# Edition wars ban extension?



## Scurvy_Platypus (Jul 8, 2008)

I've got to say, I've really enjoyed the ban on the edition wars. I feel like I can actually read threads in safety and enjoy poking around. Especially in the General section.

It's a bit of a forlorn hope, but I figured I'd formally ask anyways: Could the edition wars ban be extended?

I've got no objection to folks discussing how one system or another handles something, but I really have zero interest in threads like that "4E is the new Coke" thread. I mean, it doesn't serve any purpose other than to try and rile folks up. Some people like the new edition, some don't. Big deal.

I don't really know how ENWorld stacks up against places like the WotC or the Pathfinder forums. I don't frequent those places in the first place, because of the reputation they've got.

Right now ENWorld has a pretty good reputation (especially for being a d20 forum), and it'd be nice to keep it that way.

I for one don't happen to think mods are an evil thing. I've seen the places without 'em, and by and large they're not pretty.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 8, 2008)

I wouldn't be surprised if we extend it; edition wars solve nothing and mostly succeed in greatly pissing me off. 

We'll chat about it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 8, 2008)

I think it's a great idea to extend it. While there has still been the odd thread pop up, and some edition-warsy comments creep into some otherwise-okay threads, I think on the whole most of the ENWorld populace has been respectful of the ban.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 8, 2008)

It'd be nice if there were some clear-cut exemptions, like allowing a guy to ask what the differences are between the editions.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 8, 2008)

Nifft said:


> It'd be nice if there were some clear-cut exemptions, like allowing a guy to ask what the differences are between the editions.



As long as that doesn't devolve into "3E sucks because..." and "2E rules because..." that wouldn't be an edition war anyway. Factual comparisons are never a problem. "3E is an RPG, but 4E is not", on the other hand, is a problem.

I guess I'm saying I trust in mod fiat enough to not worry about needing clear-cut exemptions, because your example could turn into an edition war, even if it wasn't intended that way.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 8, 2008)

An extension of forever sounds fantastic to me.  I really hate edition wars.  Zero tolerance seems like a good starting place.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 8, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> As long as that doesn't devolve into "3E sucks because..." and "2E rules because..." that wouldn't be an edition war anyway. Factual comparisons are never a problem. "3E is an RPG, but 4E is not", on the other hand, is a problem.
> 
> I guess I'm saying I trust in mod fiat enough to not worry about needing clear-cut exemptions, because your example could turn into an edition war, even if it wasn't intended that way.



 I'm against stopping useful discussions because one could turn bad. Instead, ban the people who turn it bad directly.

I'm personally very interested in dissecting the play implications of the design differences between 3e and 4e. I think most of us here are grown up enough to handle such conversations, and it'd be sad to allow the fraction who can't handle mature discussion dictate what the rest of us are allowed to discuss.

If one month isn't enough to let the "New Coke" nerd-rage cool down, make it two, but please do plan to eventually allow comparison.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 8, 2008)

nifft said:


> i'm against stopping useful discussions because one could turn bad. Instead, ban the people who turn it bad directly.




qft.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2008)

At the moment, the ban is slightly problematic - I see a growing trend for people to call "edition wars!" on any and all threads that criticize some aspect of an edition.  I don't find that at all acceptable.  

On the other hand, many people are still being goobers, and lashing out by crapping on threads that don't deserve it.

If we continue the ban, we will restrict the free flow of ideas.  If we remove the ban, we are going to have to be a lot more stringent with discipline - and we _will_ have folks complain that we disciplined them when they didn't deserve it.

Until the populace of EN World gets its collective head together, there is no good solution.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Jul 8, 2008)

Nifft said:


> I'm personally very interested in dissecting the play implications of the design differences between 3e and 4e.




Yeah, I've certainly got no problems with someone doing that. I mean, that's part of the whole joy of posting to the forums in the first place, right?



Umbran said:


> At the moment, the ban is slightly problematic - I see a growing trend for people to call "edition wars!" on any and all threads that criticize some aspect of an edition.  I don't find that at all acceptable.
> 
> On the other hand, many people are still being goobers, and lashing out by crapping on threads that don't deserve it.
> 
> ...




I understand. I do think that Nifft has a point in providing some examples of what "is" and "is not" considered to be edition war fodder, with the additional stipulation that the examples are merely examples and not intended to be a full and complete accounting of all of the possibilities.

While I don't happen to fear any kind of stricter mod oversight, I'm also cognizant of the stifling of "free speech" in the form of "Here's a bunch of draconian measures we're taking for your protection. The only people that need to be afraid are those that plan on breaking the rules, and if you've got concerns about it that means you're likely a problem person."

I also find people calling "edition war!1!!1" just because someone happens to prefer a different approach to stuff to be ridiculous. And contrasting the approach taken by one system or another doesn't strike me as being much different.

There really isn't a good solution, and I do think that riding hard on the "edition war ban" would be a bad thing. I don't know if it's possible (practical) to do a "half ban", so that folks like Nifft could feel free to discuss system stuff/contrasts without having "edition war!1!!11!" screamed at them, but it'd be nice if such a thing were possible ...

*sigh*

At the end of the day, decisions have to be made and no matter what happens there's going to be some folks disappointed by it. I just figured I'd toss in my vote for the enforced sanity we've had recently. 

I don't think a "permanent" ban would be a good thing (or even possible) for the boards. My hopes for the extension were along the lines of another month, or doing a "half ban" like I mentioned in this post. *shrug* Then again, perhaps the community is just going to have to suck it up and deal with some harsher modding in the short term until folks understand that the lifting of the ban doesn't mean they're free to run riot.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Oh, and by the by... I'm really enjoying the new ENWorld forums. Much smoother, and all kinds of little nice thingies.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 8, 2008)

I understand the practical reason for the ban, but in the long term, I think these things will have to work themselves out. Stating one edition is better than another is against the "no wars" policy, but it's a reasonable position to take, as long as you are tactful about it. Maybe it's too soon, but I'm starting to wonder when it will have been "long enough."


----------



## Mark (Jul 8, 2008)

Umbran said:


> At the moment, the ban is slightly problematic - I see a growing trend for people to call "edition wars!" on any and all threads that criticize some aspect of an edition.  I don't find that at all acceptable.
> 
> On the other hand, many people are still being goobers, and lashing out by crapping on threads that don't deserve it.
> 
> ...





Use the tools at your disposal.  Mods can split edition wars conversation out of threads that it inappropriately infects and then combine the split-off thread into a huge ongoing depository thread for edition wars chatter (and temp ban anyone who repeatedly causes that to need to happen in threads where it is inappropriate).  Once people realize that trying to shut down conversation by jumping in with edition wars talk or accusations, I think that ploy will become less attractive.

Stifling genuine discussion on edition comparisons is probably not a good thing for EN World in the long run.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 8, 2008)

And if this ban continues, we risk losing the next great equivalent of *a silent wail* to provide us *all* with years of entertainment. 

And that would be a comic tragedy.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 8, 2008)

I'd be quite happy if the next silent wail happens in someone else's living room.  I'll watch from across the street in Morrus' living room with binoculars.

Edition wars are basically ideological differences.  I have yet to see one that is any different from the political/religious/spanking fights that are thankfully not allowed here.  If you want to edition war, go to CM.
-blarg


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 9, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if we extend it; edition wars solve nothing and mostly succeed in greatly pissing me off.




Pretty much my feelings about it



Umbran said:


> At the moment, the ban is slightly problematic - I see a growing trend for people to call "edition wars!" on any and all threads that criticize some aspect of an edition.  I don't find that at all acceptable.




Only a slight problem though - some people report too many things as 'edition warz!' just like some people report too many things as 'politiks!" It is fairly easy to filter them out.

I don't think most people have difficulty in distinguishing between rational comparison and commentary on rule differences between editions on the one hand and slamming other editions (or by implication those that like other editions) on the other hand.

The problem is that some people do have difficulty - and I've seen it bring out the worst in people, including some of whom I would not have expected it.

Regards,


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2008)

Mark said:


> Use the tools at your disposal.




We are using the tools at out disposal, within the limits of the time we have to pay attention to the boards.  We only employ hings like topic bans when things would otherwise get out of hand.



> Stifling genuine discussion on edition comparisons is probably not a good thing for EN World in the long run.




Yes, I agree.  But there's an honest question of whether that genuine discussion can happen, given how the people here have been behaving.  Too much threadcrapping and aggressive dogmatic argument stifles discussion as well or better than a topic ban.

I put it to you that the populace of EN World has more collective power over this than the mods do - if folks would just _stop engaging_ the problem would vanish.  But they don't, so it doesn't.


----------



## Mark (Jul 9, 2008)

Umbran said:


> I put it to you that the populace of EN World has more collective power over this than the mods do





You guys get the bad apples (perhaps with a bit more temp banning, or perma-ban with repeat offenders, rather than thread locking and topic banning), and the rest of us will have no trouble behaving just fine, IMO.  I'd suggest starting off by going to each thread that has been locked, making a short list of the repeat offenders, and sending them all a three day vacation as a preemptive strike as the ban is lifted.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 10, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> I'd be quite happy if the next silent wail happens in someone else's living room.  I'll watch from across the street in Morrus' living room with binoculars.
> 
> Edition wars are basically ideological differences.  I have yet to see one that is any different from the political/religious/spanking fights that are thankfully not allowed here.  If you want to edition war, go to CM.
> -blarg



Bring an edition war to CM and the locals will laugh at you relentlessly and mercilessly.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 10, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> Edition wars are basically ideological differences.
> -blarg




See, this is what I find so silly about the so-called "edition wars". People have idealogical differences over things like politics, religion, global climate change, abortion and teaching creationism or evolution in public schools. People fight real wars over ideological differences, and real people die. 

We, on the other hand, are arguing like a bunch of shallow, spoiled little brats over a game. 

It's just a game.


----------



## The Lost Muse (Jul 10, 2008)

Perhaps a test-thread? If there's one specific place for it, which will be locked if people get out of line?


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 10, 2008)

Michael Morris said:


> Bring an edition war to CM and the locals will laugh at you relentlessly and mercilessly.




I fail to see the problem with that.




jaerdaph said:


> People have idealogical differences over things like politics, religion, global climate change, abortion and teaching creationism or evolution in public schools.




Yep, anything they feel very passionate about, typically with an entrenched stance.  I don't know about you, but all the RPG forums I've been to for the last year have been displaying that in spades.  When you put two different ideologies together, conflict ensues.  I'm very happy not to see those conflicts in ANY context.

I completely agree with you - it's just stupid to have fights about a game.
-blarg


----------



## hong (Jul 11, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> I completely agree with you - it's just stupid to have fights about a game.




No it's not.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 11, 2008)

hong said:


> No it's not.




Damn it, you're right too!  *head asplode*
-blarg


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jul 11, 2008)

People have personal preferences. "Edition Wars" serve little purpose except a little personal catharsis.

I've played every edition of D&D since 'Basic' (except AD&D 2nd). I have my favourites, but that's just me. I vote with my time and my wallet. Easy as that.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 11, 2008)

Yup, I'm extending it another month. Viva la reduction in asshattery!


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 11, 2008)

Huzzah!


----------



## Mark (Jul 11, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> Yup, I'm extending it another month. Viva la reduction in asshattery!





This bans all cross-edition discussion or just warns that anyone turning such a discussion into rude bahvior will find themself banned?

*edit* Ah, nevermind -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=230454 



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Plenty of room for reasoned discussion of the differences between any of the versions.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Jul 12, 2008)

Groovy, thanks. Not like you did it just for me, but I still appreciate it.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Jul 13, 2008)

So, does this mean in another month, this ban will be extended to stifle free flowing discussion on various editions again?  C'mon.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 13, 2008)

Kheti sa-Menik said:


> So, does this mean in another month, this ban will be extended to stifle free flowing discussion on various editions again?  C'mon.



Maybe. Once tempers cool and we see that people can start posting without being jackasses about it, I'll consider changing my mind. It's not perfect as is, but I for one don't miss the poisonous vitriol in the least.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Jul 13, 2008)

*shrug* It's your playground.  I was just hoping that TPTB would move more toward open discussion than arbitrary cracking of the censorship whip.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 13, 2008)

Oh, it's hardly arbitrary. The main result of threads that argue editions seems to be making people so truly pissed off that they sink to insults. I'd be shocked if anyone has ever actually read an edition wars thread and said, "By golly, they're right! My preferred game is nowhere near as good as this other game! Good thing they had a chip on their shoulder and wanted to proselytize!"

Heh. Or perhaps I exaggerate, because there have been some interesting and useful conversations. But those threads have traditionally been hotbeds of reported posts, and justifiably so. I understand why you prefer them, and I appreciate that you're offering your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with you on this subject.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 13, 2008)

@Kheti: It's not censorship.  It's improving the signal to noise ratio.
-blarg


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Jul 13, 2008)

I'm not sure it's quite appropriate in this thread to ask, but since it's related I'm going to...



Kheti sa-Menik said:


> So, does this mean in another month, this ban will be extended to stifle free flowing discussion on various editions again?  C'mon.




I'm curious to know how it is that this ban is "stifling free flowing discussion". Here's what the sticky says:



Plane Sailing said:


> So for the next month, to allow people to get used to trying things out, no edition wars threads please. No threads where you justify what you hate about 3e/4e and why 4e/3e is so much better. Especially no threads about "I think that the people (who don't think like me) think (this straw man) and I want to talk to them about it". No advocacy threads where you try to convince "the other side".
> 
> That still leaves plenty of room to talk about particular features or rules that you personally like or dislike, and why you like or dislike them. Plenty of room for asking questions about stuff. Plenty of room for reasoned discussion of the differences between any of the versions.




It seems to me that any "discussion" that someone wants to engage in is actually possible.

I've seen others saying that the edition wars ban is "stifling discussion" and I'm honestly puzzled by this. The ban is pretty explicit. You're supposed to avoid preaching. Actual discussion of mechanics and how they compare, where something might (or does) break down... all that kind of stuff is allowed.

The 3E houserules forum for example has had a perfectly civil discussion about how something like Skill Challenges can be implemented into 3.x.

Now, I happen to notice that you tag yourself as "Professional 4E Hater".

I'm wondering what kind of discussion it is you're looking to have that would be classed as part of the edition war? With a title like you've got, it's hard for me to see how any kind of discussion could be had; instead it'd just be people talking past each other about how one person is right, the other person is wrong, and some folks inevitably reacting badly after someone makes a comment that's insulting (intentional or otherwise).

What is it I'm missing?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 14, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:


> I'm curious to know how it is that this ban is "stifling free flowing discussion". Here's what the sticky says:




Thanks for making my point for me.

Nothing in the ban stifles free flowing discussion. It only stifles jerk-like behaviour.

Cheers


----------



## Umbran (Jul 14, 2008)

Kheti sa-Menik said:


> So, does this mean in another month, this ban will be extended to stifle free flowing discussion on various editions again?




The only reason we extend the ban is that the jerks are stifling the conversation before we ever get to the threads, so it isn't like you're losing anything.

We understand the difference between discussion and warring.  If the former comes up, we leave it alone.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm somewhat disappointed this has been extended, in that a large part of the reason I'm here at all is to learn about aspects and editons of the game I've never really bothered with, *compare and discuss them*, and purloin any good ideas that might rear their heads.

Ah, well...the upside is a reduced reading load for another month... : )

Lanefan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 15, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> I'm somewhat disappointed this has been extended, in that a large part of the reason I'm here at all is to learn about aspects and editons of the game I've never really bothered with, *compare and discuss them*, and purloin any good ideas that might rear their heads.
> 
> Ah, well...the upside is a reduced reading load for another month... : )
> 
> Lanefan




So what part of this (emphasis mine) doesn't work for you?



			
				The Edition Wars Ban Notice said:
			
		

> That still leaves plenty of room to talk about particular features or rules that you personally like or dislike, and why you like or dislike them. Plenty of room for asking questions about stuff. *Plenty of room for reasoned discussion of the differences between any of the versions.*


----------



## Graf (Jul 16, 2008)

Nifft said:


> It'd be nice if there were some clear-cut exemptions, like allowing a guy to ask what the differences are between the editions.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Some excessively large proportion of the population either
1. can't really draw a clear difference between a distinction/criticism and well, complaining
2. don't really want to -- they want to have sides, with a winner and a loser, and they want to be the winner

I haven't gone to the forums (except PbP) for weeks because I was sick of every thread turning into a warz thread.
Maybe I'll go have a look now that I know there's a ban.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 16, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> So what part of this (emphasis mine) doesn't work for you?



The part where I'm reading a ban on edition wars threads as a ban on edition comparison threads, I suppose; in guessing you-as-mods are seeing them as one and the same.  But OK, duly noted.

Lanefan


----------



## drothgery (Jul 16, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> @Kheti: It's not censorship.  It's improving the signal to noise ratio.
> -blarg




Of course it's not censorship. This is a privately owned and operated web site. Morrus (and anyone he delegates authority to) can ban whatever kinds of discussion he wants to here, and it wouldn't be censorship, because Morrus is not the government.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 16, 2008)

Graf said:


> Some excessively large proportion of the population either
> 1. can't really draw a clear difference between a distinction/criticism and well, complaining
> 2. don't really want to -- they want to have sides, with a winner and a loser, and they want to be the winner




Actually, with the ban in place there are still a number of threads discussing differences between editions and such. _Most_ of the people therein seem to be doing just fine insofar as distinguishing between productive discussion and deliberately offensive trolling. I think somebody else (over on Circvs) nailed it. . . 

Said person basically pointed out that the edition wars ban doesn't stifle _discussion_ about different editions, so much as it stifles stuff like the one line "4 is New Coke" trolling attempts and similar flame baiting (behavior that has never been allowed here anyhow, but is always especially prolific whenever a new edition of D&D is churned out). 

Starting threads with single-line posts that essentially read "4e is crap!" (or "3e is crap!" for that matter) isn't productive by any stretch of the imagination, and that is the kind of thing that the edition wars ban is supposed to stop, if I understand the intent correctly. So far, it seems to be working with the few exceptions of folks who don't care if they get banned.


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 16, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Of course it's not censorship. This is a privately owned and operated web site. Morrus (and anyone he delegates authority to) can ban whatever kinds of discussion he wants to here, and it wouldn't be censorship, because Morrus is not the government.




Yup, there's that too.  I was hoping to nudge the conversation away from the political aspect of all that.
-blarg


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 16, 2008)

Well, technically, since Morrus has opened these fora to the public, you could make the argument that it is possible to exercise censorship. ENWorld is more like a "place of business" than it is a "private club." 

But I hope that's a moot point. I haven't seen anything like censorship around here and I don't expect to. 

I do find the ban stifling on principle... whether or not it forbids anything that wasn't already forbidden, it does create an aura of wariness. I personally think the ban has served its purpose, but it's not my site and that's not my judgment to make. It's a signal to noise question. The way the ban was implemented is not a matter of censorship so much as the kinds of discussion that are considered topical.

The reason we have the ban is because a thread on the topic "4e is New Coke" or whatever is a lot more inflammatory than someone posting, "Champions: The New Millenium was Crystal Pepsi." While I'm not a big fan of "your game sucks/no it rocks" arguments, I think the ban is a problem for discussions in which someone wants to be evaluative about a game. In theory, "4e is the New Coke" is an invitation for people to comment on the metaphor. As a practical matter, the mods shouldn't have to deal with the inevitible dogpiles. 

Obviously, I can't speak for the mods, but that's basically how I see this situation.


----------

