion thread with hundreds or thousands of potential posters can or will provide.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 2, 2019)

I would like to add one caveat to this whole idea - people shouldn't be insulting a designer when discussing their work. But as the whole ZakS issue teaches us, we *have* to be able to freely discuss them as a topic when appropriate - such as when their problematic behavior is exposed.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

I personally find describing designers who did something in a way you didn't want them to as "lazy" or "stupid" to be pretty obnoxious; I think it's important to try to criticise the work, not personally insult the creator. Generally speaking, as always, if you see a problematic post, report it so we can look at it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Question for possible discussion. Just tossing ideas out there. There have been relatively frequent attacks on game designers who may or may not be active members of the forum. I'm not talking about criticisms of games (which I think should never be quashed), but actual personal attacks on the designers themselves. For example, Mearls and Crawford have frequently been called liars, lazy, incompetent, stupid, intentionally sabotaging the game because they want it to fail, etc. I'm assuming Mearls and Crawford aren't members of this forum, because otherwise I'd expect moderation of said personal attacks just like any other poster, and they aren't, ever.
> 
> There is another forum I won't name, but one of the rules there was that game designers were afforded the same protections as posters. One of the reasons given was because when you have a community that has frequent name calling and attacks on designers themselves, no game designer will want to be part of that community and put themselves in the line of fire with that kind of aggressive behavior. And wouldn't we want the people who actually design the games be part of the community to answer questions? It also just gives a bad impression of the community when members can just sling out personal attacks whenever without recourse.
> 
> I am not saying instituting a rule where public figure game designers are afforded same protection as active posters is the answer. I just think we should have a discussion, and see if it is, or if there's a better solution.



I'm not saying you're talking about the same forum, but I can tell you RPG.net has such a rule. In theory they might have the best of intentions; in practice it becomes impossible to criticize various games or discuss rules systems in a frank, blunt matter.

In short, the ceiling over there is awfully low. Honestly, unless you're sharing something that's only positive, the discussion atmosphere is outright stifling.

(And no, this is not code for right-wing conspiracy theories. I'm talking about role-playing games and role-playing games only)

I wholeheartedly hope enworld does not go that route. Apparently, there is such a thing as too heavy moderation.

Cheers


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm not saying you're talking about the same forum, but I can tell you RPG.net has such a rule. In theory they might have the best of intentions; in practice it becomes impossible to criticize various games or discuss rules systems in a frank, blunt matter.
> 
> In short, the ceiling over there is awfully low. Honestly, unless you're sharing something that's only positive, the discussion atmosphere is outright stifling.
> 
> ...




Considering you're one of those people who frequently have attacked designers directly and personally (not just criticism of the game) over the years, I can't say I'm surprised you'd be against such a rule.


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Considering you're one of those people who frequently have attacked designers directly and personally (not just criticism of the game) over the years, I can't say I'm surprised you'd be against such a rule.



_sniffs_, _sniffs_, "do I smell a personal attack on @CapnZapp"?  Hmmm..? @Sacrosanct?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> _sniffs_, _sniffs_, "do I smell a personal attack on @CapnZapp"?  Hmmm..? @Sacrosanct?




Huh?  It's not a personal attack.  It's a well known observational fact.  Over the past few years, Cap'n Zapp has frequently made direct attacks on the designers, calling them lazy, incompetent, liars, and other things.  This is hardly a secret, because he's done it with regularity.  I'm not insulting or attacking him.  I'm simply pointing out what he has said in the past.


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Huh?  It's not a personal attack.  It's a well known observational fact.  Over the past few years, Cap'n Zapp has frequently made direct attacks on the designers, calling them lazy, incompetent, liars, and other things.  This is hardly a secret, because he's done it with regularity.  I'm not insulting or attacking him.  I'm simply pointing out what he has said in the past.



You don't consider it a personal attack to say, in response to what another poster said, "you do "X", so I don't trust you on this"?

For example:

"Considering that you, Sacrosanct, have shown that you don't care for the Psion, and behave rudely to others, I don't feel like your input in this thread is valid, because you're biased."

Does that not feel like an attack?

Edit: Dang autocorrect making my grammar incorrect!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> You don't consider it a personal attack to say, in response to what another poster said, "you do "X", so I don't trust you on this"?
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...





For one, that's not remotely the same thing.  The topic of this thread is personal attacks.  So when someone who repeated makes personal attacks says that they wouldn't like a rule where they would be moderated for saying personal attacks, that seems unsurprising and is directly related to the topic.  Not "we're talking about topic X, but you did topic Y as well, so..." like you're trying to infer.

Now, if I called CapnZapp any of the names he called Mearls or Crawford, then yeah, that would be a personal attack.  But pointing out what a person had said is not a personal attack.

Despite your best efforts to start something, I'm not going to continue with you on this.


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> For one, that's not remotely the same thing.  The topic of this thread is personal attacks.  So when someone who repeated makes personal attacks says that they wouldn't like a rule where they would be moderated for saying personal attacks, that seems unsurprising and is directly related to the topic.  Not "we're talking about topic X, but you did topic Y as well, so..." like you're trying to infer.
> 
> Now, if I called CapnZapp any of the names he called Mearls or Crawford, then yeah, that would be a personal attack.  But pointing out what a person had said is not a personal attack.
> 
> Despite your best efforts to start something, I'm not going to continue with you on this.



I'm not trying to start anything, but I respectfully disagree with your conception of what constitutes a personal attack here.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

So, you now see why moderation is hard.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

The thing is, you need to be within range to make an attack on a game designer, and even then, they typically have pretty high AC's so unless you're crit-fishing you're not likely to land many hits.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> So, you now see why moderation is hard.




If I call you lazy.  Or incompetent.  Or a liar, I don't see how hard that would be to moderate, to be honest with you.  And I suspect it wouldn't be hard for you to moderate that either.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> _sniffs_, _sniffs_, "do I smell a personal attack on @CapnZapp"?  Hmmm..? @Sacrosanct?



My advice is to just not respond to that sort of taking it personal derailment

(I do observe that my response here was on-topic and that he seems to derail his own thread just fine)


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

@CapnZapp... 

That is the most responding non-response I have seen in a while.  Please don't get the idea that the passive-aggressive stuff isn't noticed.


----------



## LordEntrails (Dec 31, 2019)

I don't think game designers should be put into any group. Why don't we just have a rule already that no personal attacks on anyone, whether they are poster or not?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 31, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm not talking about criticisms of games (which I think should never be quashed), but actual personal attacks on the designers themselves.  For example, Mearls and Crawford have frequently been called liars, lazy, incompetent, stupid, intentionally sabotaging the game because they want it to fail, etc.



Should we assume that no game designer is a liar, lazy, incompetent, or stupid? Or are we just not allowed to call it out?

Not every game is gold, and it's useful to the community if we can pinpoint the reasons why a product is less-than-great. Sometimes, that reason will be because of designer incompetence. I'm not sure how anyone benefits from pretending otherwise.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 31, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Should we assume that no game designer is a liar, lazy, incompetent, or stupid? Or are we just not allowed to call it out?



Talk about the work, not the person. Similarly, we don't let game designers call you a liar, lazy, incompetent, or stupid, either.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Sometimes, that reason will be because of designer incompetence. I'm not sure how anyone benefits from pretending otherwise.




I am not sure how anyone benefits from indulging in _ad hominem_ arguments and the misconception that we can divine personal flaws of authors from their works.  

The Golden Rule applies here.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Should we assume that no game designer is a liar, lazy, incompetent, or stupid? Or are we just not allowed to call it out?
> 
> Not every game is gold, and it's useful to the community if we can pinpoint the reasons why a product is less-than-great. Sometimes, that reason will be because of designer incompetence. I'm not sure how anyone benefits from pretending otherwise.




That goes back to the statement you quoted in my reply. Criticizing the game Vs the person, and Morrus and Umbran reiterated.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 31, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Anytime I see some post
> ‘This designer is lazy!’ ‘No work ethic!’ Etc. I know that poster isn’t someone worth paying attention to.
> 
> So yeah.





Morrus said:


> I personally find describing designers who did something in a way you didn't want them to as "lazy" or "stupid" to be pretty obnoxious; I think it's important to try to criticise the work, not personally insult the creator.



When you call people names behind their backs, you are saying more about yourself than about anyone else. 

There was a pretty good video flying around the Internet a few years ago from Ze Frank.  It was called "An Invocation for Beginners" or something like that, and it had a line in it that I thought was pretty good.  So good that I memorized it, in fact.  "Let me remember that the impact of criticism is often not the intent of the critic, but when the intent is evil, that's what the block button is for."

@cmad1977 , @Morrus , and others in this thread are right--not every opinion is worth your consideration.  When I'm reading opinions on the Internet, I'll sometimes stop in mid-sentence and just scroll away when people get crass and off-topic like that.  Because people know when they are being crass and when they aren't, and yes, it _*IS*_ off-topic, unless the title of the thread is "Let's Talk About Someone We've Never Met."


----------

