Post/Author/DateTime	Post
swallowyersoul 04-20-07, 07:44 PM	Wiz_O_The_Cat just shut down a rather interesting thread for the following reason: Ok, I understand that this thread touches on the subject indirectly, but discussion of boycotts are not allowed on the boards, whether they be WotC or 3rd party products. Thanks. Here's the Code of Conduct: Prohibited chat room, board, and e-mail list, behaviors include (but are not limited to): * profanity, vulgarity, or explicit content For example: o "masking" by using alternative characters/spellings and spaces to get around profanity filters, leet-speak, and combinations of words that produce an offensive result (e.g. ura hugeazz, Tow El Head) o "filter testing" o discussion of or in-character enactments of "cybering" or sexually explicit material o discussion of or in-character enactments of graphic violence or bloodletting * hate speech (e.g. racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic and religious slurs) * promotion of or engaging in certain illegal activities, For example: drugs, drug paraphernalia, rape or solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation * harassment of another specific person (e.g. persistent flaming or continued personal attacks on the boards or "in-character harassment" without prior out-of-character permission.) * trolling or baiting by putting to the screen inflammatory statements designed to elicit a negative response from the community * spamming through repeated posts, or off-topic content by word or intent to boards or lists (e.g. scrolling, flooding, polling, or by "bumping" a boards post more than once in 48 hours) * advertising or promoting a business or commercial site * impersonation of another person, site staff or Wizards employee by either screen name or self-representation (e.g. faking a screen name by using similar-looking characters, "spoofing" speech in a chat room, or claiming to hold an official title or position relating to the site) * reregistering a banned screen name, a variation of a banned name, or declarations under a new screen name that you are "really" the banned name or attempts to resubscribe to a e-mail list under another address after being put on REVIEW by the list moderator. (for further explanation, see below) * off-topic posts or casual chat/IC play in the wrong chatrooms For example: o out-of-character chat in designated in-character rooms o casual chat or non-combat play in designated combat-only rooms, or, conversely, combat play in non-combat rooms o casual chat or free-form role-play in designated structured rules/dice-based game rooms o at WizO discretion, off-topic chat or posts in topic-specific rooms/forums o card trade anywhere other than designated trading areas I dont see anything in there to justify shutting down the thread at all. Is there another code of conduct we're not allowed to see? Maybe a secret 11th commandment that says 'thou shalt not say things mods don't like to hear'? This isn't the first time I've seen an interesting discussion shut down - with no CoC justification - because some mod didn't like the ideas expressed. On the other hand, there's any number of posters who continually get away with being downright rude and abusive (see above CoC) to posters on a daily basis. Seriously, guys. I'm not (well not just) trying to be a gadfly here. What's the story? Is there a rule 0 attached to the CoC?
ORC_Paradox 04-20-07, 07:52 PM	Yes, it's that "but not limited to" part.
Seeker95 04-20-07, 08:08 PM	boy·cott (boi'kŏt') To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. Boycotts are inherently: incendiary real life political All three of these activities are against the Code of Conduct. Protesting as an individual is fine. There are about ten threads with nearly 50 pages of individual protests (to use a mild term) that the WizOs have left open. Once it gets political, it crosses the line.
swallowyersoul 04-20-07, 08:10 PM	ah. fair enough. i do the same thing with the job descriptions and reasons for termination with my employee contracts. is there a page someplace that gives some wider guidelines as to what we are or are not allowed to discuss? i'm not trying to be a jerk here, i've just been really disappointed with some of the decisions about what we can and can't talk about. if wizards has a policy that we're not allowed to give constructive criticism, i'd love to see that expressly stated.
Patera_Quetzal 04-20-07, 08:13 PM	:rolleyes: Gimme a friggin' break. Smacks of petty muscle-flexing.
UndeadMouse 04-20-07, 08:23 PM	uhh, you suggested boycotting the company running these forums. boycotts are to start a movement to stop people from using services/buying products from a company or sub-company, as Seeker95 stated. obviosly, you are using thier server space, which cost them money, to say something directly against the furtherment of thier company, which reduces thier future profits, so it is in WOTC's best interests to prevent your motion from becoming popular, since it uses thier server space and hurts thier future profits. since you are using forums owned by the company, it is assumed that you understand not to attempt to harm thier future profits by starting a boycott. because such things are assumed, there would be little reason to note them in a CoC, since it would be obvious. talking about boycotting something else is off-topic discussions, so they would naturally be against the CoC, and are stated there. Isn't Law FUN!!! Note: I am not a lawyer, related to a lawyer, dating a lawyer, studying to be a lawyer, taking any classes that have to do with lawyers, desireing to be a lawyer, or heading towards a career in lawyering, even though many people think i should be a lawyer.
Patera_Quetzal 04-20-07, 08:28 PM	uhh, you suggested boycotting the company running these forums. No-one here suggested anything of the sort. The boycott idea is exceedingly lame and ineffectual, which is why shutting down the thread was an overreaction.
TheYeti1775 04-20-07, 08:36 PM	:rolleyes: Gimme a friggin' break. Smacks of petty muscle-flexing. Yup
swallowyersoul 04-20-07, 08:38 PM	Especially since the majority of the posts in the thread said something to the effect of 'uh, no dude, i wouldn't boycott for that...' It's a mark of maturity and class to be able to permit dialogue you find threatening. I guess I was expecting too much.
Seeker95 04-20-07, 08:41 PM	You're missing the point. Boycott threads are not allowed. Whether you're talking about boycotting WotC, Paizo, or Kraft Foods, they are inherently political, regardless of the target.
swallowyersoul 04-20-07, 08:49 PM	I don't see anything up there saying boycott threads are disallowed. I don't see anything at all about anything political being disallowed (as long as you're not trolling a la 'Republicans are teh suxxors, n00b'), 99.99999% of the time, they'd be disallowed for being off topic -- sociopolitical debate isn't usually relevant to d&d. Of the remaining, people getting hot under the collar and posting rudely might get a thread shut down (not often I've noticed). But this one is topical and civil.
allenchan 04-20-07, 08:49 PM	You're missing the point. Boycott threads are not allowed. Whether you're talking about boycotting WotC, Paizo, or Kraft Foods, they are inherently political, regardless of the target. Not to say I'm disagreeing, but an honest question, why do you think that is true? Protesting isn't inherently political, coercion isn't inherently political, and abstaining isn't inherently political.
swallowyersoul 04-20-07, 08:57 PM	Radoval, stop helping. :(
TheYeti1775 04-20-07, 09:13 PM	Radoval, stop helping. :( Let them keep locking them and deleting them. Enough see them to see it happen. They (WOTC) lit a powderkeg and now struggle to put out the fuse as it approaches. Canned responses that were posted on the site so far do nothing to help it. If WOTC really wants to defuse it quite easily, then let them come here free and discuss the direction the company would like to proceed in. I bet they get tons of feedback, a heck of a lot more then that optional poll to select members on certain days a few months ago. Yeti
Seeker95 04-20-07, 09:28 PM	Not to say I'm disagreeing, but an honest question, why do you think that is true? Protesting isn't inherently political, coercion isn't inherently political, and abstaining isn't inherently political.You overly link a number of things together that I listed separately. Boycotts are organized protests. political adjective 1. involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians; "calling a meeting is a political act in itself"- Daniel Goleman; 2. of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power; "political opinions" Protesting is not political. Organized protesting is. Boycotts are coercive. coercion –noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. (Abstaining? I didn't mention anything about abstaining.)
TheYeti1775 04-20-07, 09:46 PM	If Abstaining is a Political Statement, my wife must be one of the most anti-political people ever. :D Sorry had to bring at least one good laugh for today.
swallowyersoul 04-20-07, 10:02 PM	If Abstaining is a Political Statement, my wife must be one of the most anti-political people ever. :D Sorry had to bring at least one good laugh for today. that was funny. thank you.
Toran_A_Sunder 04-20-07, 10:03 PM	Apparently some people are conveniently ignoring the "But not limited to" clause in the OP. Dude...I could sit here and talk only about how wonderful the WizOs are and saying nothing but good things...and they could shut me down. For brown nosing if they wanted to. Dragon and Dungeon are over. They will be replaced by some online doo-hickey that we'll all hate in the begining but end up using and enjoying in the end, much like 3.x Cry a river, build a bridge, and get the frig over it.:rolleyes:
TheYeti1775 04-20-07, 10:04 PM	that was funny. thank you. Your welcome. I keep hoping I wake up tomorrow and everyone comes out of their 420 haze looking at he date.
enlightened 04-20-07, 10:12 PM	They (WOTC) lit a powderkeg and now struggle to put out the fuse as it approaches. Maybe I'm missing something really big, but what have they done that is so horrible, exactly? EDIT: Nevermind. I dug around and saw about the magazine thing. I hadn't heard about it.
seldom_seen 04-20-07, 10:27 PM	Yes, it's that "but not limited to" part. End of story....pretty much....straight from the horses' mouth....
Man in the Funny Hat 04-20-07, 11:26 PM	:rolleyes: Gimme a friggin' break. Smacks of petty muscle-flexing.It's not your forum. It's not my forum. It's WotC's forum. It's not petty to decide to not let people discuss topics that they do not want discussed. You post here at THEIR discretion -REGARDLESS of topic. The COC is nothing more than fair warning that you do not have a right to free, unrestrained speech. Not here. You never did. It is a privilege that they extend to you with restrictions that you - by default - have agreed to when you establish an account and start to post. THEY have the right to rescind it in whole or in part for THEIR reasons. People forget this. A lot. You may not have thought about it, but you agreed to this restriction too. It is not petty of them to decide to excercise THEIR rights on THEIR forums.
Solaris 04-20-07, 11:39 PM	You guys are over-analyzing it. It's been admitted by Paradox, in a thread on RPG Boards Business, that (1) the Wiz_Os are free to interpret the Code of Conduct however they wish, and (2) there is no recourse if we feel they have interpreted it incorrectly because the boards lead will side with the Wiz_Os. Yes, it would be more honest if they would just abandon the pretense and get rid of the Code of Conduct completely, but it does have some use in that it gives us a vague idea of some of the things that Wiz_Os are free to misinterpret. In short, they can do whatever they want, and there's no point in complaining (indeed, the complaints themselves tend to get locked).
WizO_Cat 04-21-07, 12:22 AM	Moved thread to RPG Boards Business. As to some of the items: 1) If you have an issue with a WizO's decision, you can e-mail or PM the WizO in question. If you would prefer to discuss it with their supervisor, you can always go to the Boards Lead WizO. (for the RPG boards, that would be Mimir) 2) Yes, WizOs decisions have been overriden, and in fact I'm enough of a person to say that mine have been overriden in the past. 3) As for complaining about a specific WizO's decision on the board, yet those threads do get locked. However, that's due to it not being the correct method - see number 1 for the correct method.
Solaris 04-21-07, 12:31 AM	1) If you complain to a Wiz_O, they tell you that if you don't like it you can go to the Boards Lead. 2) Unlikely. Paradox admitted that the Boards Lead will usually side with the Wiz_O. I've complained in instances of unquestionably incorrect interpretations of the Code of Conduct, and had no response whatsoever -- they will stonewall you rather than admit that a Wiz_O was wrong. 3) The reason being that they don't like it when it gets aired. If you do the "correct method", they can shut you down quietly, even in a case of gross Wiz_O incompetence. If you point out that incompetence publically, well, they might actually have to deal with it, and they don't want to. Once again, you can complain to the Wiz_O or his superior, but you will be very unlikely to get any response at all, let alone a favorable one because, as Paradox has admitted, the Wiz_Os are free to misinterpret the Code of Conduct as they will, and they will be supported by the Boards Lead. This includes making up their own definitions of words used, such as "baiting" or even "copyright". I don't know why the Wiz_Os continue to perpetuate the myth that there's anything resembling a working complaint-handling system here. I simply assume there isn't, and hope I don't happen to attract the attention of some of the more incompetent Wiz_Os (who, naturally, must remain nameless, or else they might have to be dealt with). They'll insist that you can follow their procedures, but you'd all be better off to realize that that's just Creative Writing, and spare yourselves the frustration.
Solaris 04-21-07, 12:39 AM	Note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them running the boards as they do -- if they want to grant absolute power to incompetents with no oversight, that's their right -- I simply object to the fact that they're untruthful about it, maintaining the illusion that oversight and channels for complaint exist. I had a lot of frustration, making unanswered complaints, before Paradox made his admission. I'm a lot happier since I stopped bothering.
ORC_Paradox 04-21-07, 02:59 AM	1) If you complain to a Wiz_O, they tell you that if you don't like it you can go to the Boards Lead. 2) Unlikely. Paradox admitted that the Boards Lead will usually side with the Wiz_O. I've complained in instances of unquestionably incorrect interpretations of the Code of Conduct, and had no response whatsoever -- they will stonewall you rather than admit that a Wiz_O was wrong. Usually, but not always. 3) The reason being that they don't like it when it gets aired. If you do the "correct method", they can shut you down quietly, even in a case of gross Wiz_O incompetence. If you point out that incompetence publically, well, they might actually have to deal with it, and they don't want to. Accusations of incompetence do not make it so. Some folks have personality clashes, and want to get rid of the WizOs, no matter what. Once again, you can complain to the Wiz_O or his superior, but you will be very unlikely to get any response at all, let alone a favorable one because, as Paradox has admitted, the Wiz_Os are free to misinterpret the Code of Conduct as they will, and they will be supported by the Boards Lead. I've overwritten a WizO's decision before, and I've even changed my own mind a couple of times. This includes making up their own definitions of words used, such as "baiting" or even "copyright". Not agreeing with a WizO's decision isn't the same as someone not able to do their job. Very likely there are circumstances you're not aware of. I don't know why the Wiz_Os continue to perpetuate the myth that there's anything resembling a working complaint-handling system here. I simply assume there isn't, and hope I don't happen to attract the attention of some of the more incompetent Wiz_Os (who, naturally, must remain nameless, or else they might have to be dealt with). Not getting exactly what you want isn't an indication that things don't happen behind the scenes.
Solaris 04-21-07, 03:15 AM	Not agreeing with a WizO's decision isn't the same as someone not able to do their job. Very likely there are circumstances you're not aware of. No, you made us aware of the circumstances when you admitted that Wiz_Os are allowed to make up their own completely bogus definitions of terms used in the Code of Conduct. Not getting exactly what you want isn't an indication that things don't happen behind the scenes. Of course not. That's so obvious that it doesn't need stating, unless you're trying to imply that that's what happened in my case (it wasn't -- there were numerous cases of gross incompetence where I was simply ignored). What I said stands -- the notion that you all have working channels for complaint is a sham. Anyway, Paradox, like I said, I'm not personally concerned anymore, now that I know how things work. I'm just trying to help everyone else get past the line you're feeding them.
Shadowhowler 04-21-07, 03:21 AM	This actually Kind of funny. I'm inclined to agree with the Wiz0's here. 1. While it would be quite the show of open minded maturity to allow a boycot type thread to contenue, as was suggested above... it is not at all unrealistic to expect such a thread to be removed. The removing of that thread dosn't really make the WizO's 'dictators' just for having done so, it seems logical to me that they would do so. They have even responded in this thread, which I find admerable. 2. The CoC seems to me like the rules, and WizO's are DM. The CoC gives you a basic idea of what you can and can not do, and it is up to the DM's to rule on a case by case basis. I find this a fitting and approprate anology given the situation.
Hummm 04-21-07, 03:33 AM	You guys are complaining that he shut down a thread relating to boycotting WotC products on the WotC message board? :uh-huh:
Loopy 04-21-07, 11:33 AM	Not getting exactly what you want isn't an indication that things don't happen behind the scenes. That was awesome.