# Mods shutting down threads for threadcrapping



## Gradine

This is something that's been bothering me for a bit, and I know that it's probably a deliberate choice but I still want to get it off my chest.

It's really crappy when threads get shut down because of trolls crapping on the thread.

It happens, routinely, every time there is an attempt at a serious conversation around issues of oppression and misrepresentation in RPGs. And the end result always feels like this:
Trolls: "This is nothing, this conversation shouldn't be happening!" x30
Mods: "Stop trying to get this conversation shut down! We're shutting this conversation down!"

And on the one hand? I get it, I totally get it. The mod team is only three people (two of whom are, to my knowledge, volunteers), and you want to keep this forum civil, and nothing ruins civility on this or any space on the internet like a conversation about racist/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc. But also like... it's handing the anti-inclusivity trolls exactly what they want? And completely chills any attempt at a serious discussion about how to help our community and the biggest and loudest voices within it to do better by _all _of the members within it. 

Speaking for myself, I'd like to talk about how we, as a consumer community, can create actual change with regards to, say, WotC's absolutely horrific track record of casual (if unintentional) racism towards black people. But I feel like I can't, at least not here, where I feel like I'm most likely to find the most like-minded and well-intentioned folks to work towards that changed. I feel silenced.




And not by the trolls.

/2c


----------



## beancounter

Gradine said:


> *Speaking for myself, I'd like to talk about how we, as a consumer community, can create actual change with regards to, say, WotC's absolutely horrific track record of casual (if unintentional) racism towards black people.* But I feel like I can't, at least not here, where I feel like I'm most likely to find the most like-minded and well-intentioned folks to work towards that changed. I feel silenced.



The easiest way to influence a company is to vote with your dollars.

Screaming "racist" at anyone who even slightly disagrees with the majority, or accusing people who disagree with majority of being trolls is not a productive way to promote change.


----------



## Irlo

beancounter said:


> The easiest way to influence a company is to vote with your dollars.
> 
> Screaming "racist" at anyone who even slightly disagrees with the majority, or accusing people who disagree with majority of being trolls is not a productive way to promote change.



Since no one here does that, we can move forward with productive conversations.


----------



## J.Quondam

beancounter said:


> The easiest way to influence a company is to vote with your dollars.



This is objectively untrue in this era of social media. It's also irrelevant to the points that Gradine is making about threadcrapping. Indeed, it might even be considered threadcrapping in and of itself.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I hear you.

(I might return for a more detailed response, but for now... I hear you.)


----------



## beancounter

J.Quondam said:


> This is objectively untrue in this era of social media. It's also irrelevant to the points that Gradine is making about threadcrapping. Indeed, it might even be considered threadcrapping in and of itself.




The OP quote specifically asks "how can we as a community change WoTC's horrific track record"

So, since WoTC is a company that wants your dollars, saying "vote with your dollars" is relevant.

And you are engaging in the behavior that I mentioned in my post - You are accusing me of threadcrapping (trolling) because you disagree with me....


----------



## the Jester

Irlo said:


> Since no one here does that, we can move forward with productive conversations.



Did you really just threadcrap in a thread about threadcrapping??


----------



## the Jester

beancounter said:


> The OP quote specifically asks "how can we as a community change WoTC's horrific track record"
> 
> So, since WoTC is a company that wants your dollars, saying vote with your dollars is relevant.
> 
> And you are engaging in the behavior that I mentioned in my post - You are accusing me of threadcrapping (trolling) because you disagree with me....



That's what it looks like to me, too- like you're basically saying, "Eh, this isn't worth talking about, vote with your dollar, no discussion necessary."  

Meanwhile, I think a lot of us agree that this is a topic worth discussing. Very much so.


----------



## beancounter

the Jester said:


> That's what it looks like to me, too- like you're basically saying, "Eh, this isn't worth talking about, vote with your dollar, no discussion necessary."
> 
> Meanwhile, I think a lot of us agree that this is a topic worth discussing. Very much so.




Again, "vote with your dollars" is a solution. It may not be one that you like, or think is effective, but it is answering the OPs question directly.

And I am discussing it. Maybe not in verbose paragraphs, I am AM discussing it.


----------



## aco175

I have been working on knowing people here are not my friends.  I may like things some/most people say or feel like I know some posters more than others and are 'friendly' with them, but there is no joking like people hare are my in-person friends.  There are 1000s of people here and no way can everyone agree with everyone.  

I have been more careful about not engaging in topics I know are on fire or will get me nowhere.  It's sad that there cannot be more lengthily discussions without them breaking down, but I think that is the way it is.


----------



## Irlo

the Jester said:


> Did you really just threadcrap in a thread about threadcrapping??



Well, no. What make you think I did?

EDIT: Oh, I see. To clarify, I think this thread is productive conversation. 

I was responding to this post:



> Screaming "racist" at anyone who even slightly disagrees with the majority, or accusing people who disagree with majority of being trolls is not a productive way to promote change.




No one here is doing that. No one is making those unproductive claims to promote change. So we can have a productive conversation without worrying about those unproductive claims.


----------



## Umbran

beancounter said:


> The easiest way to influence a company is to vote with your dollars.
> 
> Screaming "racist" at anyone who even slightly disagrees with the majority, or accusing people who disagree with majority of being trolls is not a productive way to promote change.




That knife cuts both ways.

If one sees a thread about what some people consider racism, coming in to just deny the problem exists is not a productive way to engage in the topic either.  And, to be perfectly honest, you'd need to make a pretty amazing argument to support the idea that folks don't generally know this will turn out badly.

What do you call a person who comes in, and engages in behavior _they know_ will be disruptive but not constructive?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Umbran said:


> What do you call a person who comes in, and engages in behavior _they know_ will be disruptive but not constructive?




A relative.

It's why I call Thanksgiving the most dreaded time of the year.


----------



## Gradine

Umbran said:


> That knife cuts both ways.
> 
> If one sees a thread about what some people consider racism, coming in to just deny the problem exists is not a productive way to engage in the topic either.  And, to be perfectly honest, you'd need to make a pretty amazing argument to support the idea that folks don't generally know this will turn out badly.
> 
> What do you call a person who comes in, and engages in behavior _they know_ will be disruptive but not constructive?



This what gets me, and why I started this thread, because I know you and the other mods are entirely sympathetic to this point. My question then becomes why shuttering threads has become the answer to deliberately disruptive behavior?


----------



## AnotherGuy

Gradine said:


> Trolls: "This is nothing, this conversation shouldn't be happening!" x30



x30? Really?
There were like maybe 3-4 people in that thread that didn't agree on the main issue with the rest.
The hyperbole that is utilised is not helpful in that thread or this.


Gradine said:


> Speaking for myself, I'd like to talk about how we, as a consumer community, can create actual change with regards to, say, WotC's absolutely horrific track record of casual (if unintentional) racism towards black people. But I feel like I can't, at least not here, where I feel like I'm most likely to find the most like-minded and well-intentioned folks to work towards that changed. I feel silenced.



I believe all who visited that thread understood everyone's side of the argument. No one was left out in the cold.
I mean sometimes these threads (and I'm including the NuSTR and the 2 that bullied everyone - forget their names) can go on for a while as the same posters post their shock and horror again and again in different words. I mean how many posts does one need to describe ones feelings before one doesn't feel silenced?

*EDIT:* Given how you feel have you actually even written a letter to WotC about this issue? Perhaps make a +thread on how to make that species better for the player base, using some of the existing law but modifying it so that its not offensive.


----------



## Umbran

Gradine said:


> Speaking for myself, I'd like to talk about how we, as a consumer community, can create actual change with regards to, say, WotC's absolutely horrific track record of casual (if unintentional) racism towards black people. But I feel like I can't, at least not here, where I feel like I'm most likely to find the most like-minded and well-intentioned folks to work towards that changed. I feel silenced.




I am sorry about how these things turn out.  It isn't how I'd prefer it, myself.  We are limited, however, by practical matters of the medium.  

I must note, though, that posting _here_ isn't really a great way to create change in WotC.  If you want to do that with any hope of success, you must ultimately communicate _with WotC_.  There is no official WotC presence on these boards, so writing here means they don't officially see it.


----------



## Umbran

Gradine said:


> My question then becomes why shuttering threads has become the answer to deliberately disruptive behavior?




It isn't "the answer".  It is one tool we sometimes have to resort to using, that we hold off from using as long as we feel we can.


----------



## Umbran

AnotherGuy said:


> x30? Really?
> There were like maybe 3-4 people in that thread that didn't agree on the main issue with the rest.
> The hyperbole that is utilised is not helpful in that thread or this.




So, in terms of _number of posts_ x30 is more accurate.  A small number of people can generate a great volume of drek that, if we want to at least try to be fair, we have to wade through and consider individually.


----------



## Deset Gled

As a general thought, I think that people using (+) threads more often would be helpful.

I've noticed a trend lately where (+) threads seem to get less posts than other threads.  I think some people are afraid that if they are too argumentative in a (+) thread, they'll get in trouble.  IMNSHO, the only way to change that ideology is for (+) threads to become more normalized.


----------



## Gradine

Umbran said:


> I am sorry about how these things turn out.  It isn't how I'd prefer it, myself.  We are limited, however, by practical matters of the medium.
> 
> I must note, though, that posting _here_ isn't really a great way to create change in WotC.  If you want to do that with any hope of success, you must ultimately communicate _with WotC_.  There is no official WotC presence on these boards, so writing here means they don't officially see it.



Such direct communications to WotC matter little when sent individually, but when collaboratively joined together by a larger community, _can create _change. 

When such collaborations are derailed and shut down, that can't actually happen.


----------



## Umbran

Deset Gled said:


> I think some people are afraid that if they are too argumentative in a (+) thread, they'll get in trouble.




But... they will.  That's the point.

If you start a (+) thread about making a less racist Hadozee, and someone comes in arguing that the Hadozee aren't racist... they are supposed to get in trouble.


----------



## beancounter

Umbran said:


> That knife cuts both ways.
> 
> If one sees a thread about what some people consider racism, coming in to just deny the problem exists is not a productive way to engage in the topic either.  And, to be perfectly honest, you'd need to make a pretty amazing argument to support the idea that folks don't generally know this will turn out badly.
> 
> What do you call a person who comes in, and engages in behavior _they know_ will be disruptive but not constructive?



Where did I say or imply that racism doesn't exist or isn't a problem?

I genuinely had no ideas that offering a real solution would be considered thread crapping. I figured some people would disagree, or wouldn't think it was effective, but accusing me (in a passive aggressive ) way of being a troll is a bit reactionary.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Deset Gled said:


> As a general thought, I think that people using (+) threads more often would be helpful.
> 
> I've noticed a trend lately where (+) threads seem to get less posts than other threads.  I think some people are afraid that if they are too argumentative in a (+) thread, they'll get in trouble.  IMNSHO, the only way to change that ideology is for (+) threads to become more normalized.



+threads are great for pooling minds creatively for mechanics or fluff.
I suppose they could be used for topics such as these, but I don't know. I wouldn't want to make too many things a +thread. I enjoyed the sparring in the Arneson thread as I learnt things I didn't know about the history of D&D from both sides.


----------



## Umbran

Gradine said:


> When such collaborations are derailed and shut down, that can't actually happen.




With all due respect, the thread in question wasn't a collaboration organizing response to the issue. It was about the content of the issue. 

We haven't seen anyone post, saying,

_"Okay, folks, it is time for everyone to make a twitter account, a facebook account, an instagram account, and a tiktok account.  Here are the relevant WotC handles and e-mail addresses to send to.  Thursday morning, between 9 and 12 AM PDT, we will be messaging WotC about this issue via all these channels.  Here's a draft of the message you can send.    We intend to this once a week until such time as WotC at least speaks to the issue. Please tell your friends to join with us..."_


----------



## payn

Deset Gled said:


> As a general thought, I think that people using (+) threads more often would be helpful.
> 
> I've noticed a trend lately where (+) threads seem to get less posts than other threads.  I think some people are afraid that if they are too argumentative in a (+) thread, they'll get in trouble.  IMNSHO, the only way to change that ideology is for (+) threads to become more normalized.



I think if you have a deliberate purpose and are approaching a particularly incendiary topic, + threads can be helpful. Though they tend to limit conversation in ways that I don't think would benefit the community overall for them to become regular and or popular.


----------



## Irlo

beancounter said:


> Where did I say or imply that racism doesn't exist or isn't a problem?



You didn't. Others in the recent Hazodee thread were very dismissive of the concerns shared there. It's those posters that Umbran is referring to.


----------



## Umbran

beancounter said:


> Where did I say or imply that racism doesn't exist or isn't a problem?




Where did I say I was speaking about you, specifically?  I was intentionally non-specific.  I was addressing the general dynamic of threads, not you, in particular.


----------



## Gradine

Umbran said:


> With all due respect, the thread in question wasn't a collaboration organizing response to the issue. It was about the content of the issue.
> 
> We haven't seen anyone post, saying,
> 
> _"Okay, folks, it is time for everyone to make a twitter account, a facebook account, an instagram account, and a tiktok account.  Here are the relevant WotC handles and e-mail addresses to send to.  Thursday morning, between 9 and 12 AM PDT, we will be messaging WotC about this issue via all these channels.  Here's a draft of the message you can send.    We intend to this once a week until such time as WotC at least speaks to the issue. Please tell your friends to join with us..."_



A fair point, and one that clears up my concerns. Thank you


----------



## payn

I understand the frustration. These topics never get to blossom beyond breaking news and opinions phase. Might have to let the topic open up organically, and later start a new convo on specifics later.


----------



## Morrus

Gradine said:


> This what gets me, and why I started this thread, because I know you and the other mods are entirely sympathetic to this point. My question then becomes why shuttering threads has become the answer to deliberately disruptive behavior?



I think the answer to that one is mainly a practical/logistics one -- the alternative is babysitting the thread, which is incredibly intensive and time-consuming (and upsetting). I close a thread earlier because it was generating a deluge of thread reports, and I simply wasn't available to monitor it. It was a choice between closing it or just ignoring it and letting it do what it does, and I feel I chose the lesser evil.

Maybe the answer is more moderators. But moderators do burn out pretty quickly.


----------



## Alzrius

My understanding is that (+) threads are, by their very nature, threads where you're not allowed to say "I don't agree with the premise that this thread is predicated on (and here's why)," which therefore means that it _is_ acceptable to come in and say that for threads which aren't marked with a (+) indicator.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> Maybe the answer is more moderators. But moderators do burn out pretty quickly.




So, we have considered, and had, more moderators before.  This falls prey to a very common issue of staffing - the relationship between staffing, and volume of work.

Most of the time, the boards don't need many moderators.  What we have typically suffices.  Indeed, a while back I left off for an entire year, and the boards kept working.  I don't even think many realized I wasn't here.  

So, we only need more moderator capacity at unpredictable moments when the need spikes dramatically.  Permanently staffing for that moment of high need is akin to the problem of perpetual vigilance.

If we bring on more moderators, the vast majority of the time there will be _nothing for them to do_.  Some members of the moderation staff will understandably lose interest and wander away, and then won't be around for that unpredictable moment.  This has happened at least twice before, if I recall correctly, so I don't think adding moderators is a great solution.


----------



## Malmuria

beancounter said:


> The easiest way to influence a company is to vote with your dollars.



1. How is wotc supposed to know _why_ you are not buying their game unless people tell them 

2. The fact wotc had made any changes to their races (floating asi etc) is not because of actual slumping sales but because of bad PR. That’s people noticing and complaining


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> My understanding is that (+) threads are, by their very nature, threads where you're not allowed to say "I don't agree with the premise that this thread is predicated on (and here's why)," which therefore means that it _is_ acceptable to come in and say that for threads which aren't marked with a (+) indicator.




Nothing is acceptable if the author is a dismissive jerk about it, Alzirus.


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> Nothing is acceptable if the author is a dismissive jerk about it, Alzirus.



That's true, Umbarn, but presupposing that someone is being knowingly disruptive without adding anything constructive simply because they're challenging the premise of a thread does not, in and of itself, meet the "dismissive jerk" threshold.


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> That's true, Umbarn, but presupposing that someone is being knowingly disruptive without adding anything constructive simply because they're challenging the premise of a thread does not, in and of itself, meet the "dismissive jerk" threshold.




See above where I said that, to be fair, we have to review each report individually.  

The "dismissive jerk" is not in the content, but in how the content is delivered.  It is entirely possible for folks to come into such a thread, and raise an objection in a reasoned, thoughtful, respectful way.  The problem lies with the ones who resort to dropping their objection in like steamy hot mess.

And even then, we generally leave a message of warning before we take meaningful action against the poster.

We give folks ample opportunity to reverse course, dude.  There is only so much leeway you can expect.


----------



## beancounter

Malmuria said:


> 1. How is wotc supposed to know _why_ you are not buying their game unless people tell them
> 
> 2. The fact wotc had made any changes to their races (floating asi etc) is not because of actual slumping sales but because of bad PR. That’s people noticing and complaining



Well, in the case of spelljammer, for example, if sales are below expectations, they'll look to understand why. That's why surveys and focus groups are used.

It's unlikely that WoTC monitors this forum to gauge the pulse of the community at large. 

Writing a letter directly to the company would probably be more effective.


----------



## Retreater

I think a good course - once a problematic issue is identified - is to think of the positive we can do (rather than gripe about it for twenty pages). So we can start another thread about introducing a new homebrew species to Spelljammer that could replace problematic ones. We can highlight the works of diverse creators and encourage others to purchase/play/support them. 
We can't punish the major producers when they cross a line - but we can lift up the smaller content creators and try to improve each other's games.


----------



## Malmuria

beancounter said:


> Well, in the case of spelljammer, for example, if sales are below expectations, they'll look to understand why. That's why surveys and focus groups are used.
> 
> It's unlikely that WoTC monitors this forum to gauge the pulse of the community at large.
> 
> Writing a letter directly to the company would probably be more effective.



They were trending on twitter because of this.  I have to think that probably causes an exec to sit up an pay attention


----------



## Umbran

Retreater said:


> I think a good course - once a problematic issue is identified - is to think of the positive we can do (rather than gripe about it for twenty pages). So we can start another thread about introducing a new homebrew species to Spelljammer that could replace problematic ones. We can highlight the works of diverse creators and encourage others to purchase/play/support them.
> We can't punish the major producers when they cross a line - but we can lift up the smaller content creators and try to improve each other's games.




Yep.  That would be a reasonable action.


----------



## Fifth Element

Malmuria said:


> 1. How is wotc supposed to know _why_ you are not buying their game unless people tell them



This is always the best response to the "vote with your dollars" idea. If all you ever do it vote with your dollars, then any company that does see a drop in sales has to guess as to *why*. And they might very well get it wrong.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> But... they will.  That's the point.
> 
> If you start a (+) thread about making a less racist Hadozee, and someone comes in arguing that the Hadozee aren't racist... they are supposed to get in trouble.



Well, apparently *that's* not going to happen because another thread on the topic just got locked. It wasn't a (+) thread, but the reason cited was that nobody should be opening up a new thread on a closed topic.


----------



## Morrus

billd91 said:


> Well, apparently *that's* not going to happen because another thread on the topic just got locked. It wasn't a (+) thread, but the reason cited was that nobody should be opening up a new thread on a closed topic.



What’s the point of closing a thread if somebody can just start it again? Might as well just leave it open then. For 20+ years we’ve asked people not to immediately reopen closed threads for what — I hope — are obvious reasons.


----------



## Retreater

Morrus said:


> What’s the point of closing a thread if somebody can just start it again? Might as well just leave it open then. For 20+ years we’ve asked people not to immediately reopen closed threads for what — I hope — are obvious reasons.



I valued seeing the Polygon article, which I probably wouldn't have found on my own. It did add some professional journalism to the story, which had been only some collected Tweets previously - and likely what Wizards will see as they craft their response.
I do understand not wanting it brought up again immediately after closing a similar thread, but it is a big story. I think having a link to the article (and other future statements) - that can't be commented on - could be a good way of sharing important RPG news that won't start a thread war.


----------



## CleverNickName

Umbran said:


> The "dismissive jerk" is not in the content, but in how the content is delivered.  It is entirely possible for folks to come into such a thread, and raise an objection in a reasoned, thoughtful, respectful way.  The problem lies with the ones who resort to dropping their objection in like steamy hot mess.



This bears repeating.  Well said, Umbran.


----------



## Catolias

Umbran said:


> I must note, though, that posting _here_ isn't really a great way to create change in WotC.  If you want to do that with any hope of success, you must ultimately communicate _with WotC_.  There is no official WotC presence on these boards, so writing here means they don't officially see it.



Being able to post a thread to educate others or be educated ourselves means things might change. It might be slow, but I think people here can drive change as much as if WotC drive the change themselves. Let’s face it, even when change happens from the top down it still can go wrong…


----------



## aco175

Catolias said:


> Being able to post a thread to educate others or be educated ourselves means things might change. It might be slow, but I think people here can drive change as much as if WotC drive the change themselves. Let’s face it, even when change happens from the top down it still can go wrong…



The problem I can see here is that two people can have opposite views on what they think educating is and something fine at my table may be terrible at yours.  Multiply that by 1000 and some/most may be able to talk and use out inside voices to argue but a few will swoop in on these threads and drop bombs for whatever reasons.

This seems to be more so on topics closer to race and politics as opposed to classes and spell mechanics.


----------



## Umbran

Catolias said:


> Being able to post a thread to educate others or be educated ourselves means things might change.




Talking about these things is fine, but I doubt this is an effective venue to educate people in a directed way.  EN World isn't a classroom.  



Catolias said:


> It might be slow, but I think people here can drive change as much as if WotC drive the change themselves.




Perhaps my point was not clear - you cannot drive change in WotC products if your thoughts _do not reach WotC_.  WotC does not engage on these boards.  Write about their products here as much as you want, as long as you want, that is not communicating with WotC.

It is like writing what you want somewhere on a wall in Renton, and _hoping_ that a WotC employee who is placed highly enough just happens to walk by, see it, and decide to take action.  It isn't reliable communication. 

If you want WotC to know your feelings on a matter, you have to tell them directly, not tell EN World.


----------



## Lanefan

Re '+' threads - my only concern with those is that someone starting one might just want an echo chamber; and IMO the biggest barrier to real discourse and discussion (be it civil or otherwise) in all venues is people either constructing or hiding in echo chambers where opposing or contrary points of view are simply not allowed.  A '+' thread for discussing and refining a proposed new idea for the game before opening it up to criticism?  Sure.  A '+' thread for discussing anything more meaningful?  Bad idea IMO.


Umbran said:


> Perhaps my point was not clear - you cannot drive change in WotC products if your thoughts _do not reach WotC_.  WotC does not engage on these boards.



They don't actively engage any more, which is too bad; but does anyone know whether WotC quietly monitors these boards (officially or not) as a source of unfiltered and informal feedback?  I think I'd at least try to high-level monitor sites like this were I in charge, if I could spare the person-power, as it would be a useful feet-on-the-ground information source untainted by the marketing department's survey designing.


----------



## Morrus

Lanefan said:


> Re '+' threads - my only concern with those is that someone starting one might just want an echo chamber;



So let them. Why do you care? It's no skin off your nose what somebody else wants to talk about. You can start a different thread if you want.


----------



## Lanefan

One could argue that encouraging echo chambers ultimately ends up as skin off everyone's nose, but whatever - your site, your rules.


----------



## payn

Lanefan said:


> One could argue that encouraging echo chambers ultimately ends up as skin off everyone's nose, but whatever - your site, your rules.



Actually, sometimes you can keep the echo chamber out by using a + thread. Those are the best uses IMO.


----------



## darjr

Question, the hadozee entry in DnDBeyond has gotten an update. Is it appropriate to suggest an update to the thread for news updates like this?


----------



## CleverNickName

I'm not a moderator, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the best thing we can do to help the moderators do their thing, and thus keep important threads from being closed by trolls, is for everyone to stop feeding the trolls.  When a troll shows up and attempts to crap out a thread, don't engage--just report the post, and wait for the moderator to intervene before you respond (if you still feel the need to respond).  Trolls depend on this rapid-fire, back-and-forth arguing to generate pages and pages of rhetoric and overwhelm the moderators.  They literally hide behind the noise they make.

I think that by not engaging directly with the trolls, we would eliminate the pages and pages of cross-talk that keeps clogging up the discussion, which would give the moderators more elbow room to do their job.  And that, in turn, would help keep more of these important threads open for discussion.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

darjr said:


> Question, the hadozee entry in DnDBeyond has gotten an update. Is it appropriate to suggest an update to the thread for news updates like this?



It is pretty big news that WOTC changed the lore and artwork on D&D Beyond due to the criticisms. Maybe one of the mods can make a selective edit on the original post or give it its own thread as a news item.


----------



## Malmuria

And here I was told that internet criticism didn't matter and we just needed to vote with our dollars


----------



## billd91

So… we have to keep discussion to the mechanical errata even though the news is kinda big right now?!? Are you naughty word KIDDING ME?


----------



## Riley

CleverNickName said:


> I think the best thing we can do to help the moderators do their thing, and thus keep important threads from being closed by trolls, is for everyone to stop feeding the trolls.  When a troll shows up and attempts to crap out a thread, don't engage--just report the post, and wait for the moderator to intervene before you respond (if you still feel the need to respond).



I highly recommend the “ignore” function.

It’s amazing how often the apparent trolls are people I’ve already ignored. (I selected the option that allows me to see replies to those I’ve ignored, but I’d have to click a link to see the original post. (I found the ignore option that makes the Ignored disappear completely to be too confusing. It made it look like otherwise-reasonable-seeming posters were getting outraged at nothing, or maybe even at each other.)


----------



## SakanaSensei

Riley said:


> I highly recommend the “ignore” function.
> 
> It’s amazing how often the apparent trolls are people I’ve already ignored. (I selected the option that allows me to see replies to those I’ve ignored, but I’d have to click a link to see the original post. (I found the ignore option that makes the Ignored disappear completely to be too confusing. It made it look like otherwise-reasonable-seeming posters were getting outraged at nothing, or maybe even at each other.)



I think it took me a good 5-6 names to sort out almost all bad-faith arguments and chronic downers.


----------



## CleverNickName

Malmuria said:


> And here I was told that internet criticism didn't matter and we just needed to vote with our dollars


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Lanefan said:


> Re '+' threads - my only concern with those is that someone starting one might just want an echo chamber; and IMO the biggest barrier to real discourse and discussion (be it civil or otherwise) in all venues is people either constructing or hiding in echo chambers where opposing or contrary points of view are simply not allowed.  A '+' thread for discussing and refining a proposed new idea for the game before opening it up to criticism?  Sure.  A '+' thread for discussing anything more meaningful?  Bad idea IMO.



IME, echo chambers are exceptionally difficult to actually create and maintain. You are going to experience challenge to your ideas. 

+threads are extremely useful when discussing something controversial in a context wherein that controversy just is not relevant and would only serve to derail the thread, such as threads I’ve made about building warlord or swordmage classes.

If I make a thread about disliking the 5e magic system, and wanting feedback on my proposed replacement, it’s bad practice to come and try to convince me that i shouldn’t try to do that. 


Lanefan said:


> They don't actively engage any more, which is too bad; but does anyone know whether WotC quietly monitors these boards (officially or not) as a source of unfiltered and informal feedback?  I think I'd at least try to high-level monitor sites like this were I in charge, if I could spare the person-power, as it would be a useful feet-on-the-ground information source untainted by the marketing department's survey designing.



And instead tainted by self-selection, and the skew of these forums.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> They don't actively engage any more, which is too bad; but does anyone know whether WotC quietly monitors these boards (officially or not) as a source of unfiltered and informal feedback?




Obviously, I don't know one way or the other.  However, I do know that depending on them doing so is playing it passive-aggressively.  Like a kid in Junior High School talking to a friend _really loudly_ hoping that a third party would hear it.

This is not how mature folks communicate.  If you want them to know something tell _THEM_.  Don't tell us and hope the word gets around.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> So… we have to keep discussion to the mechanical errata even though the news is kinda big right now?!? Are you naughty word KIDDING ME?




No.  Not kidding.  

And also recommending you watch your language.  The language filter is not there so you can fill posts with the emotional content of expletives without consequence.


----------



## Riley

SakanaSensei said:


> I think it took me a good 5-6 names to sort out almost all bad-faith arguments and chronic downers.



Reviewing my ignore list today, I have a fairly long list (~100!), accumulated over many, many years. Many of the accounts on there are now deleted/banned, or haven’t posted in years. (Yay?)

When I’m reading a thread on a fairly innocuous topic, I’ll often click through to read the posts of those I’ve ignored. Sometimes I’ll unignore them, because they seem to often be worth reading.

But that ignore list has definitely made my time on ENWorld happier, and kept me out of needless conflicts with people who usually end up getting kicked out of the offending threads by mods anyway.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Re '+' threads - my only concern with those is that someone starting one might just want an echo chamber; and IMO the biggest barrier to real discourse and discussion (be it civil or otherwise) in all venues is people either constructing or hiding in echo chambers where opposing or contrary points of view are simply not allowed.




With respect, moving into echo chambers is a symptom, a result of other behaviors, not the root problem/barrier.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Question for the moderators:

There's a pretty major news update to the topic of the thread that got shut down (not just the errata, but an official statement from WotC on D&D Beyond). How would you want that news to be handled?


----------



## beancounter

Malmuria said:


> And here I was told that internet criticism didn't matter and we just needed to vote with our dollars



Yes, heaven forbid anyone ever have an idea or an opinion that differs from the majority. 

Passive agressive mockery is pathetic.


----------



## Umbran

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Question for the moderators:
> 
> There's a pretty major news update to the topic of the thread that got shut down (not just the errata, but an official statement from WotC on D&D Beyond). How would you want that news to be handled?




Managing the news is normally Morrus' thing, but he may be occupied.  Barring word from him...

While this is valid news, it isn't what I'd expect to be a fast-developing story, as most of WotC is probably off for the long weekend now.  So, the situation is going to be roughly the same early next week - we can reassess at that time how it should be handled.


----------



## Malmuria

beancounter said:


> Yes, heaven forbid anyone ever have an idea or an opinion that differs from the majority.
> 
> Passive agressive mockery is pathetic.



do your opinions change when presented with new evidence?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fifth Element said:


> This is always the best response to the "vote with your dollars" idea. If all you ever do it vote with your dollars, then any company that does see a drop in sales has to guess as to *why*. And they might very well get it wrong.



This has been my practice for I don’t know how long.  Decades at least.  Learned from my Mom, The Queen of All Shoppers.

I _do _vote with my dollars.  And in extreme cases (good* or bad), I contact the company directly.  Sometimes, the results are more or less what I desired.  Sometimes here’s no result I can discern.  Sometimes, the “other side” wins. 

Sometimes- comically- I get coupons or gift cards to entice me to shop with them again.  Whether I use them or not depends on the particular complaint in question.


* One of my customer comments was helpful in getting an assistant manager a raise…18 months before his location was closed by the parent company.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

beancounter said:


> Yes, heaven forbid anyone ever have an idea or an opinion that differs from the majority.
> 
> Passive agressive mockery is pathetic.



*Mod Note:*

Could we keep the level of snark _this particular _thread to a minimum?


----------



## beancounter

Malmuria said:


> do your opinions change when presented with new evidence?



Both are valid methods. Effectiveness clearly varies.. Voting with you dollars can work. Remember "new" Coke, the Chevy Nova, or Betamax?

I think it's niave to believe that posts from a single forum influence WoTC.


----------



## Mercurius

I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to accuse anyone questioning whether something is bigotry or not, as being a bigot.

Having different views on what is or is not racism does not mean one is racist, or "not getting it" and needing to be educated. Sometimes people just disagree with what constitutes racism or is problematic. I'd like to think that this is a community that would embrace, ah, a _diversity _of viewpoints on such matters, and not fall into OneTrueWayism in terms of how this or that must be interpreted, and if you don't interpret it the Right Way, then you're one of _them. _

Or more to the point, if you don't automatically think the depiction of the hadozee in the Spelljammer product is problematic or racist, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant or, worse, racist. It may simply mean that you interpret the data differently. Again: clear and obvious bigotry and questioning whether something is bigotry are not the same thing.

What I see happen again and again and _again _on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not _excluding _something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.

Maybe ENW isn't the place to talk about such things, but if they're going to be talked about, I'd hope it could be a place where people feel safe to share their views, regardless of whether they agree with the majority view or not. I understand and support not allowing actual, outright bigotry, but differences of interpretation are an important part of such discourse.

_Edited for clarity._


----------



## Irlo

Mercurius said:


> I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to question whether something is bigotry.



I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not. I don't see that _disagreement_ is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I think that _dismissiveness_ is.


Mercurius said:


> What I see happen again and again and _again _on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not _excluding _something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.



Whereas what _I_ see happen again and again is that _criticism_ is characterized as_ outrage_ -- usually with the point being that the outrage is misplaced, manufactured, out of proportion, or actually sought after by the aggreived. "If you look for problems, you'll find them. Being offended on behalf of someone else. Screaming _racist_ at everyone who disagrees with you." I read these sorts of comments not as earnest disagreement and engagement in the conversation, but as active and intentional marginalization of others' thoughts and concerns and experience.

I don't recall anyone who simply posted "I don't see it" get the sorts of responses you're citing.

But, repeating for emphasis: I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not.


----------



## Mercurius

Irlo said:


> I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not. I don't see that _disagreement_ is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I think that _dismissiveness_ is.



Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism. 

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.


Irlo said:


> Whereas what _I_ see happen again and again is that _criticism_ is characterized as_ outrage_ -- usually with the point being that the outrage is misplaced, manufactured, out of proportion, or actually sought after by the aggreived. "If you look for problems, you'll find them. Being offended on behalf of someone else. Screaming _racist_ at everyone who disagrees with you." I read these sorts of comments not as earnest disagreement and engagement in the conversation, but as active and intentional marginalization of others' thoughts and concerns and experience.
> 
> I don't recall anyone who simply posted "I don't see it" get the sorts of responses you're citing.
> 
> But, repeating for emphasis: I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not.



Yeah, I see that, but disagree with your interpretation - at least insofar as such comments being inherently dismissive or disingenuous (aka, trolling). We're in a bind: How can someone voice disagreement without it being seen as dismissive? Meaning, if someone earnestly feels the way you express in that quote, how are they to communicate that? Should they just be quiet and not participate? Should they assume they are in the wrong and seek to learn the proper way to see things, perhaps examine their own defensiveness, even if they don't feel like they're defensive, but assume that they are? 

When people say "I don't see it," what usually happens is that those who "see it" see it as an opportunity to educate them, and if they continue not to see it (that is, disagree with the interpretation), they're labeled as anti-inclusive or dismissive, or condescendingly as "not ready to see yet." What if someone can see and understand the interpretation, but just disagrees with it? 

Meaning, I'm pointing to a problem of underlying intolerance for different viewpoints. An us vs. them mentality that I think does great harm and prevents actual understanding of different viewpoints and sows further division. I'm advocating for greater tolerance of different viewpoints - not of actual bigoted ones, mind you - and not assuming that "if you don't see things as I do, that X, Y, and Z are racist, then you're dismissive or racist yourself." It is a kind of intolerance and division that is poisoning our culture, including the RPG community. 

And just to be clear, I do think that some on "the other side" hav their problems too, mainly having to do with diminishing the prevalence of systemic bigotry and the lived experience of those who have experienced prejudice. Not everyone who disagrees with every outcry of racism, maybe not even most, but some. But again, not seeing the depiction of the hadozee as racist (for example) doesn't mean one dismisses the experience of another.


----------



## payn

Mercurius said:


> But again, not seeing the depiction of the hadozee as racist (for example) doesn't mean one dismisses the experience of another.



Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the locked thread. Poster was specifically gaslighting folks.


----------



## Mercurius

payn said:


> Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the locked thread. Poster was specifically gaslighting folks.



I didn't follow that thread word for word, but did they dismiss the lived experience of another--that is, outside the context of the topic at hand--or just their interpretation of the hadozee? That's a crucial difference.


----------



## Irlo

Mercurius said:


> Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.
> 
> So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.



It doesn't seem that hard to me. Don't tell people they're not experiencing what they tell you they're experiencing. Don't tell people they're inventing reasons to feel offended. Discuss one's own thoughts and reactions without telling others, directly or passive-aggressively,that theirs are invalid.

I can tell you that I don't see the reactions you've described on this forum. But I'm not going to tell you that you're seeing them only because you're looking to be offended.



Mercurius said:


> Yeah, I see that, but disagree with your interpretation - at least insofar as such comments being inherently dismissive or disingenuous (aka, trolling). We're in a bind: How can someone voice disagreement without it being seen as dismissive? Meaning, if someone earnestly feels the way you express in that quote, how are they to communicate that? Should they just be quiet and not participate? Should they assume they are in the wrong and seek to learn the proper way to see things, perhaps examine their own defensiveness, even if they don't feel like they're defensive, but assume that they are?



If you express concerns that an RPG product is harmful  or off-putting or insensitive or thoughtless, and if it's my sincere belief that your expressed concerns are coming from a place of misplaced outrage because you're trying to get yourself and others riled up about something that doesn't actually matter, then, yes, absolutely, I should just be quiet and not participate. Yes, I should assume I'm wrong and look for a better way to see things. Yes, I should examine myself thoroughly.


----------



## Malmuria

Mercurius said:


> Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.
> 
> So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.




I think disagreement would be presenting an argument for why a given depiction is not racist while taking the concerns and point of view of those who disagree seriously.  Being dismissive is when people reference a "twitter mob," or "virtue signaling," as if those taking offense are unthinking, childlike, and/or seeking attention.


----------



## Umbran

Mercurius said:


> I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive."




From the official point of view of the boards, it is not _the fact of disagreement_ that is the issue.

It is the _manner_ of disagreement.  Being a jerk about it makes it trolling or disruptive.


----------



## Mercurius

Irlo said:


> It doesn't seem that hard to me. Don't tell people they're not experiencing what they tell you they're experiencing. Don't tell people they're inventing reasons to feel offended. Discuss one's own thoughts and reactions without telling others, directly or passive-aggressively,that theirs are invalid.



Again, saying you disagree with someone's interpretation is not "telling people they're not experiencing what they say they're experiencing." It is saying, "I disagree with your interpretation." I do hear what you and others are saying, which boils down to "the medium is the message." But I think that only goes so far, and we can't invalidate a perspective simply by saying "But they said it in a bad way, therefore I can ignore what they're saying, because it wasn't served just right."


Irlo said:


> I can tell you that I don't see the reactions you've described on this forum. But I'm not going to tell you that you're seeing them only because you're looking to be offended.
> 
> If you express concerns that an RPG product is harmful or off-putting or insensitive or thoughtless, and if it's my sincere belief that your expressed concerns are coming from a place of misplaced outrage because you're trying to get yourself and others riled up about something that doesn't actually matter, then, yes, absolutely, I should just be quiet and not participate. Yes, I should assume I'm wrong and look for a better way to see things. Yes, I should examine myself thoroughly.



Examining oneself is a good rule of thumb for all of us, as is questioning one's assumptions. These are things that I do all the time. But just as you want others to examine themselves and come to a "better way to see things" (meaning, your way), so too should you do the same. I mean, we can all, always see things in a better way; the onus is on us to evolve our own perspective, rather than focus on whether or not other people are examining themselves and recognizing how wrong they are. All we can do is engage in dialogue, and hope that we get our own view across, while continuing to evolve our own. Or at least that's my approach!


----------



## Mercurius

Umbran said:


> From the official point of view of the boards, it is not _the fact of disagreement_ that is the issue.
> 
> It is the _manner_ of disagreement.  Being a jerk about it makes it trolling or disruptive.



Thanks for the official word, and I hear you about manner vs. "the fact of disagreement" itself. My concern is that there seems to be a very fine line that is easy to cross, that sometimes "the fact of disagreement" is too quickly interpreted as trollish. But I recognize that it is an impossible task - not only moderation, but online communication in general.


----------



## Umbran

Mercurius said:


> But I think that only goes so far, and we can't invalidate a perspective simply by saying "But they said it in a bad way, therefore I can ignore what they're saying, because it wasn't served just right."




So, if someone is speaking about the real harm they have taken, we should not be overly concerned about whether they are nice about it.  We generally shouldn't police the tone of victims of racism or misogyny, or the like, when they are speaking on that subject.

But, if someone is asserting that they should not have to worry about harm they may be doing, they darned well ought to be nice about it!


----------



## Irlo

Mercurius said:


> Again, saying you disagree with someone's interpretation is not "telling people they're not experiencing what they say they're experiencing." It is saying, "I disagree with your interpretation."



I agree! That's exactly what I'm saying. One can express disagreement without invalidating others' experience or impugning their motives.
 It's not walking a tightrope. It's not complicated. And one won't be considered a troll or uninclusive. Win-win!


Mercurius said:


> Examining oneself is a good rule of thumb for all of us, as is questioning one's assumptions. These are things that I do all the time. But just as you want others to examine themselves and come to a "better way to see things" (meaning, your way), so too should you do the same.



Let me clarify. Coming to a better way to see things does not mean coming to an agreement with me. It means coming to realize that people have experiences and opinions that are sincere and valid, that they're not "trying to be offended," etc. etc.


----------



## Lanefan

Irlo said:


> I agree! That's exactly what I'm saying. One can express disagreement without invalidating others' experience or impugning their motives.



Which is fine until and unless what you want to question and maybe even specifically disagree with are the perceived motives underlying whatever is being said, regardless what that might be or what point of view is being upheld.

I've had far far too much real-life experience with people - including so-called friends at the time - saying the right things for what turned out then or later to be the wrong reasons, to the point now where all too often my first thought on hearing or reading anything remotely political or 'sensitive' is "what's the motive here?".

In an online forum setting there's no body language or anything to indicate whether somebody is dissembling, all we have to go by are the words posted; and while taking those words at face value might seem like the proper thing to do, having been burned by doing so in person in the past causes me to want to reserve the right to question motives whenever my little alarm bells start going off.

Cynical?  Oh, yes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lanefan said:


> In an online forum setting there's no body language or anything to indicate whether somebody is dissembling, all we have to go by are the words posted; and while taking those words at face value might seem like the proper thing to do, having been burned by doing so in person in the past causes me to want to reserve the right to question motives whenever my little alarm bells start going off.



And that lack of other information- such as body language- is why one must be _especially_ cautious in being accusatory & confrontational in online discussions.

That doesn’t mean you need to set your cynicism and mistrust aside.  But it DOES mean you may need to ask better questions before reaching conclusions about others’ hidden motives and positions just based on their postings on ENWorld, etc.


----------



## Jahydin

I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.

Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots? 

Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.


----------



## TheSword

Jahydin said:


> I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.
> 
> Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?
> 
> Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.



I think that’s called Reddit…


----------



## Jahydin

TheSword said:


> I think that’s called Reddit…



Used to be!

r/DnD is locking threads left and right, haha.

Edit: Actually, lots of good discussions happening now.


----------



## MNblockhead

Jahydin said:


> I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.
> 
> Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?
> 
> Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.



Eh, there are other forums for this. 

I would worry that the attitudes engendered, and communication habits developed, in such threads would inevitably bleed into other threads.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> having been burned by doing so in person in the past causes me to want to reserve the right to question motives whenever my little alarm bells start going off.




Do you recognize a difference between "reserve the right to question motives" and "reserve the right to _publicly impugn_ motives"?

If you want to keep in the back of your mind the idea that people and internet conversation are both complicated, so it may be that what we can see isn't the entirety of it, that's fine.  But just blurting out dismissing people because you assume/believe their motives are suspect isn't fine.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that lack of other information- such as body language- is why one must be _especially_ cautious in being accusatory & confrontational in online discussions.
> 
> That doesn’t mean you need to set your cynicism and mistrust aside.  But it DOES mean you may need to ask better questions before reaching conclusions about others’ hidden motives and positions just based on their postings on ENWorld, etc.




And, we can expand on that a little - frequently, what someone might call a "motive" or "bias" might be better seen as a perspective that deeply moves them.

It is _very easy_ to see a person and decide, "Well, they had this bad experience, so their judgement on the matter is biased, and should be ignored."  When, really, the fact that they had this experience _is the bloody point_, and the resulting perspective should not be discarded, but accepted as a true thing that must be contended with.

Motive does not, in and of itself, make a statement true or false.



Jahydin said:


> I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.




Non-safe spaces generally wind up dominated by those who are willing to behave the worst. 

Maybe I need to stick in my speech on psychological safety, and why it is important.



Jahydin said:


> Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them?




Conflicts and emnity that develop in that non-safe space will not stay there.


----------



## Mercurius

Umbran said:


> So, if someone is speaking about the real harm they have taken, we should not be overly concerned about whether they are nice about it.  We generally shouldn't police the tone of victims of racism or misogyny, or the like, when they are speaking on that subject.
> 
> But, if someone is asserting that they should not have to worry about harm they may be doing, they darned well ought to be nice about it!



That's a false duality, Umbran, and I think you know that. Those aren't the only groups of people involved in such conversations, or the only voices presented. Let's not confuse outrage with real harm.


----------



## Lanefan

Jahydin said:


> I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.
> 
> Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?
> 
> Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.



There's still, I think, circvsmaximvs.boards.net for that - it's a forum started (I think!) by either Morrus or one of his predecessors as pretty much just this - an outlet valve for completely off-topic and-or off-colour posts and "discussions" that have no real place here.

It's fallen into considerable disuse of late, I suspect largely because very few remain who know of or remember it and it's not really promoted on this site any more.


----------



## beancounter

Lanefan said:


> There's still, I think, circvsmaximvs.boards.net for that - it's a forum started (I think!) by either Morrus or one of his predecessors as pretty much just this - an outlet valve for completely off-topic and-or off-colour posts and "discussions" that have no real place here.
> 
> It's fallen into considerable disuse of late, I suspect largely because very few remain who know of or remember it and it's not really promoted on this site any more.



I would like to see a thread for such off- topic topics here.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> Do you recognize a difference between "reserve the right to question motives" and "reserve the right to _publicly impugn_ motives"?



Yes, but any post attempting the one is almost certain to be interpreted as the other; and that's where it gets sticky.


Umbran said:


> And, we can expand on that a little - frequently, what someone might call a "motive" or "bias" might be better seen as a perspective that deeply moves them.



Indeed; and that is of course completely fine.

I've just run across too many real-life instances where the "perspective that deeply moves" someone turns out to be a false front hiding some other, less savoury motive(s).


Umbran said:


> Motive does not, in and of itself, make a statement true or false.



IME it both can and - sometimes - does.


----------



## Lanefan

beancounter said:


> I would like to see a thread for such off- topic topics here.



No need, when there's circvsmaximvs for it.  I could be wrong, but I've a dim memory of that board being created in part due to just such requests as you're making here.


----------



## Jahydin

Umbran said:


> Non-safe spaces generally wind up dominated by those who are willing to behave the worst.



That's true.

I had nothing but good intentions with my thought. ""Real talk" with a group of trusted friends" was the atmosphere I had in mind. The more I thought it through though, the more I realized how unrealistic that would be on the internet. Bad people ruin everything...


Umbran said:


> Maybe I need to stick in my speech on psychological safety, and why it is important.



If you have a link I'd like to read it.


----------



## Jahydin

Lanefan said:


> There's still, I think, circvsmaximvs.boards.net for that - it's a forum started (I think!) by either Morrus or one of his predecessors as pretty much just this - an outlet valve for completely off-topic and-or off-colour posts and "discussions" that have no real place here.



Oh, never heard of it. Thanks.

Instead of threads being locked down, maybe they could  just "punted" over there, haha?


----------



## Morrus

Jahydin said:


> I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.
> 
> Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?
> 
> Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.



That is not a community I have any interest in running. There are plenty of such communities out there. But I’m not interested in hosting (or visiting) such a thing.


----------



## Jahydin

Morrus said:


> That is not a community I have any interest in running. There are plenty of such communities out there. But I’m not interested in hosting (or visiting) such a thing.



My first thought was: "Yeah, but those other communities are filled with the WORST sorts of people..."

Second thought: "Oh..."


----------



## Umbran

Mercurius said:


> That's a false duality, Umbran, and I think you know that.




So, now we see one example of why things go awry in discussions.

I gave two examples, with a useful contrast between them.  The idea that these comprised a duality that completely covered the ground did not come from me.  I said no such thing.  



Mercurius said:


> Let's not confuse outrage with real harm.




Right.  I was referring to people who had suffered real harm.  The idea that I am confusing outraged people with those who have suffered harm is again, from you.

The strawman - filling out another's arguments with details they didn't actually say - is one of the barriers to real discourse and discussion on the internet.  

I'm not going to bite on the strawman.


----------



## Mercurius

Umbran said:


> So, now we see one example of why things go awry in discussions.
> 
> I gave two examples, with a useful contrast between them.  The idea that these comprised a duality that completely covered the ground did not come from me.  I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  I was referring to people who had suffered real harm.  The idea that I am confusing outraged people with those who have suffered harm is again, from you.
> 
> The strawman - filling out another's arguments with details they didn't actually say - is one of the barriers to real discourse and discussion on the internet.
> 
> I'm not going to bite on the strawman.



Yet this itself leads to discussions going awry: Resorting to claims of logical fallacies as a way to avoid the point being made. 

My point is that your two sides were rather artificial and un-helpful: you contrasted people who experienced "real harm" with those who are callously dismissive, when the vast majority--at least in the context of these discussions on RPGs--are somewhere between the two. Again, outrage is not the same thing as real harm. And not being outraged is not the same thing as being dismissive of real harm, but of the interpretation that leads to outrage. That is a very crucial distinction that is brushed over. 

Again, most people who seem to be "dismissive" are not being dismissive of real harm experienced through racism and bigotry. What they are being dismissive of is the outrage generated through interpreting things as constituting racism or bigotry. They're dismissing _the interpretation, _and thus feel that the outrage is misguided.


----------



## payn

nvm


----------



## Umbran

Mercurius said:


> Yet this itself leads to discussions going awry: Resorting to claims of logical fallacies as a way to avoid the point being made.




Eh, no.  Still not going to engage with a strawman.

Have a nice day.


----------



## FrogReaver

Irlo said:


> I agree! That's exactly what I'm saying. One can express disagreement without invalidating others' experience or impugning their motives.
> It's not walking a tightrope. It's not complicated. And one won't be considered a troll or uninclusive. Win-win!



To be fair, I don't know that you've ever tried to engage in any of those conversations from the 'other side' but I'm willing to bet that you haven't, because the ordeal is more like walking a tightrope while juggling swords while doing cartwheels.  I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable just for disagreeing about whether some fantasy race was real world racist.  IMO.  That's harmful.  That's impugning my motives and invalidating my experiences.

The most recent thread this one is about - I avoided that entirely because of all of the above.

*Just another perspective


----------



## Irlo

FrogReaver said:


> To be fair, I don't know that you've ever tried to engage in any of those conversations from the 'other side' but I'm willing to bet that you haven't, because the ordeal is more like walking a tightrope while juggling swords while doing cartwheels.  I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable just for disagreeing about whether some fantasy race was real world racist.  IMO.  That's harmful.  That's impugning my motives and invalidating my experiences.
> 
> The most recent thread this one is about - I avoided that entirely because of all of the above.
> 
> *Just another perspective



That's true, I haven't. I've read threads here, and I haven't seen that happen, but I don't read everything posted here.

I'm sorry you've had that experience. I would expect better from the ENWorld posters.


----------



## Deset Gled

Irlo said:


> I'm sorry you've had that experience. I would expect better from the ENWorld posters.




People on ENWorld are still just people. We get the full range.


----------



## Hex08

Deset Gled said:


> People on ENWorld are still just people. We get the full range.



For some reason I read that as "People on ENWorld are still just people. _We get full of rage_."


----------



## Thomas Shey

Hex08 said:


> For some reason I read that as "People on ENWorld are still just people. _We get full of rage_."




Anymore, that's probably not all that inaccurate...


----------



## Fifth Element

FrogReaver said:


> I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable* just for disagreeing* about whether some fantasy race was real world racist.



In all honesty, not trying to be antagonistic here, but I've seen this sort of claim hundreds of times in various discussion forums about a wide variety of subjects, in discussions I've participated in directly, and very often the "just for disagreeing" part is inaccurate. It's often the result of the human bias towards defensiveness, where hackles go up and prevent us from being able to honestly assess the things we've said from another perspective.

Normally, it's not just because someone disagrees. It's because something they've said in defence of their opinion was offensive to someone. It's easy to leap to "I was just stating my opinion" without considering the implications of things we've said from a perspective other than our own.

Not saying this applies in your case necessarily, since I don't know the discussions you're talking about, but it's *extremely *common online, and I thought it was worth noting.


----------



## Morrus

FrogReaver said:


> I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable just for disagreeing about whether some fantasy race was real world racist.



Show me a post where you were called a Nazi.

(And then, if it exists, show me one where we didn't step in).


----------



## beancounter

You'll rarely see someone call another person Nazi directly. They are aware of Mods and filters, and will strongly imply Nazi (often via passive-aggressive language) without actually saying it, giving them plausible deniability.


----------



## Umbran

beancounter said:


> You'll rarely see someone call another person Nazi directly. They are aware of Mods and filters, and will strongly imply Nazi (often via passive-aggressive language) without actually saying it, giving them plausible deniability.




Okay, so, show us a post in which you feel you were called a Nazi in this manner.


----------



## beancounter

Umbran said:


> Okay, so, show us a post in which you feel you were called a Nazi in this manner.




I didn't mean to imply that I was called Nazi (directly or indirectly) on this forum. I was referring to other forums in the past that I have read.


----------

