Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 03:56 AM	Inspired by the thread Rudeness and Flaming on these boards (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10462537#post10462537), and my own experiences I felt it to be the right time to start this initiative for more politeness in the Wizards.Community. The TAME WAR FOUNDATION None of us can exclude his/herself from having a bad day now and again, but do other people have to suffer from our occasional sulkiness? Is it necessary to flame ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28internet%29) or troll ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling)? Since the most of us are opened minded and tolerant persons visiting these boards, because of the shared interest in Dungeons&Dragons of all shapes and forms, I assume the answer is: No. If you agree, you have already done your first step in helping to make these boards a place where likeminded people may share their ideas, questions and doubts without the fear of being lashed for it, or the need to include such sentences as "Please don't flame me!" or the likes of them. Members of the TWF intend to share their knowledge with others, without giving them the feeling to be somehow inferior, and try to mediate in disputes, before they have the chance to get out of hand. If you are interested in becoming a member of the TWF, please post that you would like to join and include a little quote stating why you are inclined to support this initiative for more considerate manners on the boards. I would also love to hear some little stories of how you were introduced into the game, what it was like for you, and how you were treated, so you decided to continue gaming. It is never too late to make the boards a better place, and more comfortable for all of us who do read and post in them. Never start a fight, but always try to settle it. LINKS TWF Statutes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10902517&postcount=90) Note: At present the statutes are still under construction. TWF-FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10902439&postcount=89) Frequently asked questions about the Tame War Foundation. MEMBERS DemonDavyJones (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=439059) Fire burns. Don't play with it, be careful around it, and never start it. itwasntme (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=516149) journeyman777 (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=375577) :cookie: Sylvaroth (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=303634) Do tame, not flame. theotherdraxen (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=481785) :cookie: Never start a fight, but always try to settle it. HONORARY MEMBERS Vestigial_Thumb :cookie: Loki5654 :cookie: TWF Cookies Counter: 4 and counting Please be sure to read the Wizards.Community Code of Conduct (aka CoC (http://boards1.wizards.com/community_coc.php)) before posting in this (or any other) thread.
Loki5654 10-27-06, 07:34 AM	I'm sorry, but I really don't see the point of this. If you don't like the way someone is posting, report them and let the WizO's handle it. That's their job. This "league" you are proposing has the potential to turn into a smug band of vigilantes trying to enforce the CoC without the power to do so. Trying to force your moral viewpoint on others can have explosive repurcussions. I've read the Rudeness and Flaming thread. To me, it boils down to the fundamental right to express one's self. I have the right to express myself (within the limits of the CoC), you (in return) have the right to disagree with me (again, within the limits of the CoC) and if we violate the CoC, the WizO's have the right to reprimand us accordingly. If you try to form some sort of moral authority, beyond the status quo, some will agree with you, other won't. And things will remain just as divided as they are now. Thanks, but no thanks.
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 07:40 AM	Loki5654 thank you for your comment.
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 09:24 AM	This "league" you are proposing has the potential to turn into a smug band of vigilantes trying to enforce the CoC without the power to do so. Trying to force your moral viewpoint on others can have explosive repurcussions. I can perfectly understand your fears and worries concerning the TWF, and of course you are right, there is the possibility of abuse, but as you already mentioned, the members of the foundation have not more or less power to enforce the CoC than any other member of the boards. It is not however the intention of the TWF members to run around on the boards and accuse everybody we do not like of violations against the CoC. See it as a network of helpful persons, who want everybody to have the opportunity to feel comfortable on the boards. Not only in mediating in cases of bad blood, but mostly in helping other members with useful pieces of information. See them as guides to turn to, if you are searching for help. This includes questions of newcomers about the boards in general, as well as about D&D in particular. If you try to form some sort of moral authority, beyond the status quo, some will agree with you, other won't. That is everybodies right if you believe in the freedom of speech. Having the freedom of speech does not however mean, that you have to voice your opinion in an insulting and aggressive manner, or does it? I suggest to include the freedom of speech as one of the most important of TWF's statutes. Again, thank you for your critical comment. It was very helpful.
Loki5654 10-27-06, 09:45 AM	It is not however the intention of the TWF members to run around on the boards and accuse everybody we do not like of violations against the CoC. I have no disagreement with this, save for the old axiom about intentions and the thouroughfare to perdition. See it as a network of helpful persons, who want everybody to have the opportunity to feel comfortable on the boards. Not only in mediating in cases of bad blood, but mostly in helping other members with useful pieces of information. See them as guides to turn to, if you are searching for help. This includes questions of newcomers about the boards in general, as well as about D&D in particular. But why the need for the network? Can't it be incumbent on the individual? By asking people to band together under your banner, you are not only asking them to be good and helpful, but to be good and helpful according to your criteria. I see the same problem here as I do with organized religion: I don't mind being good, but I dislike being told how to be good. That is everybodies right if you believe in the freedom of speech. Having the freedom of speech does not however mean, that you have to voice your opinion in an insulting and aggressive manner, or does it? Speech is free, manners are not. You'd have better luck battering down a brick wall with your head than you will with changing the attitudes of people on the internet. That being said, I have no problem with your ideal. I just question the need for the creation of a group. Your intent seems fine and dandy when its just you, but add in a few dozen others and things can go from "Politeness Paradigm" to "Politeness Pogrom". I suggest to include the freedom of speech as one of the most important of TWF's statutes. Go right ahead, its your clubhouse. Again, thank you for your critical comment. It was very helpful. No problem. Think of it as a disagreement between Lawful and Chaotic alignments. To sum up via analogy: The crime rate isn't nearly as bad as you think, the cops are more than adequately handling the criminals, why do we need a neighborhood watch?
CharlieRock 10-27-06, 10:00 AM	How exactly is this going to work? I like the boards because 3.5 is a lot more rules-heavy then previous editions. And, sometimes knowledge of previous edition rules can lead to wrong or misguided rulings.
Zersch 10-27-06, 10:46 AM	...that you have to voice your opinion in an insulting and aggressive manner... How exactly would you or this group be able to define an individual's opinion as either too insulting or aggressive? If you are referring to people new to the boards getting flamed, do what you feel is necessary. If you are referring to people who have been posting on the boards for a bit, and have been playing the game for some time, they come onto and post to the boards with varying levels of intent in regards to their opinions. Whether that be an intial post on a thread, or a continued post on a thread. Some individuals, myself included, have become pretty impassioned about our opinions. I doubt that anything I have said violates CoC, I've never recieved a warning or anything. I've had some intense responses to what I have said, and seen some intense responses between others. But does this mean if I get into what I feel is a good debate with someone with postings that come close, but not necessarily violating the CoC, I'll have my post reported? If an individual feels that my post is too harsh, they can point it out to the moderators. The CoC is there for everyone to read, it's not hidden, or tucked away. I would be inclined to agree with Loki in that the mods seem to have a fair grasp of what happens on the boards. There are several people here that I wholeheartedly disagree with concerning aspects of the game and mechanics. I wouldn't term their opinions as inflammatory in regards to the CoC, and I will stand up and say that no matter what they say, I will defend them to say it to the point that should be able to say it. If I post something you disagree with, call me on it. If I ask for opinion on something, I (personally) expect honest opinion, and I generally get it, whether I like it or not. It helps me become more creative. I think the intent of what you are preposing is admirable, but I feel that it is already the responsibility of everyone who starts an account here to mindful of the CoC. As well as each individual's responsibility to do what is necessary when they encounter stuff that is questionable.
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 05:45 PM	I have no disagreement with this, save for the old axiom about intentions and the thouroughfare to perdition. ..., but the road to redemption is paved with the pitfalls of temptation. ;) But why the need for the network? Can't it be incumbent on the individual? By asking people to band together under your banner, you are not only asking them to be good and helpful, but to be good and helpful according to your criteria. I see the same problem here as I do with organized religion: I don't mind being good, but I dislike being told how to be good. I consider myself to be a person who is able to judge for myself, what is right or wrong, so I dislike people who want to tell me, what is best for me. Of course every individual is obliged to do so. I do not argue with that, but joining a group does not automatically result in forsaking ones individuality. I am not at all asking to join under my rule, but I suggest to unite under the banner of common sense, politeness and the will to offer help to those who are asking for it. I am not the one who wants to tell right from wrong, but as far as the Wizard.Community is concerned the CoC and civility do. At the very least, it is the love for cookies that lets you join the foundation :D Speech is free, manners are not. You'd have better luck battering down a brick wall with your head than you will with changing the attitudes of people on the internet. That being said, I have no problem with your ideal. I just question the need for the creation of a group. Your intent seems fine and dandy when its just you, but add in a few dozen others and things can go from "Politeness Paradigm" to "Politeness Pogrom". A pogrom is in itself very rude to say the least. Instead the TWF’s task would be in setting a good example by showing, that interaction on the boards can be done without emotionally harming your vis-à-vis. Go right ahead, its your clubhouse. I think of it as the clubhouse of everybody, who shares the goals of the TWF (which are not necessarily only mine). No problem. Think of it as a disagreement between Lawful and Chaotic alignments. I think by lawful you mean me, and by chaotic you refer to yourself? (Please correct me if I am mistaken) Now where would you consider us to be on the Nice-Naughty axis? To sum up via analogy: The crime rate isn't nearly as bad as you think, the cops are more than adequately handling the criminals, why do we need a neighborhood watch? Well, there still is crime, and as you said above, it is incumbent on the individual to help those in need of help. Besides, if the neighbourhood watch assists the cops in the fight against crime, the cops will have more time to enjoy cookies :D
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 05:57 PM	How exactly is this going to work? If you are new to the boards and have questions, do not fear to ask them here, and the TWF members will try to do their best to find an answer (this is mostly for questions concearning e.g. the RAW ). If you want to join the TWF, your only obligation is to post as respectful unto others as you would have them post unto you. If you see the opportunity to mediate in a dispute, do so. That is all.
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 06:04 PM	How exactly would you or this group be able to define an individual's opinion as either too insulting or aggressive? On a case by case basis, depending on the effect on the corresponding thread, I think. There are several people here that I wholeheartedly disagree with concerning aspects of the game and mechanics. I wouldn't term their opinions as inflammatory in regards to the CoC, and I will stand up and say that no matter what they say, I will defend them to say it to the point that should be able to say it. If I post something you disagree with, call me on it. If I ask for opinion on something, I (personally) expect honest opinion, and I generally get it, whether I like it or not. It helps me become more creative. Wholeheartedly seconded. Defend sensible rights, even if you do not agree with how people make use of it (no irony intended).
SeptimusMagistos 10-27-06, 06:31 PM	I would like to join for two reasons: 1. I like putting stuff in my sig 2. I support organized debate over unorganized argument.
Sapp 10-27-06, 06:41 PM	Since the most of us are opened minded and tolerant persons visiting these boards, because of the shared interest in Dungeons&Dragons of all shapes and forms, I assume the answer is: No. You know, the bolded parts seem somewhat counterintuitive. Almost hypocritical, in fact. Some people are simply going to sound more opinionated than others. If someone argues strongly enough, even if direct attacks aren't being used, he's still going to seem offensive. That you're tolerant and open-minded, shouldn't you accept that people online might not adhere to your strict morals? Just my opinion. Please don't flame me.
Sapp 10-27-06, 06:48 PM	On a case by case basis, depending on the effect on the corresponding thread, I think. Case by case basis. So your organization would hunt these people out? Is there a legal system involved too? Newbies in your foundation would report posts to a High Council or Supreme Court (composed of "more mature" members) which then deliberates its decision before reporting a thread to a WizO? People already have the option to report a thread to a WizO. I think the WizOs themselves are mature enough to decide whether to censor something or not.
Sylvaroth 10-27-06, 07:09 PM	I would like to join for two reasons: 1. I like putting stuff in my sig 2. I support organized debate over unorganized argument. :D Acknowledged :D As for your comments Sapp, I do not know if you intended to be funny, but I had to laugh, when I read your posts (at least the last one about the Supreme Court) :D
Sapp 10-27-06, 07:14 PM	:D Acknowledged :D As for your comments Sapp, I do not know if you intended to be funny, but I had to lough, when I read your posts (at least the last one) :D If in doubt, assume I'm being facetious and intending to inflict harm at the same time. If you're the type to take things in stride, then assume I was being facetious. If you feel extremely angered by what I've been writing, and feel offended, then feel free to assume that I intended to hurt you with every fiber of Malice from the depth of my sinful soul. (In other words, most of the time, my intent is what you want to make of it.)
Sapp 10-27-06, 10:30 PM	Wow. The thread got moved to the Guild House subforums. Clearly a sign that the WizOs have a sense of humor.
theotherdraxen 10-27-06, 11:54 PM	I have no disagreement with this, save for the old axiom about intentions and the thouroughfare to perdition. Then why have good intentions? It's a good quote, but I feel it disregards the fact that good intentions sometimes lead to good results. I'm interested in joining, but I cannot commit until I see a clearer mission statement. I'm not interested in an unlimited charter that leaves too much room for interpretation, nor am I interested in a group that is extreme, in that it demands an absolute end of flaming in all its forms. A little heat never hurt anyone;). I would also like to know where specifically the TWF picks up where WotC lacks. I would like it clarified specifically what this group aims to do that it has both the power and the rightful position fo accomplish. Please clarify these things for me. I am not entirely clear on where this group is going, but I am sincerely interested in joining.
Solaris 10-28-06, 02:27 AM	The TAME WAR FOUNDATION That would be just PEACHy :rolleyes:
Sylvaroth 10-28-06, 11:31 AM	I am not sure, what it means for this thread, to be moved to the Guild House. I'm interested in joining, but I cannot commit until I see a clearer mission statement. I'm not interested in an unlimited charter that leaves too much room for interpretation, nor am I interested in a group that is extreme, in that it demands an absolute end of flaming in all its forms. A little heat never hurt anyone;). I would also like to know where specifically the TWF picks up where WotC lacks. I would like it clarified specifically what this group aims to do that it has both the power and the rightful position fo accomplish. Please clarify these things for me. I am not entirely clear on where this group is going, but I am sincerely interested in joining. I agree with you. You do not have to join the foundation, if you are not convinced of its goals. Currently the Tame War Foundation is in a kind of a construction phase, where all of those topics you address can be discussed. So, even without instantly joining the foundation, you have the opportunity, to make propositions and to throw in ideas about how you would like to see all of those things being handled. The TWF has the power to do good for the well-being of the community. This power is granted to everybody by the sense of responsibility and community and the aspiration for a harmonious arrangement of all forms of opinions and views. It is not about hunting people who said controversial things, but about showing the community how conflicts can be solved without being obviously disrespectful and rude.
theotherdraxen 10-28-06, 06:30 PM	I am not sure, what it means for this thread, to be moved to the Guild House. The Guild house, home of *foundations*, clubs, councils and guilds, is a place to gather and dicuss your favortite topics. I hope that answers things. I agree with you. You do not have to join the foundation, if you are not convinced of its goals. Currently the Tame War Foundation is in a kind of a construction phase, where all of those topics you address can be discussed. So, even without instantly joining the foundation, you have the opportunity, to make propositions and to throw in ideas about how you would like to see all of those things being handled. The TWF has the power to do good for the well-being of the community. This power is granted to everybody by the sense of responsibility and community and the aspiration for a harmonious arrangement of all forms of opinions and views. It is not about hunting people who said controversial things, but about showing the community how conflicts can be solved without being obviously disrespectful and rude. Then consider me joined. I want to help out with the construction more directly. You ask for a quote as to why I'm joining, so here it is: Never start a fight, but always try to settle it.
Sylvaroth 10-29-06, 05:02 AM	Thanks for the quotes, I was already thinking it had something to be like this. Then consider me joined. Acknowledged. :pint: To good cooperation!
DemonDavyJones 10-29-06, 01:07 PM	[Elan Voice] Oooh, ooh! Pick me, pick me![/Elan Voice] Consider my application filled and given to you. I await further orders :P ;) :P !
Loki5654 10-29-06, 07:44 PM	I await further orders I know he probably meant it in jest, but that's just the sort of thing that bothers me about organizations like this.
DemonDavyJones 10-29-06, 08:23 PM	As a matter of fact I did mean it in jest... Just making sure everyone knew that.
theotherdraxen 10-29-06, 10:59 PM	I know he probably meant it in jest, but that's just the sort of thing that bothers me about organizations like this. One of the primary reasons I joined up is to prevent the TWF from becoming what you fear. Besides, no offense to Sylvaroth, but do you really think that we're going to obey him/her unquestioningly? And even if this did degenerate into an overbearing force, do you think that WizO would put up with it if we were ruining the boards for everyone? There are checks and balances. I intend to be one of them.
Sylvaroth 10-30-06, 03:04 AM	One of the primary reasons I joined up is to prevent the TWF from becoming what you fear. Besides, no offense to Sylvaroth, but do you really think that we're going to obey him/her unquestioningly? I started this thread, I am the one, who adds the new members, and the cookies to their entries, but apart from that I have no more or less to say than any other TWF member, as far as it concerns the actions and demeanor of the foundation on the boards. Every member of the TWF is expected to bring in his or her own unique point of view with regard to discussions, polls and decision-making. In my opinion, in cases when the members want to come to a decision, there will be nothing like an absolute majority or similar. The TWF is no democracy. It lives through its members, and thus acts through its members. In any case, the members should be able to reach consensus concearning a certain topic. Sometimes this may mean to make compromises, but discussed topics are expected to be of some importance, so they may not be talked over ad nauseam. It may appear to be a little problematical to act according to the premise, that the voice of every single member is as loud as any numer of members in oppositional camps. It is the quality of arguments however, not the quantity of their support which counts. If all members agree, but one, the actions following this issue will not be those of the TWF. All mebers of the TWF act in unison with eachother. This does not mean of course, that every member has to share the same streamlined point of view, but is able to agree with and acknowledge the decisions the TWF as a unit has reached. [Elan Voice] Oooh, ooh! Pick me, pick me![/Elan Voice] Consider my application filled and given to you. I await further orders :P ;) :P ! :teach: We are the twfs. Your individual distinctiveness and POV will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
DemonDavyJones 10-30-06, 06:45 PM	I see you put me on the list... yay me! Just one small thing to point out... I didn't say that :P , theotherdraxen did: There are checks and balances. I intend to be one of them. Just giving credit where credit is due;) . If you need a saying from me, try: Fire burns. Don't play with it, be careful around it, and never start it.
theotherdraxen 10-30-06, 09:21 PM	I started this thread, I am the one, who adds the new members, and the cookies to their entries, but...there will be nothing like [a] majority...The TWF is no democracy...Resistance is futile. You should be careful around what can be taken completely out of context. :P Edit:Just giving credit where credit is due;) Thanks! :cool:
Sylvaroth 10-31-06, 02:53 AM	Sorry to the both of you, my fault :blush: Entries were edited.
Sylvaroth 10-31-06, 03:26 AM	Somme suggestions for the statutes of the foundation: Members respect the Wizard.Community code of conduct . Members believe, that in dealing respectfully and politely with one's opposite leads to a more harmonious atmosphere in the Wizard.Community. Members are confident that everybody has the right of freedom of speech. Every voice is as important as any (number of) other voices, there are no leaders, there are no servants. The diversity of its mebers is the strength of the foundation. The foundation, though comprised of individual members with diverse point of views, speaks with one voice, this enables the foundation to unanimously mediate in conflicts in many different circumstances. Please PEACH and suggest changes or additions.
theotherdraxen 11-01-06, 06:57 PM	The foundation, though comprised of individual members with diverse point of views, speaks with one voice, this enables the foundation to unanimously mediate in conflicts in many different circumstances. This is the only one I question: how, if we are all individuals with different opinions, are we going to act with one voice without compromising our individually?
Sylvaroth 11-02-06, 01:14 PM	The idial of an individual is a person, who is able to decide for himself, where he or she can step back regaring his own needs, if it is for the good of the society, without giving up his or her own ideals. Without the willingness to compromise, no group or society is possible. Decide for yourself, if you agree or disagree with a certain topic, but at the same time you should be able to work towards a position each member of the foundation can live with. As I suggested for the statutes: Every voice is as important as any (number of) other voices. So unless we have not reached a consensus concearning a certain topic, the voice of the foundation will be pretty silent. Any comments voiced by any member of the foundation referring to the respective topic before this point of time, will be his or her own opinion, but will not reflect the voice of the foundation.
theotherdraxen 11-02-06, 06:47 PM	So, until a unanimous vote is reached, there will be no final decision? Or should the losing parties simply choose to remain silent while the rest of the members enforce the statute? I hope you aren't trying to create a confederacy.
Sylvaroth 11-03-06, 04:06 AM	So, until a unanimous vote is reached, there will be no final decision? See it this way, until we decided something, there simply is no decision. Or should the losing parties simply choose to remain silent while the rest of the members enforce the statute? As far as I am concearned, there will never be a losing party, either we all agree on something, or the discussed topic is not yet concluded with. If you, however declare, you trust in the ability to judge of those who discuss the current topic, you agree in advance with whatever decision they may reach. Still you are free to join the discussion at any point of time, or afterwards voicing doubts or critique, if new troubles arise. Nothing is forever, nobody is perfect, and the same applies to our doings and decisions. I hope you aren't trying to create a confederacy. I do not think so. Would you mind to explain to me why you fear this!
theotherdraxen 11-03-06, 04:02 PM	See it this way, until we decided something, there simply is no decision. Oh, so the debate goes on until there is only one side. Can you see how that might be problematic for strong convictions? I'm not trying to be negative about this: I joined up and I'm going to do my best to support the TWF. I'm just trying to find the leaks and fix them. I do not think so. Would you mind to explain to me why you fear this! A confederacy is a system of government where the states (or provinces) have more power than the central government. I'm using the term loosely here. What I mean is that it seems that you may be creating a system where the individual members have more power than the group as a whole. The United States tried this in its early years, and it fell apart. The South tried it again in the Civil war, and again, the weak central government fell apart. The main issue with a confederacy is that decision making and enforcing becomes virtually impossible if even a minority of the members disagree. This is where the dillema forms: on one hand, some people are extremely convicted, and will not give up, and can thus stall a statute from ever passing simply by refusing to agree. On the other hand, requiring them to act according to a statute they do not agree with is not realistic. On reflection, I think I may still not understand how this is all coming together. Will the debate really go on just as long as a single member disagrees with everyone else?
Sylvaroth 11-03-06, 04:55 PM	Well, that is the thought behind it. The group consists of members who have mainly the same goal. This is why it should not be too hard to decide about a topic. As long as not all members agree on a topic, there can be no final decision. On the one hand, if we were unable to convince one single member, how can you expect to convince the whole Wizard.Community? On the other hand, since we are all sophisticated and intelligent beings :cool: we schould be expected to be rational enough not to let a Tame War Foundation Civil War come to pass, shan't we?
theotherdraxen 11-03-06, 09:50 PM	Quite eloquent, Sylvaroth. I commend you. Very well, I have no complaints about your proposed statutes. Count me as a supporter of them.
Sylvaroth 11-04-06, 01:21 PM	Thank you very much theotherdraxen! :blush:
theotherdraxen 11-10-06, 11:22 PM	Wow...this place quited down fast. Anyway, I've encountered a problem as a member of the TWF. I know that I'm supposed to be a mediator, but I see flaming and arguments, and yet I struggle to involve myself. I don't want to tread where I'm not wanted: do they even want me to try to calm the debate? As a member of the TWF, what specifically am I supposed to do when confronted with an obvious flamefest?
Sylvaroth 11-11-06, 09:17 AM	theotherdraxen, as I already said before, I do not think we should actively search the boards for such situations. However, if you are interested in a thread, or you feel you could be, if flaming and arguments stopped, or if you think a newcomer to D&D and/or the Wizards.Community has been rudely dealt with, all of these are good reasons for a TWF member to act. Still, try not to appear to be too much of a smart-ass, -since the ultimate truth has many faces- but rather try to be helpful and illuminate the path leading the disputing parties to a constructive dialogue at the least. Of course there are and will be people, who will continue to be rude, no matter what you do, but concentrate on those who need help, and you will see, nobody who is obviously trying to find the way will turn down a helping hand. They say, do not feed trolls, but sometimes there is a sheep in troll's clothing. Be always sensitive to the subtle shades between coarse manners and actual trolling. Try to be cautious, impartial, and most of all fair, and willing to help, and you will have nothing to fear, when deciding to mediate in a conflict.
Tenzhi 11-12-06, 02:06 AM	That is everybodies right if you believe in the freedom of speech. Having the freedom of speech does not however mean, that you have to voice your opinion in an insulting and aggressive manner, or does it? Insult often lies in the perception of the reader as much as if not more than the poster. As for aggression - all conflicts, even those of opinion, involve some level of aggression.
Sylvaroth 11-12-06, 08:09 AM	Insult often lies in the perception of the reader as much as if not more than the poster. To a degree this is true, from a certain point onwards it is not. I can see a different attitude in "the point you make does not really make sense to me" and "I disagree with everything you say, because you are just plain stupid". As for aggression - all conflicts, even those of opinion, involve some level of aggression. Conflicts are IMO a result of competition and differing points of views. Aggression is simply insecurity, a lack of selfcontrol, or misdirected energies, or any combination of them. I see a difference between ambition and aggression. I see it this way: On the one hand, if we had no prejudices, -opinions established by whatever limited source of information we have access to- we would be unable to make even the simplest decisions. On the other hand, if we refuse to see, that nobody holds the ultimate truth and the universe around us does change, we will be unable to learn or adjust to new circumstances. Think of the scene in MIB, where T. L. Jones explains to W. Smith what people knew over the ages (the world is a disc, the world is not, man cannot fly, man can). There is nothing wrong about an opinion, as long as you are ready to adjust them to new facts. As your sig says, aggression is a question. Try and provide an answer to the question and the response will likely be tinted with gratitude.
theotherdraxen 11-12-06, 11:35 PM	theotherdraxen, as I already said before, I do not think we should actively search the boards for such situations. Right. This was a thread I was involved in. I did, however, involve myself in the flaming. I don't know if I really stopped it all, but once I pointed out to one of the 'trolls' that the troll-ee got the point, the flaming died down fast Try to be cautious, impartial, and most of all fair, and willing to help, and you will have nothing to fear, when deciding to mediate in a conflict. My question is how do I know when to start mediating, and when should I back off? Some people like to flame each other, and I'm not about to argue with them. I say let them have their fun. But how do I know when someone needs a little help versus someone that doesn't?
Sylvaroth 11-13-06, 07:29 AM	Right. This was a thread I was involved in. I did, however, involve myself in the flaming. I don't know if I really stopped it all, but once I pointed out to one of the 'trolls' that the troll-ee got the point, the flaming died down fast Congratulations! Could you provide a link to this thread? Seems like you just qualified for your first cooky ;) My question is how do I know when to start mediating, and when should I back off? Some people like to flame each other, and I'm not about to argue with them. I say let them have their fun. But how do I know when someone needs a little help versus someone that doesn't? If you see a thread derailing from its original topic and running straight into a flame war, consider if your help could end this. If you see two people bickering just for the fun of it, ignore them. If, however, you think a well put suggestion or comment could help to fix the dispute, try it and as you already have experienced, you may succeed. At any time you may call for the help of other TWF members, who may be more well-versed in a certain topic. We are not here to fight trolls, but to support an atmosphere of cooperativeness and community spirit for everybody.
theotherdraxen 11-13-06, 08:15 AM	Congratulations! Could you provide a link to this thread? Seems like you just qualified for your first cooky ;) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=737540 Post 80-85-ish. The only problem is I'm not sure there was any real flaming, only perceived flaming, or that my post really was the calming agent. I guess the other TWF members will just have to judge themselves. If you see a thread derailing from its original topic and running straight into a flame war, consider if your help could end this. If you see two people bickering just for the fun of it, ignore them. If, however, you think a well put suggestion or comment could help to fix the dispute, try it and as you already have experienced, you may succeed. At any time you may call for the help of other TWF members, who may be more well-versed in a certain topic. We are not here to fight trolls, but to support an atmosphere of cooperativeness and community spirit for everybody. Right. Don't try to get the trolls back, and don't stand in between two trolls. Just try to help the sheep. I think I got it.
Sylvaroth 11-13-06, 08:48 AM	Don't try to get the trolls back, and don't stand in between two trolls. Just try to help the sheep. Sounds like a good motto for the TWF to me :D
Tenzhi 11-15-06, 11:18 PM	As your sig says, aggression is a question. Try and provide an answer to the question and the response will likely be tinted with gratitude. Actually, it says that violence is a question. Aggression isn't always violent and is just as often a question as an answer - which is to say that sometimes aggression can provide a solution to a problem. Now I'm trying to remember if I was quoting someone or if that sig came from my own musings at some point.
Sylvaroth 11-16-06, 03:33 AM	Aggression isn't always violent and is just as often a question as an answer - which is to say that sometimes aggression can provide a solution to a problem. Violence, regardless of whether in physical or emotional form, is always aggressive. It hurts, no matter who is involved in it. Aggression, whether directed inward or outward is always violent. It leads to suffering, no matter who is involved, or subjected to it for any length of time. Please explain, how you think aggression could be regarded as positive. As I said above, ambition is something sensible and useful, which powers goals and endeavors. As soon as aggression participates, a positive outcome is imperiled and may degenerate to above mentioned thouroughfare to perdition.
theotherdraxen 11-16-06, 10:49 PM	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression Aggression –noun 1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression. 2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights. 3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general. 4. Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.
Tenzhi 11-17-06, 12:00 AM	Aggression, whether directed inward or outward is always violent. That's decidedly untrue. For example (in a great show of irony), at this very moment you're attacking my statement that aggression is not necessarily violent. You are showing aggression. This is inevitable whenever disparate ideals clash. It only becomes "violent" in a fashion if the assault becomes personal.
Sylvaroth 11-17-06, 12:14 PM	That's decidedly untrue. For example (in a great show of irony), at this very moment you're attacking my statement that aggression is not necessarily violent. You are showing aggression. This is inevitable whenever disparate ideals clash. It only becomes "violent" in a fashion if the assault becomes personal. I think I am misunderstood. Neither do I attack your statement, nor do I show aggression. I just enjoy a philosophical discussion with klindred spirits. :) In my last post I specified my definition of each aggression and violence, asked for an explanation of your view of those topics resp. asked for a rationale of your thesis ("Aggression isn't always violent and is just as often a question as an answer - which is to say that sometimes aggression can provide a solution to a problem.") and concluded with a statement about how I think ambition and aggression are neither the same nor good partners in a development. :teach: Then again your comment ("That's decidedly untrue.") shows some potential of aggression and violence against me. Don't worry I am not frightened by your "assault", but rather delighted by your example of one of my own theses ("Aggression, whether directed inward or outward is always violent."). By utterly negating and quashing my right of an own opinion, you hurt my feelings and attack said right. :weep: So while I show the will to learn from you so I maybe adopt a different attitude afterwards, if I am convinced to agree with you, you simply tell me I am wrong and accuse me of being offensive. This is only rude. :( Please try to be more respectful towards people (read me) who only want to understand your words, because they respect you for being a person with all consequential rights. Will you? ;)
Tenzhi 11-17-06, 11:51 PM	I think I am misunderstood. Neither do I attack your statement, nor do I show aggression. I just enjoy a philosophical discussion with klindred spirits. :) In my last post I specified my definition of each aggression and violence, asked for an explanation of your view of those topics resp. asked for a rationale of your thesis ("Aggression isn't always violent and is just as often a question as an answer - which is to say that sometimes aggression can provide a solution to a problem.") and concluded with a statement about how I think ambition and aggression are neither the same nor good partners in a development. :teach: You're dissenting. No matter how you try to couch it in friendly speech, it's still an attack on an opposing idea. What you're doing here is known as "spin." A gilded sword is still a sword. Then again your comment ("That's decidedly untrue.") shows some potential of aggression and violence against me. Don't worry I am not frightened by your "assault", but rather delighted by your example of one of my own theses ("Aggression, whether directed inward or outward is always violent."). By utterly negating and quashing my right of an own opinion, you hurt my feelings and attack said right. :weep: If you're delighted by it, then you are in fact unhurt. You negate your own view, here. While I won't deny that my own statement is a form of aggression, I deny that it is inherently violent. Assertion of fact only presents violence to that which is untrue. So while I show the will to learn from you so I maybe adopt a different attitude afterwards, if I am convinced to agree with you, you simply tell me I am wrong and accuse me of being offensive. This is only rude. :( Is it? I merely stated that you were attacking my ideals - this is simply the natural course of things in any sort of debate; you accused me of being violent. So if I was being rude, what were you doing? ;) Please try to be more respectful towards people (read me) who only want to understand your words, because they respect you for being a person with all consequential rights. Will you? ;) I am discussing a matter with you as a peer. The only way I could give you more respect would be to place you above me, and that won't happen.
Sylvaroth 11-18-06, 05:09 AM	That is very sad. I thought we could go on with the discussion now, but I am afraid it seems to degenerate into a childish "you did it, no you did it"-argument. I honestly wanted to talk about and understand your ideas, but you seem to prefer not to explain them. You simply tell me you are right, and I am not. That is no discussion, so I am considering to quit talking about this topic. It is however an example of why a discussion cannot be fruitful, if one or both of the parties involved are not willing to make concessions or are open and prepared to change their attitude, if they think it is reasonable. So if you (TWF mebers) see at least two people on the board, who are engaged in a conflict, of which one is looking for help, while the other one is constantly explaining to him, that he is a dumbass, ignore the latter and give the former a hand.
Tenzhi 11-19-06, 12:08 AM	That is very sad. I thought we could go on with the discussion now, but I am afraid it seems to degenerate into a childish "you did it, no you did it"-argument. We were having a discussion about the nature of argument and aggression. And now you're saying sidelong that I'm being childish. I bet you would still deny your own aggression, however. And that's the problem with trying to take the moral high road - you have to step on someone to get there. I honestly wanted to talk about and understand your ideas, but you seem to prefer not to explain them. You simply tell me you are right, and I am not. That is no discussion, so I am considering to quit talking about this topic. I explained them through example quite clearly for anyone who was paying attention. You say I was telling you that I'm right and you're not - but by asserting otherwise you're telling me the same thing. Given your assumed stance that makes your own argument self-defeating. Furthermore, if you back down then I've accomplished something through aggression. I'm all for relatively peaceful coexistence. But there will always be conflict through difference of opinion or fact. And such is inherently aggressive. You can sugar-coat the aggression with social niceties, but that doesn't change its nature. As I said before - a gilded sword is still a sword. The glaze/gilding is essentially a lie. Lies eventually crumble under their own weight. If you're going to strive to achieve any sort of peace, build it on a foundation of truth. It is however an example of why a discussion cannot be fruitful, if one or both of the parties involved are not willing to make concessions or are open and prepared to change their attitude, if they think it is reasonable. There cannot always be compromise. Some arguments are binary in nature, or perceived as such by the involved parties. It is human nature to choose sides.
Sylvaroth 11-19-06, 09:14 AM	You are just too smart for me, are you? :D IMO there are no sides, but shades for somebody who is willing to learn. You decide your ideas are right without ever comparing them to other ideas? Go with it, though your ideas will become wrong and wronger, the longer you deny the nature of change. Ignorance and an exaggerated opinion of oneself is the base for prejudice. I for my part do not have to step on or gag somebody just in fear my ideas might be revealed as wrong or incomplete, I know they are incomplety, since NOBODY knows the whole picture. The world around us keeps changing and so do my ideals and ideas. If I seem to ride the moral high road, this is, because my ethics are more developed than usual. I do not claim to be perfect and I do not expect it from others, but I do expect others to use their brains and not their pride in a discussion. A dialogue cannot be without compromise. There is always a struggle for an agreement on e.g. the topic, the use of language, aso. If you chose a side and were unwilling to make even one step towards your opponent, it would not be a dialogue or discussion, but two monologues without any profit for any of the opposing sides. I see it this way, I try to explain my point of view and want to know yours, so we would have a common base to build a discussion on. You seem to see it this way, you do not need to explain yourself, because only an idiot (me) would not agree with you. Again, I find it sad, that you seem to feel able to sum up my assumed deficiencies, but appear to lack the will to sum up your own thoughts. I would like to see an explanation of your assumptions, so I may see, what I can learn from them. BTW any suggestions for or additions to the statutes, anyone?
theotherdraxen 11-20-06, 10:41 PM	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression Aggression –noun 1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression. 2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights. 3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general. 4. Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself. I posted this to show that there is a difference between taking a side and making an argument, and truly aggressive action. IMO, it isn't aggressive until it is done with anger. Also, aggresion at the minimum implies something far greater than an online debate on the nature of conflict. If it does involve an amount of aggression, then it is the faintest thread. Tenzhi is correct, there is a level of aggression, but I feel that in a calm situation, this level of aggression is inconsequential. It no more taints the subject than a bad thought makes one a bad person. I, for one, am content to live with a degree of aggression (and to a point, even a degree of violence, though it may be small), so long as that aggression is not disruptive to harmony at large or harmony within a person.
Tenzhi 11-22-06, 03:00 AM	I posted this to show that there is a difference between taking a side and making an argument, and truly aggressive action. IMO, it isn't aggressive until it is done with anger. Also, aggresion at the minimum implies something far greater than an online debate on the nature of conflict. If it does involve an amount of aggression, then it is the faintest thread. Tenzhi is correct, there is a level of aggression, but I feel that in a calm situation, this level of aggression is inconsequential. It no more taints the subject than a bad thought makes one a bad person. Pretty much. Aggression is not necessarily violent. You can aggressively pursue a course of action without necessarily harming anything. You are just too smart for me, are you? :D Not necessarily. Just apparently more tactically-minded when it comes to argument. IMO there are no sides, but shades for somebody who is willing to learn. Indeed. I've been known to note on many occasions that situations are not as binary as some would imagine. For instance, the matter of aggression in arguments. ;) You decide your ideas are right without ever comparing them to other ideas? And you decide that my ideas are wrong, while assuming that I've never considered any other viewpoints? Go with it, though your ideas will become wrong and wronger, the longer you deny the nature of change. Ignorance and an exaggerated opinion of oneself is the base for prejudice. I for my part do not have to step on or gag somebody just in fear my ideas might be revealed as wrong or incomplete, I know they are incomplety, since NOBODY knows the whole picture. The world around us keeps changing and so do my ideals and ideas. If I seem to ride the moral high road, this is, because my ethics are more developed than usual. I do not claim to be perfect and I do not expect it from others, but I do expect others to use their brains and not their pride in a discussion. And incidentally, refusing to discuss a topic as you threatened to do is essentially the same as gagging somebody. A dialogue cannot be without compromise. There is always a struggle for an agreement on e.g. the topic, the use of language, aso. If you chose a side and were unwilling to make even one step towards your opponent, it would not be a dialogue or discussion, but two monologues without any profit for any of the opposing sides. You can listen to an opponent and accept their viewpoint while firmly maintaining your own position. You can discuss the differences and simiilarities of your viewpoints without compromise. I see it this way, I try to explain my point of view and want to know yours, so we would have a common base to build a discussion on. You seem to see it this way, you do not need to explain yourself, because only an idiot (me) would not agree with you. I have not called you an idiot. And I have been explaining myself throughout. Again, I find it sad, that you seem to feel able to sum up my assumed deficiencies, but appear to lack the will to sum up your own thoughts. I would like to see an explanation of your assumptions, so I may see, what I can learn from them. The explanation of my position is there. But if you ask me a specific question I may try to provide a more direct answer. Keep in mind that the broader the question is, however, the broader my response will be.
Flamewarrior 11-22-06, 01:27 PM	I see a difference between ambition and aggression.According to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/, "aggressiveness" can be defined as "the quality of being bold and enterprising"; so, if one, for a moment, considers it to be similar enough to "aggression" to be used interchangeably with it, which I don't consider far-fetched, we actually have a way to label something good as "aggression" - and, considering the first definition comes from Princeton's Department of Psychology, I think it's safe to make an argument off it; Tenzhi's words seem to have been originated from a similar definition, so he's not wrong, just using a very counter-intuitive definition - and I think he (or "she"?) failed to be tactically-minded only in never actually explaining what he considered to be aggression while using a scarcely known definition; at least, if by "tactically-minded", he didn't mean "able to confound", but "able to both lead and be led into useful conclusions", because the latter would be accomplished faster by a more thorough explanation; but still, his original point seems to stand.
theotherdraxen 11-22-06, 11:18 PM	Essentially, this entire argument has been a semantic one. Can we get back to the statutes?
Tenzhi 11-23-06, 12:33 AM	Essentially, this entire argument has been a semantic one. Many of them are around here. And this one was pretty tame compared to most. If any one of you were to intercede in a real argument, it would behoove you not to let on in any way that you think you're superior to the participants. And perhaps an even more difficult task is to avoid taking a side - that sounds easy but it doesn't really take much for someone on either side of an argument to read such a choice into your words. And be wary of masterful practitioners of rhetoric. They may turn your own words against you and manipulate you into saying things that make your position look worse.
Sylvaroth 11-23-06, 03:45 AM	Many of them are around here. And this one was pretty tame compared to most. Sure it was, its the TAME War Foundation, guys and gals ;) If any one of you were to intercede in a real argument, it would behoove you not to let on in any way that you think you're superior to the participants. D'oh :) And perhaps an even more difficult task is to avoid taking a side - that sounds easy but it doesn't really take much for someone on either side of an argument to read such a choice into your words. We are always on the side of reason and politeness :P And be wary of masterful practitioners of rhetoric. They may turn your own words against you and manipulate you into saying things that make your position look worse. Since rhetoric is simply a tool, everybody may use it as he sees fitting. I do not think we are that unequipped either. So we may not be tripped easily. So lets get back to the statutes, any suggestions or additions?
theotherdraxen 11-23-06, 12:51 PM	So lets get back to the statutes, any suggestions or additions? Well, it would be nice to have some defined duties as a member of the TWF. Something along the lines of helping out the more peaceful members (helping out the sheep, like you said). I'm not so good at the legal speech, so I wouldn't know how this should be written...
Sylvaroth 11-24-06, 08:01 AM	Members of the Tame War Foundation (TWF) follow the guidelines of the below conventions to the best of their knowledge and belief, to further and maintain an atmosphere of cooperation and cohesion in the Wizard.Community and for the benefit of its members respectively: Etiquette: The code that governs the expectations of social behavior. Freedom of expression and opinion (also called freedom of speech): The right everyone has to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience and freedom of ideas): The right everyone has to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, regardless of anyone else's view. Wizard.Community's Code of Conduct (also called CoC (http://boards1.wizards.com/community_coc.php)): Prohibited chat room, board, and e-mail list behaviors WotC deems to be harmful to individual guests, damaging to the communities which make up Wizards.Community, or in violation of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.'s or any third-party rights. Notes: The above points are ordered alphabetical, so the particular rank does not intend to make a statement about the relative importance of the individual topic in the list. Though they are seperated from eachother in the list, these four are as a whole the ground the guidelines and statutes of the TWF are based on. Since laws (freedom of speech and freedom of thought) and rules (CoC) cannot reach for every aspect of life, other conventions (etiquette) can. Still, commonsense is in demand, as even rules or the absence thereof can be used against the original intent or to justify impoliteness.
Tenzhi 11-24-06, 11:44 PM	I just thought I'd point out that the abbreviation TWF already has a common usage on the Wizards boards, so it might be best to use another to avoid any chance of confusion.
Sylvaroth 11-25-06, 05:35 AM	Or let's be the Two Weapon Fighters ;)
theotherdraxen 11-25-06, 03:37 PM	The frame of reference usually sets the two apart. It's kind of hard to be a member of Two Weapon Fighting, and pretty difficult to max out the Tame War Foundation.
Sylvaroth 11-25-06, 05:58 PM	The frame of reference usually sets the two apart. It's kind of hard to be a member of Two Weapon Fighting, and pretty difficult to max out the Tame War Foundation. :rofl:
DemonDavyJones 11-25-06, 09:24 PM	:heehee [gangsta voice]Yo yo yo, yo! I'm a member of the two pistol firin' group... And I tame down my wars, ta da max!!... [/gangsta voice]
Sylvaroth 12-05-06, 07:29 PM	Draxen, come and visit the Dictionary of Terminology (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=509001), please! I bet you did not know you have made it in there. Just a hint: Look for Draxen's Corollary :D
theotherdraxen 12-07-06, 12:51 AM	Draxen, come and visit the Dictionary of Terminology (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=509001), please! I bet you did not know you have made it in there. Just a hint: Look for Draxen's Corollary :D Makes me feel kind of guilty that I didn't check back here for two days...thanks Sylvaroth!
Sylvaroth 12-07-06, 04:53 AM	Makes me feel kind of guilty that I didn't check back here for two days...thanks Sylvaroth! Well, shame on you! :D Btw the Oberoni Fallacy and links to it have been included to the Dictionary, too. Just in case you or anybody else needed them sometime. Also I still need a decision about both the statutes and the first TWF cookie to be given to Draxen. Please members, tell me what you think.
theotherdraxen 12-07-06, 03:17 PM	Well, shame on you! :allalone: Also I still need a decision about both the statutes and the first TWF cookie to be given to Draxen. Please members, tell me what you think. So...does my vote count? :schemes:
Sylvaroth 12-07-06, 05:33 PM	:allalone: :bigeyes: Don't you cry, or I fear I will do so, too! You came back, which is all that counts, right? So...does my vote count? :schemes: That is actually a good question, which made me realize, this case is not covered in the OP. Nobody may suggest himself for a TWF cookie. Well, this was so until you made me aware of the loop hole. Now it is changed as follows: Nobody may suggest himself for a TWF cookie, or in the case of a placed motion, vote for himself. I am afraid you will have to wait now, until one of the many other members has approved my motion for a TWF cookie for you. Which makes me think of another addition to the statutes. A time limit for decisions: "If a member does not actively join a discussion or voice his/her agreement with whatever decision resulted from the discussion, his voice is considered pending. The TWF can make decisions with pending votes in place. Within a reasonable period of time the respective member may change his vote from pending to cast, by voicing his agreement or objection concerning the decision in question."
DemonDavyJones 12-07-06, 05:45 PM	I vote for Draxen for a cookie. I will be back to discuss the statutamathingymabobs. Over and out :) .
Sylvaroth 12-07-06, 06:20 PM	Welcome back DemonDavyJones! So it seems we got our first TWF cookie owner (see OP): Congratulations Draxen!
theotherdraxen 12-07-06, 06:23 PM	"If a member does not actively join a discussion or voice his/her agreement with whatever decision resulted from the discussion, his voice is considered pending. The TWF can make decisions with pending votes in place. Within a reasonable period of time the respective member may change his vote from pending to cast, by voicing his agreement or objection concerning the decision in question." I like this one. Also, I'd like to put in a clause to penalize bad conduct on the behalf of TWF members. We can't have 10 cookie winners starting up flame wars. On the other hand, we don't want to start up a 'polite elitist' movement. If a TWF member consistently and/or grossly violates the CoC and/or the statutes of the TWF, then said member will be penalized. In any case, the situation must be brought forth by a board member (and not necessarily a TWF member), and shall be put to vote before the rest of the members as to whether the act(s) deserve penalization. Penalties progress in the following order. 1. Warning. The member will be informed that their actions are regarded by the majority of the TWF as unacceptable. Perhaps two warnings would suffice. 2. Loss of cookies. If said member continues to violate the CoC of this board or of the TWF, then s/he will lose all cookies earned. 3. Censorship. I do not feel it appropriate for TWF members to actually force other members to leave, however, a period of censorship, where they will not be permitted to vote on issues (i.e. their votes will be ignored) or otherwise participate in TWF events until such a time that said member demonstrates that they are willing to show good behavior, at which time, the censorship will be removed. Step 3 is only for those that violate the code with blatant disregard. If said member honestly feels that what they are doing is 'okay', then they just have an opinion, and while we can't let such gross behavior be displayed alongside badges of merit, we cannot truly judge the person harshly. After all, they are not commiting such acts 'in cold blood', so to speak.
theotherdraxen 12-07-06, 06:26 PM	Welcome back DemonDavyJones! So it seems we got our first TWF cookie owner: Congratulations Draxen! Crap, missed my own cookie reception! Next, it's going to be my graduation...not that that would be more important than this! :D
Sylvaroth 12-07-06, 06:37 PM	Sadly SeptimusMagistos considered joining discussions in the TWF to be too much work. He just pm-ed me to count him out of the member list. :( Well, let's see the bright side of it: More cookies for us :D
Sylvaroth 12-07-06, 06:43 PM	Great ideas, Draxen! I will work to add all suggestions for the statutes together as soon as I can spare some time. Hopefully by this weekend, so stay tuned. Btw. you are graduating? Tell us how it turned out, please!
theotherdraxen 12-07-06, 08:59 PM	Sadly SeptimusMagistos considered joining discussions in the TWF to be too much work. He just pm-ed me to count him out of the member list. :( Well, let's see the bright side of it: More cookies for us :D I was wondering why he didn't respond. Weird that he'd call it too much work, seeing as all you really have to do is put something in your sig and keep the CoC in mind while posting. Btw. you are graduating? Tell us how it turned out, please! I certainly hope so! My graduation ceremony may very well be, er, 'post-poned' for a year. Oh, and is there a proper format for cookies?
Sylvaroth 12-08-06, 04:04 AM	I was wondering why he didn't respond. Weird that he'd call it too much work, seeing as all you really have to do is put something in your sig and keep the CoC in mind while posting. *Sigh* I believe he meant it when he said IIRC he just liked to put something in his sig. He would not even have to write anything regarding the guidelines we came up with a few posts ago. Oh well, let's just file it away under negative experiences, so we know to more cautiously examine a membership in the future. Which makes me think we may need some requirements to join the TWF. At the very least, the applicant should appear to be interested in the goals of the TWF as well as the TWF's activities here and elsewhere on the boards. I certainly hope so! My graduation ceremony may very well be, er, 'post-poned' for a year. I guess I know what you mean, but I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. Oh, and is there a proper format for cookies? Please define what you understand by 'proper format for cookies'. I am not quite sure I understand what you want to know.
Tenzhi 12-08-06, 04:17 AM	Being too exclusionary would seem to be antithetical to your goals, however. Exclusion being injurious in nature.
Sylvaroth 12-08-06, 10:17 AM	Exactly what I was thinking while typing my last post, but some restrictions are necessary if we do not want to end up with having 300 pending members and only 30 active ones. Btw. Tenzhi, aren't you interested in joining us? I got to know you as somebody who would propably be a good addition to our ranks. So, what do you say?
DemonDavyJones 12-08-06, 04:02 PM	The Statutes look good so far. I'll just have to go over them with a fine-toothed comb to make sure there are no loopholes... :detect: Resistance is futile! Your war will be assimilated! :fett: :fight!: :emp: :fight!: :fett: Anyway, off the top of my head, some possible (possible) "restrictions" on entering the Foundation. 1. A poster cannot join just to put the link in his/her sig. 2. Said poster must show interest in the Tame War Foundation and it's activities. 3. Track record, track record, track record. Newbie-types probably should not be allowed to join for a while as they don't yet have much experience on the boards. Learn the ropes before you stop them from lighting on fire, people! Also, a longer record should be a good one. A potential member does not have to be an angel, but they can't be a devil. 4. In general, a potential member probably should be able to give and recieve constructive criticism, as well as be able to have a debate or disagreement in which both sides remain cordial and stay away from an argument. Debates and constructive criticism seem like they will probably be a rather substantial part of the Foundation. This list is not made to be used. It's made to be critiqued, changed, gone over with a legal magnifying glass, lost, found, burned, reconstructed from the ashes after they were used in a birds nest, and then used. :D Allrighty, now to look at those Statutes and find and attempt to fix any and all loopholes so that (cue Star Wars Music) this Foundation becomes an unstoppable force of rulership:evillaugh ... an iron fist of law clasping these boards in it's grip with unbeatable force, crushing the rebels and naysayers with---Oh, I'm sorry, did I say that out loud? Ignore. :angelhide
Tenzhi 12-08-06, 11:26 PM	Btw. Tenzhi, aren't you interested in joining us? I got to know you as somebody who would propably be a good addition to our ranks. So, what do you say? I'm flattered, but it's a well-known fact that I don't join any of these foundations. I've been known to assist them in efforts, but I prefer to remain unaffiliated. Besides which, though I largely have it under control these days, I still have a natural penchant for argumentative volatility that I would not chance sullying your efforts with. I can become rather... enthusiastic about my ideals and opinions. It's one of the reasons I don't venture into the D&D side of these boards too much anymore - I too easily end up ranting at a podium and beating it with a shoe. ;)
theotherdraxen 12-09-06, 12:02 AM	Oh well, let's just file it away under negative experiences Or we could kick some serious ass! :fight!: Which makes me think we may need some requirements to join the TWF. At the very least, the applicant should appear to be interested in the goals of the TWF as well as the TWF's activities here and elsewhere on the boards. While I agree with Tenzhi that we are not an exclusionary group, I do happen to understand that there does need to be at least some kind of limitation on who joins. We can't have slackers joining up and then getting censored for the rest of the time. That, too, would be antithetical to the purposes of this group. I guess I know what you mean, but I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. Thanks! Please define what you understand by 'proper format for cookies'. I am not quite sure I understand what you want to know. To be honest, it's probably enough to know that I earned one. Oh, and on the matter of cookies, shouldn't we have a record-book of some kind? No so they can be shown off, but so they can be removed. If they are in someone's sig, then there is no way to revoke them if said cookie-winner goes bad. I too easily end up ranting at a podium and beating it with a shoe. ;) Silly Khrushchev!
Crashy75 12-10-06, 12:00 PM	That is everybodies right if you believe in the freedom of speech. Having the freedom of speech does not however mean, that you have to voice your opinion in an insulting and aggressive manner, or does it? Two words. Larry Flint. :D
theotherdraxen 12-12-06, 11:03 PM	Hey, Slyvaroth! Are we going to have those statutes posted any time soon?
Sylvaroth 12-13-06, 04:43 AM	I am pretty busy these days, so bear with me, if it may take a little longer. To give you something to discuss, I compiled a little FAQ: TWF FAQ What is the TWF? Do we really need the TWF? Is the TWF watching me? Are TWFs endowed with special moderator rights? When should a TWF member act? What can TWF member do to help? What are TWF cookies and how can I get one? Who can post in this thread? What is the Tame War Foundation? The Tame War Foundation (TWF) is an initiative for more politeness in the Wizards.Community. We see it as a network of helpful members of the Wizard.Community, who want everybody to have the opportunity to feel comfortable on the boards. We hope to help not only in mediating disputes, but also in helping our fellow members with useful pieces of information. Please see our members as guides to turn to, if you are searching for help. This includes questions about the boards, D&D related conflicts, or general questions about interpersonal communication. I have been to other forums and the Wizard.Community is very civil in comparison, so do we really need the Tame War Foundation? While we agree that the WizOs do a very good job in moderating the boards, we believe that the amount of flaming and trolling on the boards are still an issue of concern. Certainly, there are forums who are fare worse, but the question at hand is: Do we want ANY level of trolling and flaming on our boards, regardless of frequency and intensity? We believe that by setting good examples, a higher level of "niceness" can be achieved. Do the members of the Tame War Foundation actively spy on people who misbehave in their opinion, so they can denunciate them to the WizOs? This is certainly not our intention. The point of being a member of the TWF is not about hunting people who said controversial things, but about showing the community how conflicts can be resolved without resorting to disrespectful and rude behavior. Expressing controversial opinions is not against the CoC, and we support everyone’s right of free thought and speech. If, however you post on these boards in a fashion the CoC prohibits or with the intent to provoke such behavior from others, be prepared to suffer the consequences. (see the section Disciplinary Procedures of the CoC) Are TWFs endowed with special moderator rights? That is, do you have powers similar to those of the WizOs? In short: No. We do, however, believe that by setting good examples of behavior, and communicating openly and with honest intent, we can resolve conflicts before they reach the point of needing the intervention of the moderators. When should a Tame War Foundation member act? If you are interested in a thread, or you feel you could be, if flaming and arguments stopped, or if you think a newcomer to D&D and/or the Wizards.Community has been rudely dealt with, all of these are good reasons for a TWF member to act. Also it has been suggested that, if one saw a thread that seemed in danger to degenerate into a flame war, or if one otherwise felt a few calm words might pour oil on troubled water, one should give it a try. What can TWF member do to help? There are several techniques any member may utilize. You might get an idea of those methods as you read through this FAQ, others are linked to below: Guerilla Signal Fidelity I am not a member of the TWF, can I post here anyways? All members of the Wizards.Community are encouraged and invited to join in TWF discussions, and to post questions or give suggestions. What are TWF cookies and how can I get one? Members of the Wizards.Community as well as members of the TWF may be suggested for a :cookie: to be included to his/her TWF member entry respectively honorary member entry, as a reward for special merits in the sense of the foundation. Honorary members are members of the Wizards.Community, who are not members of the TWF, but have been awarded a TWF cookie. To nominate someone for a cookie motion, please include a short explanatory statement and a link to the appropriate thread(s). Please do not nominate yourself or, in the case of being nominated, vote for yourself. Any nominations must be seconded by at least one member of the TWF or a WizO.
Sylvaroth 12-13-06, 05:09 AM	Members of the Tame War Foundation (TWF) follow the guidelines of the below conventions to the best of their knowledge and belief, to further and maintain an atmosphere of cooperation and cohesion in the Wizard.Community and for the benefit of its members respectively: Etiquette: The code that governs the expectations of social behavior. Freedom of expression and opinion (also called freedom of speech): The right everyone has to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience and freedom of ideas): The right everyone has to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, regardless of anyone else's view. Wizard.Community's Code of Conduct (also called CoC (http://boards1.wizards.com/community_coc.php)): Prohibited chat room, board, and e-mail list behaviors WotC deems to be harmful to individual guests, damaging to the communities which make up Wizards.Community, or in violation of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.'s or any third-party rights. Notes: The above points are ordered alphabetical, so the particular rank does not intend to make a statement about the relative importance of the individual topic in the list. Though they are seperated from eachother in the list, these four are as a whole the ground the guidelines and statutes of the TWF are based on. Since laws (freedom of speech and freedom of thought) and rules (CoC) cannot reach for every aspect of life, other conventions (etiquette) can. Still, commonsense is in demand, as even rules or the absence thereof can be used against the original intent or to justify impoliteness. Members believe, that in dealing respectfully and politely with one's opposite leads to a more harmonious atmosphere in the Wizard.Community. Every voice is as important as any (number of) other voices, there are no leaders, there are no servants. Every member of the TWF is expected to bring in his/her or her own unique point of view with regard to discussions, polls and decision-making. Since no group or society is possible, without the willingness to compromise, you sure may decide for yourself, if you agree or disagree with a certain topic, but at the same time you should be able to work towards a position each member of the foundation can live with. Sometimes this/her may mean to make compromises, but discussed topics are expected to be of some importance, so they may not be talked over ad nauseam. Still, either all members agree on something, or the discussed topic is not yet concluded with. If a member, however declares, he/she trusts in the ability to judge of those who discuss the current topic, he/she agrees in advance with whatever decision they may reach. Still he/she is free to join the discussion at any point of time, or afterwards voicing doubts or critique, if new troubles arise. Nothing is forever, nobody is perfect, and the same applies to our doings and decisions. If a member does not actively join a discussion or voice his/her agreement with whatever decision resulted from the discussion, his/her voice is considered pending. The TWF can make decisions with pending votes in place. Within a reasonable period of time the respective member may change his/her vote from pending to cast, by voicing his/her agreement or objection concerning the decision in question. The diversity of its members is the strength of the foundation. The foundation [, though comprised of individual members with diverse point of views,] speaks with one voice. This/her enables the foundation to unanimously mediate in conflicts in many different circumstances. If all, but one of the members agree with a certain decision the actions following this/her issue will not be those of the TWF. All members of the TWF act in unison with each other. This/her does not mean of course, that every member has to share the same streamlined point of view, but is able to agree with and acknowledge the decisions the TWF as a unit has reached.
Sylvaroth 12-13-06, 05:37 AM	Or we could kick some serious ass! :fight!: And risk the first TWF cookie I ever had the honor to hand out? No way, man! :D While I agree with Tenzhi that we are not an exclusionary group, I do happen to understand that there does need to be at least some kind of limitation on who joins. We can't have slackers joining up and then getting censored for the rest of the time. That, too, would be antithetical to the purposes of this group. I suggest to introduce a ranking system: Aspirants (rank 0): Members who are interested in joining the foundation, but do not yet qualify for a full membership. Members (rank 1 to 5): Members who have proven their interest in the foundation and its goals. Also members with one up to five TWF cookies. Veteran (rank 6+): Deserved members who notably added to a positive atmosphere in both the Wizards.Community and the TWF. And last but not least there is my rank: Can't-touch-this: OP of the TWF :D Thanks! To be honest, it's probably enough to know that I earned one. Probably, but I'd still like to hear about your thoughts concearning a format for TWF cookies. Btw. what is it like to be the prime cookie? ;) Oh, and on the matter of cookies, shouldn't we have a record-book of some kind? No so they can be shown off, but so they can be removed. If they are in someone's sig, then there is no way to revoke them if said cookie-winner goes bad. Well, the cookies are added to the members entry in the OP. This is the only relevant TWF cookie record. What somebody does with his/her sig is out of our reach. Hey, Slyvaroth! Are we going to have those statutes posted any time soon? Sorry you'd have to wait that long, just go on without me when I seem not to be around that often. Still, I will do my best to spare some time even when I am as busy as I am these days.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 01:21 PM	I suggest to introduce a ranking system: Aspirants (rank 0): Members who are interested in joining the foundation, but do not yet qualify for a full membership. Members (rank 1 to 5): Members who have proven their interest in the foundation and its goals. Also members with one up to five TWF cookies. Veteran (rank 6+): Deserved members who notably added to a positive atmosphere in both the Wizards.Community and the TWF. And last but not least there is my rank: Can't-touch-this: OP of the TWF :D Wow. Much better than I thought. It might lend itself to eliteism (Tenzhi will be sure to let us know if it looks bad, and I trust his advice), but otherwise looks like a good system. And as for the last rank: *poke* *poke* Nope, I guess not. :rimshot: Probably, but I'd still like to hear about your thoughts concearning a format for TWF cookies. I think your ranking system is fine. Under each member's name in the original post, have an sblock with the number of cookies and a brief tag saying why. The member him/herself will just put the rank they have in their sig. Btw. what is it like to be the prime cookie? ;) Sort of like putting your hand down a rabid prarie dog's...what? Ain't you never been to New Jersey before? Well, the cookies are added to the members entry in the OP. This is the only relevant TWF cookie record. What somebody does with his/her sig is out of our reach. Unless, of course, we kick some ass! :fight!: Sorry you'd have to wait that long, just go on without me when I seem not to be around that often. Still, I will do my best to spare some time even when I am as busy as I am these days. Sounds good. I'll do that. Seeing as I don't have a life (and I'm going to keep it that way) I'll assume the position of caretaker of this thread while you aren't here.
Sylvaroth 12-13-06, 04:09 PM	Wow. Much better than I thought. It might lend itself to eliteism (Tenzhi will be sure to let us know if it looks bad, and I trust his advice), but otherwise looks like a good system. Well, thanks, we'll see how it works. And as for the last rank: *poke* *poke* Nope, I guess not. :rimshot: :ayyyy!: I think your ranking system is fine. Under each member's name in the original post, have an sblock with the number of cookies and a brief tag saying why. The member him/herself will just put the rank they have in their sig. Any idea what yours should look like? Sort of like putting your hand down a rabid prarie dog's...what? Ain't you never been to New Jersey before? Actually I am one of those few chosen, who never visited the new world. Sounds good. I'll do that. Seeing as I don't have a life (and I'm going to keep it that way) I'll assume the position of caretaker of this thread while you aren't here. Get a life ;)
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 06:54 PM	Well, thanks, we'll see how it works. Sweet! Any idea what yours should look like? Well, I guess I can just rightfully call myself a member now. I'll be waiting for the day I earn 6 six cookies to change my sig. Actually I am one of those few chosen, who never visited the new world. Yeah, you're always exploring the plains of Melea. Should have figured. Oh, and random guess: Australia? Get a life ;) I'll get your mom a life!
Sylvaroth 12-14-06, 05:38 AM	Well, I guess I can just rightfully call myself a member now. I'll be waiting for the day I earn 6 six cookies to change my sig. Right. Still, if being the prime cookie is like putting your hand down a rabid prarie dog's... then I am afraid to learn what being a hexa cookie will be like ;) Yeah, you're always exploring the plains of Melea. Should have figured. Not always, just as long as it takes to complete my shaman core class (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=712891). Oh, and random guess: Australia? Wow, how'd you know? :lol: I'll get your mom a life! Well, she's got more than enough of that. Maybe, if you asked very nicely she could spare some for you? :D
Ryngard 12-14-06, 02:41 PM	I like the concept of trying to be nicer and less... "holier than thou" on these boards. The anonymity that the Net has given us has opened the flood gates for jerks and smug egotists. I hate it. I think you should scrap the whole ranking system and all that and just make a little sig graphic that basically shows those who use it as in support of the movement. What is the movement? To be a nice person in all your deeds. To not treat people like crap for asking innocent questions. To not be mean, smug, egotistical jerks. Wouldn't that be a nice start?
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 03:22 PM	I like the concept of trying to be nicer and less... "holier than thou" on these boards. The anonymity that the Net has given us has opened the flood gates for jerks and smug egotists. I hate it. I think you should scrap the whole ranking system and all that and just make a little sig graphic that basically shows those who use it as in support of the movement. What is the movement? To be a nice person in all your deeds. To not treat people like crap for asking innocent questions. To not be mean, smug, egotistical jerks. Wouldn't that be a nice start? Well, this isn't quite everything the Tame War Foundation stands for. Being nice is good an all, but we are also mediators. Granted, as Sylvaroth told me, a TWF member isn't supposed to 'flame' trolls back, or get between two trolls, but to try to help the sheep. As members, we try to mediate and quell conflicts, hopefully sparing the innocent of a flame war.
Sylvaroth 12-14-06, 03:53 PM	Well, this isn't quite everything the Tame War Foundation stands for. Being nice is good an all, but we are also mediators. Granted, as Sylvaroth told me, a TWF member isn't supposed to 'flame' trolls back, or get between two trolls, but to try to help the sheep. As members, we try to mediate and quell conflicts, hopefully sparing the innocent of a flame war. QFT :D
DemonDavyJones 12-14-06, 05:46 PM	Well, this isn't quite everything the Tame War Foundation stands for. Being nice is good an all, but we are also mediators. Granted, as Sylvaroth told me, a TWF member isn't supposed to 'flame' trolls back, or get between two trolls, but to try to help the sheep. As members, we try to mediate and quell conflicts, hopefully sparing the innocent of a flame war. Word! :) However, I find your lack of interest in my proposed Tame War Empire appaling. Originally Posted By: Me Allrighty, now to look at those Statutes and find and attempt to fix any and all loopholes so that (cue Star Wars Music) this Foundation becomes an unstoppable force of rulership ... an iron fist of law clasping these boards in it's grip with unbeatable force, crushing the rebels and naysayers with---Oh, I'm sorry, did I say that out loud? Ignore. Where's your conquering spirit, people? ;) :schemes: :devil: :emp: :devil: :schemes:
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 08:02 PM	However, I find your lack of interest in my proposed Tame War Empire appaling. Where's your conquering spirit, people? ;) :schemes: :devil: :emp: :devil: :schemes: I kept saying we need to kick ass! :fight!: Whadda ya think, Davy Jones? Time for a Caesar-style revoluton in the Tame War Foundation? Once a mighty democracy, now a vast empire of three members! Join us Sylvaroth, lest ye be made a slave to the might of the Empire!
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 10:17 PM	Wow, how'd you know? :lol: Well, you said you've never seen the new world, and you write in fluent english without a single sign of a foreign language preceding you. So, I assumed that you came from an English-speaking community. This leaves us with England and Australia. To my knowledge, there are no other Old World nations that speak English primarily, so my ignorance helped me out here. There aren't too many posters here from England, but a good number are from Australia. I've seen several people around here 'looking for meet-up in Australia', ect., so I assumed you were a part of that populace. Besides, Australia is one of the few nations left whose people are friendly with the US (I've been to Italy, Spain, and Austria: they no like us there:nonono:), so the fact that you didn't spit in my face kind of tipped me off. :P
DemonDavyJones 12-15-06, 10:47 PM	I make a motion to kick some serious ass! FIGHT, MY MINIONS! :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :duel: :duel: :fight!:
theotherdraxen 12-15-06, 11:28 PM	I make a motion to kick some serious ass! :rofl:
itwasntme 12-17-06, 01:46 AM	i allso wouldnt mind joining this group and as my first words into the group (If im enterd) Is BOW DOWN WORMS!!! AND FACE OUR JUGMENT I ALLSO CAST THEE VOTE TO KICK ASS! :mrt: Lol Anyways i find my self under the standings of wanting people NOT to argue but unforinitly i find people dount like me that well so rather or not ill do more good then harm is a risk as i tend to say the wrong things or somehow get under there skin ... shorta like my above comments and im not removeing it
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 11:04 AM	BOW DOWN WORMS!!! AND FACE OUR JUGMENT I ALLSO CAST THEE VOTE TO KICK ASS! :heehee That's two votes! The TWF empire will reign forever! :fight!: Anyway, Sylvaroth usually manages this thread, but I kind of handle that position when he's busy (usually during the weekends). Glad you're willing to join. Er, we really can't accept the quote you put above for the member's FAQ, so would you please post a quote for us that tells us why you're inclined to join? Oh yes, and to offer my own support for the ass-kicking: :fight!: :fight!: :fight!: :fight!: :elf: :elf: :elf: :elf: :mage: :mage:
DemonDavyJones 12-17-06, 06:27 PM	Wait'l Sylvy comes back and finds out we started a major ass-kicking war without him... he will be soooooooo mad. :P Anyway, on the more serious side, itwasntme, I've seen you around before, and you're right, people just... don't seem to take to you very well sometimes... I can't see why... mabye it's the name... or the avatar... or me paying them 50 bucks each to RUIN YOUR LIFE!!! MWUAHAHAHHAHAHHAAA!!! :evillaugh Oh, did I slip into "Cliche Evil Overlord" mode and say something I shouldn't have again? Terribly sorry, I do seem to have a problem with it lately... ah! Here we go, I'll just take out my evilness on this conveniently placed punching bag... *bap!* *BOOOM!* OMFG! There was a bomb in the bag... it must be from the Guild of Paladins! I declare war! MARCH SOME MORE OF MY MINIONS!!! :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :fett: :monk: :duel: :monk: :fett: I really need to get that "MARCH/ATTACK/FIGHT MY MINIONS!!!" thing under control...
theotherdraxen 12-17-06, 10:30 PM	mabye it's the name Yeah, when people ask me who did it, I always say, "It wasn't me." :rimshot: *crickets**crickets*
Tenzhi 12-19-06, 03:15 AM	I suggest to introduce a ranking system: Aspirants (rank 0): Members who are interested in joining the foundation, but do not yet qualify for a full membership. Members (rank 1 to 5): Members who have proven their interest in the foundation and its goals. Also members with one up to five TWF cookies. Veteran (rank 6+): Deserved members who notably added to a positive atmosphere in both the Wizards.Community and the TWF. I'd PM the WizO in charge of this section and see if such a ranking system is alright. I seem to recall it being against the rules here, but the sticky containing said rules is no longer stuck so I can't confirm that it was or is that way. Best to make sure one way or the other now before it becomes a fixture of the foundation, IMO. I think there were limits on how exclusivist these things could be, too, but again the Foundation rules sticky seems to have vanished.
Sylvaroth 12-19-06, 05:38 PM	Well, you may do as you wish Tenzhi, but let me put this straight: The ranking system was not introduced for exclusivity, but rather to display the level of engagement of a member of the TWF. Being an aspirant is simply put a time of probation, where you can see what we do here and decide for yourself, if it is fitting for you and stay or, if it is not what you expected at all (which you may tell the TWF, so we may have the chance to make a compromise), you may simply leave the TWF. Being a member shows that you are a member of the Wizard.Community who cares about the 'good tone' and the general 'well being', while actively furthering the positive atmosphere on the boards. Being a veteran of the TWF is more or less a honorary title, awarded by the TWF for good work towards the TWF's goals. Anyways I'd be interested in any replies you recieve from the WizOs concearning this matter. Sylvaroth
theotherdraxen 12-19-06, 07:00 PM	itwasntme, we really can't count you in until we have a proper quote from you.
Tenzhi 12-20-06, 04:24 AM	Well, you may do as you wish Tenzhi, but let me put this straight: The ranking system was not introduced for exclusivity, but rather to display the level of engagement of a member of the TWF. I'm not PMing the WizOs about this Foundation. It's not my Foundation, and therefore not my responsibility to protect it. It's simply what I would do if I were in charge of it. I may ask them where the rules have scurried off to, however. Also, the hierarchy and the exclusivity (that is, telling people they can't join for whatever reasons) are two seperate issue.
Sylvaroth 12-20-06, 05:42 AM	We never told anybody, he/she was not allowed to join the TWF. Everybody who is interested may join the TWF. Who becomes a full member in the end is the decision of the TWF as well as the aspirant's. I see no issue there.
Orcy The Green Wonder 12-20-06, 03:27 PM	We never told anybody, he/she was not allowed to join the TWF. Everybody who is interested may join the TWF. Who becomes a full member in the end is the decision of the TWF as well as the aspirant's. I see no issue there. itwasntme, we really can't count you in until we have a proper quote from you. It is indeed not allowed here to deny members access to a guild. Orcy wonders why a guild dedicated to 'nice and peaceful posters and resolution of conflits' would even think of doing so. Indeed Orcy questions the need for such a guild to exist. When one takes a good idea like promoting a plesant posting atmosphere and non-flaming resolutions to the extreme. Such as a foundation dedicated to pouncing on flamers and telling them how to post. Orcy believes that it has been taken a step too far. He hasn't seen any of you pounce as he mentioned, but it is indeed the way things may come across to others. Also, the thread Tenzhi is referring to is linked in the only sticky in the section. The sticky's were removed because we were starting to get far too many in the section. For saving time... Here is the link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=221394)
Sylvaroth 12-20-06, 05:19 PM	Thanks, Orcy this is for you :cookie:
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 05:27 PM	Well, can we add itwasntme without a quote, or do we have to take the one he's posted?
Sylvaroth 12-20-06, 05:55 PM	Being an aspirant, he may later choose a quote, when he finally decides if he wants to stay a member of the TWF.
theotherdraxen 12-20-06, 05:56 PM	Being an aspirant, he may later choose a quote, when he finally decides if he wants to stay a member of the TWF. Sounds fair to me.
Sylvaroth 12-20-06, 06:11 PM	Draxen, your sugested rules concearning "evil TWF members" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10850673&postcount=76) seem pretty cool with WizO_Catoblepas' guidelines. I think we will integrate them. In the end we may not be allowed to "fire" members, but we may kick some serious ass, if the need arises. :cool:
Tenzhi 12-20-06, 11:17 PM	While I agree with Tenzhi that we are not an exclusionary group, I do happen to understand that there does need to be at least some kind of limitation on who joins. There were other similar ideas being thrown around upstream (I picked theotherdraxen's at random, not because I'm picking on him). Placing limitations on who can join is, in fact, exclusionary. I didn't thoroughly catch up on the thread to see if all such ideas had been vetoed, and I know you were being cautious about adopting such a stance, I was just noting that I think such things were against the rules in the first place. And thanks to the Green Wonder for pointing out that said rules still exist. (Personally, I find the irony of excluding exclusionary foundations to be delicious.)
Skull_of_Shadow 12-21-06, 03:49 PM	So.. let me get this straight becuase its amusing as hell. You guys go around the boards and find flamers and that kinda stuff. Then you tell them how they shouldn't be flaming other people and instruct them on how they should be posting. You tell people what they can and cannot post because you consider it to be flaming or trolling. You guys are self-appointed moderators who take this stuff even further than the moderators themselves? So essentially yer CoC nazis?
DemonDavyJones 12-21-06, 03:56 PM	No. (THIS IS NOT AN INSULT!!!) Please read this thread. We are a group of people who agree not to flame, and, if we see a flame war, we also agree that if it's out of hand, we'll ask them to stop. No instructing people how to post, we just ask them to stop, and if they don't, may Paradox save the sheep. :P It might seem the way you posted based on the first few lines of the opening post, but it's not. If you have any questions, or don't believe me, ask away. Also, pay no attention to my motions "To kick serious ass!" as they're purely comic relief. ;) Over and out! (Methinks I should add this line to my sig, as I'm starting to use it a lot.)
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 03:59 PM	So.. let me get this straight becuase its amusing as hell. You guys go around the boards and find flamers and that kinda stuff. Then you tell them how they shouldn't be flaming other people and instruct them on how they should be posting. You tell people what they can and cannot post because you consider it to be flaming or trolling. You guys are self-appointed moderators who take this stuff even further than the moderators themselves? So essentially yer CoC nazis? Holy hell. Read the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10902439&postcount=89) before you start posting stuff about what we do here. We do not hunt down flamers and tell them anything. We actually do nothing about flamers at all! What we do is help people that are being disrupted or bullied by flamers. We try to mediate conflicts so that the poor sheep doesn't get eaten by a troll (so to speak). Now, figure out what we do before you jump to conclusions. You know what people say about assuming.
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 04:01 PM	All right, the TWF has a pretty bad reputation, even though we have yet to really make a solid impact anywhere. Anyone got any ideas as to what we can do to clean up our reputation? Edit: anyone think it a good idea to post something in the RPG boards business forum?
DemonDavyJones 12-21-06, 04:07 PM	I've seen a few people have questions about us, but other than shadow no one's outright accused us of anything... unless I've missed it? If I haven't missed anything, I don't think it's a good idea to write an apology/explanation of something that no one seems to need an apology/explanation of. If I have missed something, I still don't think an explanation on the RPG boards is needed, but maybe that link that we put in our sigs should have another that says: "Questions? This is what we do." or some such.
Skull_of_Shadow 12-21-06, 04:20 PM	The reputation is dirty because you are self-appointed moderators. The fact that a foundation was even dedicated to 'fixing peoples problems for them' is insulting. You can't tell anybody to do anything no matter what you BELIEVE is the correct Etiquette. You have no more right than me to go up to someone and say "I think what your doing is flaming, stop it." An organized movement dedicated to 'cleaning up' boards that are already relatively clean. You are saying that you believe you can do a better job than the WizOs themselves can do. So you've apointed yourselves as peace keepers. If, however you post on these boards in a way the CoC prohibits or with the intent to provoke such behaviour from others, be prepared to suffer the consequences. This translates to "Every post we see that we don't like we're going to report because it could possibly in some way be found to be against the CoC." The TWF has the power to do good for the well-being of the community. This power is granted to everybody by the sense of responsibility and community and the aspiration for a harmonious arrangement of all forms of opinions and views. "We have no power but we think we do. So we go around acting like moderators because it makes us feel special." The only part of your little faq I like is the part about helping new posters learn a few things about the boards. But that can be done by various faqs which I'm thinkin are around on these boards somewhere. Been a while, can't remember. Now, lets look at your 'statuses post.' Freedom of expression and opinion (also called freedom of speech): The right everyone has to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience and freedom of ideas): The right everyone has to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, regardless of anyone else's view. "You can post whatever you want as long as we don't think its against the CoC in whatever little way we can find. If we do, then we say that your breaking the CoC and report it, bothering the WizOs in the process." The foundation [, though comprised of individual members with diverse point of views,] speaks with one voice. "We are Borg. Resistance is futile." I mean really, come on. The things your saying in all of these fancy words and roundabout ways is that you want to have power over how people act. You come to me quoting some random rules of etiquette and I'm gonna laugh in your face. The whole feeling of this place says 'we are posters who want people to act like us.' The foundation is dedicated to butting into other people's business. Good luck with that because people don't like it. Also, nobody has accused you of anything because they're too polite. Where as I don't care. I don't like to beat around the bush, I'll tell ya what I think to your face. Oh, and I HAVE seen someone with a sig dedicated to how you guys are a buncha self-righteous individuals with a superiority complex. Probably not the exact words, but thats the jist of it.
DemonDavyJones 12-21-06, 04:28 PM	Who said what you have in your first quote? I don't remember that... Anyway, as I said before, please read the thread. If you already have, please re-read it. We're a step above people who just agree not to flame, we also agree to politely ask others not to flame as well. EDIT: And who's sig was that? That's something I have to see... superiority complex? We're almost an inferiority complex.
Skull_of_Shadow 12-21-06, 04:35 PM	Well, apparently someone hasn't read his own FAQ very well. Because my first quote is directly from it. I have read the thread, and I'm still convinced of my findings. As for who's sig it was, I'm not sure. It was someone on the 'currently active users list' one night when I was seeing who was around.
DemonDavyJones 12-21-06, 04:41 PM	The "Suffer the Consequences" thing means that when we ask people to stop, we warn them that it's against the CoC, and that the Wiz_O's will be on them soon. You cut the quote off before that, though (again, not an insult or accusation, just stating). If it seems to you like we're CoC "Nazis" then we'll just need you to say why so we can change the FAQ/whatever to match our intent, to not flame ourselves and to politely and non-hypocritically stop others from flaming, by asking.
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 06:35 PM	The reputation is dirty because you are self-appointed moderators. Wrong. We are not moderators of any kind. We don't moderate anything. The fact that a foundation was even dedicated to 'fixing peoples problems for them' is insulting. We aren't here to fix anyone's problems unless they happen to be a sheep being threatened by a troll. You can't tell anybody to do anything no matter what you BELIEVE is the correct Etiquette. Never have. You have no more right than me to go up to someone and say "I think what your doing is flaming, stop it." Never done this either. I have reasoned with people before, but I've never given an order unless it was backed by the CoC (stop posting off-topic, for example, which I only did in my own thread or in support of the OP). An organized movement dedicated to 'cleaning up' boards that are already relatively clean. Doesn't mean it can't get cleaner. You are saying that you believe you can do a better job than the WizOs themselves can do. So you've apointed yourselves as peace keepers. Nope. Don't you think the moderators would object if this was our goal? This translates to "Every post we see that we don't like we're going to report because it could possibly in some way be found to be against the CoC." Only if you wish to interpret it that way. "We have no power but we think we do. So we go around acting like moderators because it makes us feel special." No, we have no power, and we know it. Bottom line. We have never, under any circumstance, acted like moderators. Prove me wrong. The only part of your little faq I like is the part about helping new posters learn a few things about the boards. But that can be done by various faqs which I'm thinkin are around on these boards somewhere. Been a while, can't remember. He's right below the first post in this thread. "You can post whatever you want as long as we don't think its against the CoC in whatever little way we can find. If we do, then we say that your breaking the CoC and report it, bothering the WizOs in the process." "Straw man (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man). This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong." "We are Borg. Resistance is futile." This was a joke. I mean really, come on. The things your saying in all of these fancy words and roundabout ways is that you want to have power over how people act. You come to me quoting some random rules of etiquette and I'm gonna laugh in your face. The whole feeling of this place says 'we are posters who want people to act like us.' The foundation is dedicated to butting into other people's business. Good luck with that because people don't like it. I'm sorry you feel that way. Also, nobody has accused you of anything because they're too polite. Where as I don't care. I don't like to beat around the bush, I'll tell ya what I think to your face. Oh, and I HAVE seen someone with a sig dedicated to how you guys are a buncha self-righteous individuals with a superiority complex. Probably not the exact words, but thats the jist of it. Doesn't prove anything. Well, apparently someone hasn't read his own FAQ very well. Because my first quote is directly from it. I have read the thread, and I'm still convinced of my findings. In which you reinterpreted into a straw man.
Sylvaroth 12-21-06, 07:03 PM	I didn't thoroughly catch up on the thread to see if all such ideas had been vetoed, and I know you were being cautious about adopting such a stance, I was just noting that I think such things were against the rules in the first place. And thanks to the Green Wonder for pointing out that said rules still exist. Thanks to the both of you for pointing that out! We may have overreacted, in the process boiling up ideas, like those you found to be moot. As always your comments are well appreciated. EDIT: And who's sig was that? That's something I have to see... superiority complex? We're almost an inferiority complex. I think it is Loki5654 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=756402)'s sig. Skull_of_Shadow, I am afraid I seem to be unable to filter your point out of most things you say. What is your question? May I help you in any way?
Loki5654 12-21-06, 08:09 PM	I think it is Loki5654 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=756402)'s sig.While I don't entirely disagree with Skull of Shadow's point of view, I do believe he's taken the point of my sig to an extreme. I'll post the sig here as it seems germaine to the conversation and I have no reason not to stand by what I've written. Consider joining the Tame War Foundation. Seriously. Read what they have to say and give it a good think. Then ask yourself: "Do I really need a "support group" for being polite?" If you say yes, by all means join them. If you can pass their elitist entry requirements and don't mind adhering to their strict interpretation of "politeness." I, personally, find them to be a relatively ineffective organization with a small membership dedicated to moral smugness, self-backpatting, and holier-than-thouness. The D&D boards already have a dedicated group of individuals whose job it is to tone down rude behavior on the boards. They are called WizO's. If a TWF member bugs you about your behavior without contributing to the discussion at hand, feel free to tell them to mind their own business. Politely.
Loki5654 12-21-06, 08:18 PM	A Postscript to my previous post: 1. The above text is inside a spoiler block. This way my opinion isn't out there for everyone to see. If someone is interested in my opinion, however, they are free to look. 2. I disagree with this group's stance. But I like to think I'm disagreeing courteously. I've encourged other dissentors who have contacted me to dissent courteously also.
theotherdraxen 12-21-06, 08:28 PM	But, Loki, your sig isn't accurate. Here: Then ask yourself: "Do I really need a "support group" for being polite?" We aren't a support group for being polite. We are mediators. We only intercede if there is a sheep being trolled. We try to promote a 'cleaner atmosphere'. If you say yes, by all means join them. If you can pass their elitist entry requirements and don't mind adhering to their strict interpretation of "politeness." We don't have any entry requirements, and characterizing us as eliteists is straw man. When have we ever been elitist to anyone in the name of the Tame War Foundation? You are misrepresting our organization, and for this reason, I ask that it stops.
DemonDavyJones 12-21-06, 08:54 PM	If you disagree with us, that's perfectly fine. I do think that your sig is a little stretched (just a little), after all, we're more a group of people agreeing to be nice than anything else. As long as you understand our intentions are good, and you disagree for what we are. You have the right not to agree with us, and I respect that right. The purpose of this group won't appeal to everyone, it might not even appeal to most people, and anyone that wants to disagree can. As I said (I'm repeating myself) you can disagree, I just think that your sig goes a little far (really, just a little! [this is not sarcasm]). If you're going to disagree with us, however, at least remember to disagree with what we actually are ;) . Loki I have no problem with your sig, (well, OK, I don't like it, but who does like a sig that [even courteously] disagrees with them :P ), it's just Skull_Of_Shadow that I think takes it too far. I mean, seriously, "CoC Nazis" is a bit harsh. Now, if shadow would disagree with us, even harshly, for what we actually are I could try to convince him that we have only good intentions. However, he disagrees with us (fairly rudely, I might add, just saying) for something we are not. Just for future reference, Nazis are a sensitive subject for me. I have several good friends (and on GF!) who are Jewish, and most have grandparent(s) who served in WWII or were victimized by it. Disagreement is fine, calling someone a Nazi is not. Seriously, how is there any connection between people who try to be nice and people who killed billions and treated it like it was one big factory?
Tenzhi 12-21-06, 11:21 PM	Just for future reference, Nazis are a sensitive subject for me. I have several good friends (and on GF!) who are Jewish, and most have grandparent(s) who served in WWII or were victimized by it. Disagreement is fine, calling someone a Nazi is not. Seriously, how is there any connection between people who try to be nice and people who killed billions and treated it like it was one big factory? In popular usage, the term has come to mean "a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc." The popularity of this usage was boosted by Seinfeld's Soup Nazi. Seinfeld is Jewish IRL. Which really makes the absurdity of taking offense at said popular usage quite clear. But I would've said Etiquette Vigilantes myself.
Skull_of_Shadow 12-22-06, 01:18 AM	Yes yes, 'going a little far' is my calling card. I don't like your foundation. I think your elitists who think that they can go around and tell people how to post. I think you see yourselves as better than most people and think that your way is the right one. I think you take the idea way too far. But you see, I like to point out the extremes. If I point out the extremes, then you know what can happen, you know what your getting into. I don't think this group needs to exist. But thats my opinion, if I tried to force it on you, I'd be no better.
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 07:53 AM	Apparently Nazis are non-evil on these boards... I actually was unaware that there was another usage, but, hey, I'm not exactly experienced with this world, and I've only seen Seinfeld once... for five minutes :P Anyway... Allright, if you disagree with us I can respect (but not agree with) that. If you use extreemes as your arguments, showing what could happen, that's also fine (although that's not how I'd go about this, were I inclined to do so, but to each his own (really)). However, if you do so, please try to at least say that the extremes are what could happen, rather than saying the extremes are what we are. Again, it's fine to disagree with us, just do so in a way that means you're disagreeing with what we are and calling on extremes to say what we could become. However, I think this discussion is pretty much a stalemate. You disagree with us, and are convinced of that you are correct. We disagree with you disagreeing with us, and are convinced that we are correct. Both sides have said they are not trying to force their views, and as long as you remember to say "This is what you are, this is what you could become" or some such, rather than "This is what you are, this is also what you are" when the former thing is what we are and the latter is the extreemes of what we could become. :) Just one final point, remember that, even if we could become something bad, well-meaning individuals usually don't. Power corrupts, but we have no power, and therefore are not being corrupted.
Tenzhi 12-22-06, 09:08 AM	Just one final point, remember that, even if we could become something bad, well-meaning individuals usually don't. You say that, and yet the road to hell is very well-paved.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 11:57 AM	But, Loki, your sig isn't accurate. Here: Since it's a personal opinion it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. I'm not saying I agree that it is inaccurate, but I am saying we each have different opinions about its accuracy. We aren't a support group for being polite. We are mediators. We only intercede if there is a sheep being trolled. We try to promote a 'cleaner atmosphere'.I'm quite certain that you believe that. That's not how I perceive you, though. Since my sig is a personal opinion based on my own perception of your group that's what I wrote. We don't have any entry requirements, and characterizing us as eliteists is straw man. When have we ever been elitist to anyone in the name of the Tame War Foundation?You like that Straw Man thing, don't you? I could say just about anything here and all you'd say is "You're just being Straw Man." But seriously? Bylaws? Rules for being polite? A ranking system based on involvement and politeness? Proposed sanctions for "members" who don't adhere to those rules and that system? Elitist. ("Straw Man!" Jinx. You owe me a non-copyrighted cola flavored beverage.) Sure, you may not be doing all that now. But if I can see dark clouds on the horizon, I feel comfortable saying there is a storm coming. You are misrepresting our organization, and for this reason, I ask that it stops. No, I'm stating a personal opinion. Notice how my sig asked people to read this thread and think about things first? I'm asking them to give you a fair shake before they form an opinion. I've given you a fair shake and I've formed my opinion. I've decided to make it part of my sig. If you don't like it, I'm afraid I have to tell you... ...politely... ...tough noogies.
Madhouse 12-22-06, 12:59 PM	I find myself reminded of two quotes from one of the greatest writers of our time, Robert A. Heinlein: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -and- "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so."
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 01:26 PM	Sigh... It looks like we have indeed a problematic reputation... Well, I suppose there's only one thing for me to do about it... I (seriously) make a motion for ther TWF to collectively draft, and post an explantion of what we are, to be put... where? Maybe the Rec Room, maybe somewhere else. The point is, we need to say what/who we are to the masses, so that a few (people who have the right to have) sigs and opinions won't destroy what reputation we have left (as much as I know and understand that people have the right to hate us, I obviously would like to prevent that). EDIT: "The road to hell is well paved." and indeeed it is. However, we have no power, we are posters like everyone else. We'd get banned if we did half of the things that were mentioned. We recognize that the only power we have is that if regular posters, to avoid flaming, assist new posters, offer help with questions in a polite way, and, if someone is flaming, politely ask them to stop. Our small membership is due to the short time this group has been around, during which we haven't done anything. At all. At least wait to see what we do before saying we are "Self appointed moderators." Please. We have the best of intentions, and seriously doubt that we will ever be in a position to have any real effect other than being seen (hopefully) as a group of well-mannered, well-meaning, helpful individuals.
Orcy The Green Wonder 12-22-06, 02:18 PM	This thread IS your declaration of what it is you are and do. Orcy would not suggest posting another one anywhere. If Orcy were to put it bluntly, your thread states that you are a group dedicated to butting into other people's business. In case you have not noticed, it is often met with hostility here and elsewhere when a group that has no power shoves themselves in the middle of things. Imagine you are arguing on the street and a group of people with uniforms and patches with their "logo" on it or whatnot comes up to you two. They don't act threatening but look you both over and say "Your argument isn't very polite, we think you should stop what your saying before you get into trouble." Now, would you thank them kindly and skip off merrily, or would you get freaked out? Here on the boards, the way it will be seen is as "self appointed moderators." Most people will not take time to read your thread and it will likely cause more arguments than it stops. You will go to a thread where there is flaming and ask them to stop. They will insult you and ask "who the hell are you" or whatnot, asking them to read your thread for an explination will cause arguments here instead of there. It is a very slippery slope you are trying to climb. Orcy guarantees that there will be few people who will be glad to see you posting in their threads. Because you'll make a name for yourselves, but not the one you hope for. Orcy believes that many people see that coming and are trying to stop it before it happens, but he seems no movement on your side of this discussion. He doubts very much you have any intention to think again about the actions you wish to take, and that may prove bad for you. As Orcy has said, the idea of a more polite postership is nice, but it is not likely to happen. Unless we decide to start banning everyone that acts differently or has an attitude, there will always be conflict. After all, it is what people do best.
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 02:23 PM	Thank you Orcy, for the nice analogy, the polite disagreement, and the not calling us Nazis ;) :P ;) . Seriously, though, we should, if we aren't going to post another thread, continue our "work" despite the dislike from others, and, after they see that we aren't self-appointed moderators, they'll hopefull stop/disagree with what we actually are.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 02:45 PM	after they see that we aren't self-appointed moderators, Members of the TWF intend to share their knowledge with others, without giving them the feeling to be somehow inferior, and try to mediate in disputes, before they have the chance to get out of hand. Mediate Synonyms: arbitrate, conciliate, deal, go fifty-fifty*, intercede, interfere, intermediate, interpose, intervene, make peace, meet halfway, moderate, negotiate, propitiate, reconcile, referee, resolve, restore harmony, settle, step in, trade off, umpire "But you are, Blanche! You are in that wheelchair!"
theotherdraxen 12-22-06, 03:12 PM	I think your elitists who think that they can go around and tell people how to post. Give an example. I think you see yourselves as better than most people and think that your way is the right one. Give an example. I think you take the idea way too far. Give an example. But you see, I like to point out the extremes. If I point out the extremes, then you know what can happen, you know what your getting into. I don't think this group needs to exist. But thats my opinion, if I tried to force it on you, I'd be no better. There are a lot of groups that don't need to exist. That doesn't call for soiling their reputation. Since it's a personal opinion it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. Wait, if my personal opinion is that you are a mouse, then are you a mouse? I'm not saying I agree that it is inaccurate, but I am saying we each have different opinions about its accuracy. I'm quite certain that you believe that. That's not how I perceive you, though. Since my sig is a personal opinion based on my own perception of your group that's what I wrote. No, you claimed things that are simply not true. You have claimed we are eliteists and you have no evidence of it. You like that Straw Man thing, don't you? I could say just about anything here and all you'd say is "You're just being Straw Man." Interesting claim, but unless you can prove that I applied the Straw Man fallacy improperly, your above claim had no ground to stand on. But seriously? Bylaws? Rules for being polite? A ranking system based on involvement and politeness? Proposed sanctions for "members" who don't adhere to those rules and that system? Would you advise us to remove our ranking system to preven eliteism? Sure, you may not be doing all that now. But if I can see dark clouds on the horizon, I feel comfortable saying there is a storm coming. "Slippery slope (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope). A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal. " No, I'm stating a personal opinion. No, you stated facts which were simply not true. You said we had eliteist entry requirements when the truth is we have no entry requirements. Notice how my sig asked people to read this thread and think about things first? I'm asking them to give you a fair shake before they form an opinion. I've given you a fair shake and I've formed my opinion. I've decided to make it part of my sig. How is declaring falsehoods about our organization a 'fair shake'? "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so." 1. We are not a sect, cult, or religion. 2. We have no power, nor do we want any. If Orcy were to put it bluntly, your thread states that you are a group dedicated to butting into other people's business. Okay, we need to fix this. This is not what we are here for, nor what we mean to stand for. I feel that this is a misinterpretation of our group. Imagine you are arguing on the street and a group of people with uniforms and patches with their "logo" on it or whatnot comes up to you two. This isn't the kind of place where we would intervene. We would intervene if one person was openly intimidating another person, and the intimidated person needed help. We do not stand between trolls. Here on the boards, the way it will be seen is as "self appointed moderators." Most people will not take time to read your thread and it will likely cause more arguments than it stops. Are we responsible for their ignorance? He doubts very much you have any intention to think again about the actions you wish to take, and that may prove bad for you. I said myself that one of the reasons I joined was to prevent thoughtless action and freakish control (not exact words, but yeah, you get the gist of it). As Orcy has said, the idea of a more polite postership is nice, but it is not likely to happen. Unless we decide to start banning everyone that acts differently or has an attitude, there will always be conflict. After all, it is what people do best. We are not against conflict. We are against trolling sheep. "But you are, Blanche! You are in that wheelchair!" Main Entry: soldier Part of Speech: noun Definition: military person Synonyms: GI*, GI Joe, Green Beret, airman, cadet, cavalryman, commando, conscript, dogface, doughboy, doughfoot, draftee, enlisted man, fighter, fighting man, grunt, guardsman, guerrilla, gunner, infantryman, man-at-arms, marine, mercenary, military man, musketeer, officer, paratrooper, pilot, private, rank, recruit, sapper, scout, selectee, serviceman, trooper, veteran, volunteer, warmonger, warrior Following your analogy, drafted soldiers are volunteers. synonym –noun 1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad. 2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym. 3. Biology. one of two or more scientific names applied to a single taxon.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 03:24 PM	Drax, Your own quote sums it up. You say: Never start a fight, but always try to settle it. But then you say: We would intervene if one person was openly intimidating another person, and the intimidated person needed help. So which is it? Are you here to settle fights or are you here to protect the so-called "weak"? By the way, sitting around arbitrarily deciding needs your protection and who doesn't? ELITIST. Straw Man that.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 03:37 PM	Main Entry: soldier Part of Speech: noun Definition: military person Synonyms: GI*, GI Joe, Green Beret, airman, cadet, cavalryman, commando, conscript, dogface, doughboy, doughfoot, draftee, enlisted man, fighter, fighting man, grunt, guardsman, guerrilla, gunner, infantryman, man-at-arms, marine, mercenary, military man, musketeer, officer, paratrooper, pilot, private, rank, recruit, sapper, scout, selectee, serviceman, trooper, veteran, volunteer, warmonger, warrior American Heritage Dictionary -draft·ee (drāf-tē') n. One who is drafted, especially for military service. vol·un·teer–noun 3. Military. a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army. Soldier = Draftee Soldier = Volunteer Draftee =/= Volunteer
theotherdraxen 12-22-06, 03:38 PM	Drax, Your own quote sums it up. You say: Never start a fight, but always try to settle it. But then you say: We would intervene if one person was openly intimidating another person, and the intimidated person needed help. So which is it? Are you here to settle fights or are you here to protect the so-called "weak"? We are here to protect the weak. If my quote is obscuring our goal, then I shall amend it. By the way, sitting around arbitrarily deciding needs your protection and who doesn't? ELITIST. Straw Man that. elitism noun. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. We do not have any sense of superiority. I am not, nor shall I ever be, superior to any other member on these boards. We do offer favored treatment: to the sheep.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 03:43 PM	We are here to protect the weak. If my quote is obscuring our goal, then I shall amend it. elitism noun. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. We do not have any sense of superiority. I am not, nor shall I ever be, superior to any other member on these boards. We do offer favored treatment: to the sheep. Why do you call them sheep? Because you believe they cannot protect themselves as well as you can. Therefore there is a perceived superiority. You think you are better than the sheep because you think you can protect them better than they can protect themselves. Edit: For that matter, why do you call them Trolls? Because you think there behavior is worse than your own (admittedly, I am guilty of this myself). Regardless, there is still a perceived superiority. Its just easier to justify. There's your perceived superiority, you've already admitted to the favorable treatment. Can I call you elitist now?
Madhouse 12-22-06, 04:00 PM	Rather than picking apart minutae, allow me to sum up the issues concisely (from my observations of the discussion): The reputation of the TMF is in question not because of anything Loki5654 says, but rather the intended purpose of the TMF. While the goal of dissuading flame-wars and trolls is admirable, the fact remains that a system already exists to accomplish this goal, namely the moderation of the forums by WizOs. The TMF, whether intentionally or not, ostensibly attempts to hold others accountible to this system, even though this is presumably already accomplished by those empowered to do so (i.e. the WizOs). Therefore, other members of the forum may see the TMF as unnecessary and obtrusive, especially given the establishment of organizational structure and codification of policy. Given the existing safeguards already in place against trolling and flame-baiting, the unauthorized creation of a select group of unempowered individuals who have taken it upon themselves to, in whatever fashion, police the behaviour of other forum members could easily be perceived as a form of elitism, as indicated in the second definition of elitism (elitism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitism (accessed: December 22, 2006). If no one in authority to do so asked you to form a group to police the behaviour of other forum members nor empowered you in any way to enforce the forum Code of Conduct aside from the reporting powers that all forum members enjoy, then the argument can be made that the TMF is nothing more than a group of unauthorized and unempowered individuals who've decided to attempt to enforce their stated standards on other forum members, despite a lack of overt or tacit authority to do so. Please note that I make no judgements regarding the inherent validity or lack thereof in the TMF. Rather, I am simply offering my interpretation of the objections I've noted in this thread in as objective a manner as possible and that these interpretations are mine and mine alone and others may have different interpretations of the same material. One final word: To those that object to the foundation of such a group as the TMF, please remember that groups such as these require attention in order to establish or maintain validity. If this attention does not come from a source of authority, then attention from the unempowered populace is the next best option, since objections imply that the core idea bears some manner of validity. It is often better to ignore such a group outright, as said lack of attention, combined with lack of authority, almost inevitably leads to dissolution. Just as trolls thrive on attention, so do those who seek to impose their standards upon others, even if they aren't empowered to do so. I'm not suggesting that the TMF falls into that camp, but if you believe this to be so, then the best way to combat such intentions is to completely ignore them. Thank you, Madhouse <insert glib and pithy signature here>
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 04:24 PM	Yes, there are a group of moderators, however, this foundation exists to be nice to people and to help new ones, and also to stop flame wars by use of polite requests. We are not claiming to replace or do the job of moderators. We are, however, being nice and seeing if a flame war can be stopped by use to "diplomacy" as it were, possibly saving a perfectly good thread from a raging inferno, without the moderators needing to step in. Mods tend to (as I have seen) send warnings or wait a while after a thread has gone flame, spam, or troll, before they act. If one of us happens to see a thread in this "window" where it's a flame war but a mod has not yet acted, we politely ask for the flaming to stop. We don't go around hunting flamers or flame wars, but if we run into one, we try to douse it by asking nicely. We have no entry requirements, we are not elitists (I'm not even a year-old poster) and we are not butting into other's lives. Anything wrong with that? If there's something in the FAQ or anything in this thread that seems to go against that, it's either A. A joke B. Awaiting change, or C. Going to be changed, hopefully, whether it's pointed out. Also, here's an analogy for you: I've worked at soup kitchens, etc. etc. before (I don't claim to be any better than anyone else for this, I'm just using an analogy), and when people ask why, I say something along the lines of "because I think the needy need to be helped, and if everyone else waited for someone else to do it, no one would help." Now, if someone claimed that I was being "elitist" or that I had a "superiority complex" because I referred to someone as "needy" I would immediately assure them this is not the case, and if they persisted I would... well... do what I'm doing now, analogize. We're reffering to nameless, faceless, sheep. These are people who are being trolled or flamed and do not wish to take part in it. These are not helpless people, but they may (and quite possibly do) need help. Therefore, we give it. That's it.
Madhouse 12-22-06, 04:38 PM	Davy, there's nothing wrong with any of that; however, it begs the question of "why do you need to create an organization to do so?" Had you meant to be just a group of people with like-minded desire to try and reduce the flame-wars and trolling through polite interjection, I doubt anyone would have objected. Quite the contrary, in fact. You probably would have been individually lauded as polite, reasonable folks trying to make the forums more inviting and constructive. Instead, you created an organization with set standards and policies. This screams "forum police" to people, regardless of the intent. What started out as completely innocent and helpful suddenly becomes obtrusive and unwelcome. In the end, it's not the intentions that are hurting you...it's the packaging.
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 04:46 PM	True, much so, however, an organization allows for a group of people trying to be nice can help each other, can compile a base of knowledge with which to assist new people, and can help each other help others. It can also be a nice sign that "There Are People Willing to Do This" for anyone thinking of it, it allows the group of people to get larger, and, finally, it provides a measure of "I am not alone"-ness. So, my answer: Does there need to be an organization for this? No. Will it help? Hopefully. Is there any reason to want it shut down? No reason I can see, and I'm not saying something crazy couldn't happen and result in us all needing to be banned (except me, of course, I'm a good boy :P !) or some such, but I don't see that as likely. Also, the policies aren't set, that's the way this thing works. Just mentioning that. Just pointing that out for a little friendly disagreement ;) . Thank you, Madhouse, for pointing that out, and not calling us Nazis along with it :) ;) :P . ... I like smileys. :) ;) :P :P ;)
Loki5654 12-22-06, 04:47 PM	Mods tend to (as I have seen) send warnings or wait a while after a thread has gone flame, spam, or troll, before they act. I'm betting that's because they know how negatively people will react to the WizOs butting into every teensy disagreement. Also, here's an analogy for you: I've worked at soup kitchens, etc. etc. before (I don't claim to be any better than anyone else for this, I'm just using an analogy), and when people ask why, I say something along the lines of "because I think the needy need to be helped, and if everyone else waited for someone else to do it, no one would help." Now, if someone claimed that I was being "elitist" or that I had a "superiority complex" because I referred to someone as "needy" I would immediately assure them this is not the case, and if they persisted I would... well... do what I'm doing now, analogize. We're reffering to nameless, faceless, sheep. These are people who are being trolled or flamed and do not wish to take part in it. These are not helpless people, but they may (and quite possibly do) need help. Therefore, we give it. That's it.I applaud your philanthropy. However, I think your analogy is a little flawed. In the Soup Kitchen you have a line of people standing there saying "Can I have some soup?". I just don't see the line of "sheep" asking to be protected. If someone doesn't ask for charity, you shouldn't try to force it on them no matter how much you think they need it.
theotherdraxen 12-22-06, 04:48 PM	Davy, there's nothing wrong with any of that; however, it begs the question of "why do you need to create an organization to do so?" For the same reason that two people might get married. Nothing stops them from living a fulfilling life with one another, but marriage is a way of making a serious dedication to it. Had you meant to be just a group of people with like-minded desire to try and reduce the flame-wars and trolling through polite interjection, I doubt anyone would have objected. Quite the contrary, in fact. You probably would have been individually lauded as polite, reasonable folks trying to make the forums more inviting and constructive. Instead, you created an organization with set standards and policies. This screams "forum police" to people, regardless of the intent. What started out as completely innocent and helpful suddenly becomes obtrusive and unwelcome. But we haven't set any standards that don't already exist.
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 04:51 PM	Soup kitchen analogy: Failed. Dangit! Ah well. Anyway... BTW, it's spelled TWF... :P . Tame Minefield Foundation? That should be our sister group! Any-anyway... True, the sheep aren't asking to be protected, however, we're not doing much of anything, we're just asking nicely for people to stop flaming when we run into it.
theotherdraxen 12-22-06, 05:15 PM	The way I see it, we're not overbearing, we're not eliteists, we're not self-imposed moderators... ...we're rather inconsequential. We just do what every other person should do, but this way, there's more support in it, and thus, more dedication to it.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 05:25 PM	The way I see it, we're not overbearing, we're not eliteists, we're not self-imposed moderators... ...we're rather inconsequential. We just do what every other person should do, but this way, there's more support in it, and thus, more dedication to it.Hence my comment about a "support group". If that's the way you see it, fine. But you can't get all upset when others (like myself) see it differently. Just because you are part of the group doesn't mean you are more entitled to your opinion about the group.
theotherdraxen 12-22-06, 05:48 PM	Hence my comment about a "support group". If that's the way you see it, fine. But you can't get all upset when others (like myself) see it differently. Just because you are part of the group doesn't mean you are more entitled to your opinion about the group. Like I said, what you have said about us are not opinions. You have stated that we even have entry requirements, which we do not. This is defamation of our group. I'm fine if you have a negative opinion of us. Just don't tell people we are something we're not, like a group with entry requirements.
Madhouse 12-22-06, 06:02 PM	Drax, I see where you're coming from 100%. Heck, I even applaud you and the rest for being willing to step up; however, regardless of the intentions, the problem your group is going to continue to have is essentially a war of perception. You can all scream "we're not self-appointed, elitist moderators who want to make everyone abide by our arbitrary standards even if we don't really have the authority to do so" until you're blue in the face, but it won't dissuade those who see an attempt at organized support and mediation as the self-appointed forum police I mentioned previously. All friendly disagreement aside, that simple fact remains. Your group's reputation took a hit because of how it's represented. No, there's nothing overtly offensive, but the very act of organizing and advertising is what makes people say "Uh, who the hell are YOU to mediate anything on these forums???" The right way to do things would have been to contact the like-minded and together dedicate yourselves to being the voices of mediation when a flame-war or troll is encountered. As other potential like-minded folks cropped up, you could have contacted them individually, asking them if they'd be willing to work together with the rest of you to achieve this same goal. No advertising, no declarations, no organization (beyond whatever you decided internally). The wrong way? Pretty much the way you did it. Forums are a free-form environment for communications, and while most people aren't interested in trolling or flame-baiting, you'll often find that those same people have no interest in being policed (whether real or perceived) by other members of the forum who have not been invested with the authority to do so. By organizing publicly, you opened yourselves to just that sort of perception. Furthermore, you've created inherent exclusivity. Either everyone is a member of your group, or only certain people are. If the former, the organization serves no legitimate purpose. If the latter, then that begs the question of what are the criteria for membership and opens you up to claims of elitism. You're also not doing yourself any favours with your "Proud member of the Tame War Foundation." sig, since that only further exacerbates the image of exclusivity and elitism. Perception might not equal reality, but it can have a very strong influence on it. Your intentions may be pure, but the presentation was fundamentally flawed and almost certain to invite just the kind of objections you're seeing here. Don't get me wrong...as a long-time user of many forums, I really appreciate the individuals who are willing to be the calming voice of reason when things get heated, but if that calming voice was coming from a self-created group formed with the intention of mediating forum disputes, I would be inclined to take a page from Loki's book and politely thank you for your input before asking you to mind your own business. Unfortunately, I doubt that anything I've said here will convince you that maybe there's a better way to do this. You seem to have convinced yourselves that what you've created is valid and adopted the policy of "politely disagreeing" with those who point out the flaws that wll continue to undermine you. In my experience, that sort of polite disagreement is a passive-aggressive method of trying to end debate without recognizing the validity of the other's point of view and/or seeking potential compromises.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 06:10 PM	None of us can exclude his/herself from having a bad day now and again, but do other people have to suffer from our occasional sulkiness? Is it necessary to flame or troll? Since the most of us are opened minded and tolerant persons visiting these boards, because of the shared interest in Dungeons&Dragons of all shapes and forms, I assume the answer is: No. If you agree, you have already done your first step in helping to make these boards a place where likeminded people may share their ideas, questions and doubts without the fear of being lashed for it, or the need to include such sentences as "Please don't flame me!" or the likes of them. Members of the TWF intend to share their knowledge with others, without giving them the feeling to be somehow inferior, and try to mediate in disputes, before they have the chance to get out of hand. If you are interested in becoming a member of the TWF, please post that you would like to join and include a little quote stating why you are inclined to support this initiative for more considerate manners on the boards. I would also love to hear some little stories of how you were introduced into the game, what it was like for you, and how you were treated, so you decided to continue gaming. It is never too late to make the boards a better place, and more comfortable for all of us who do read and post in them. Never start a fight, but always try to settle it. TWF Statutes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10902517&postcount=90) Hey lookie! Entry requirements. Are you saying you'd allow: Close-minded and intolerant members? Members who are only interested in some shapes and forms of D&D? Someone who doesn't agree with you but still wants to be a member? Someone who likes to settle fights, but doesn't mind starting one every now and then? If you don't allow people like that, then you have requirements for entry into your group. If you do allow people like that, what's the point of the group? itwasntme, we really can't count you in until we have a proper quote from you.Sounds to me like having a proper quote is at least one of your requirements. You also have your group statutes. Would you allow someone to join if they explicitly said "I'm not going to follow your statutes."? To take this to an absudist point: Would you allow someone to join if they didn't post that they wanted to join? Posting that you'd like to join is your prime entry requirement.
theotherdraxen 12-22-06, 06:12 PM	The right way to do things would have been to contact the like-minded and together dedicate yourselves to being the voices of mediation when a flame-war or troll is encountered. As other potential like-minded folks cropped up, you could have contacted them individually, asking them if they'd be willing to work together with the rest of you to achieve this same goal. No advertising, no declarations, no organization (beyond whatever you decided internally). Okay, so how do we know who is like-minded?
Madhouse 12-22-06, 06:13 PM	Like I said, what you have said about us are not opinions. You have stated that we even have entry requirements, which we do not. This is defamation of our group. I'm fine if you have a negative opinion of us. Just don't tell people we are something we're not, like a group with entry requirements. Actually, what Loki has said ARE opinions, Drax. Whether he (I'm assuming the male gender only because the Norse god Loki was usually depicted as male; Loki, please forgive any confusion if you are not, in fact, male) states them as fact or not, the fact remains that they are, by nature, his opinion. If it's not opinion, then it would be fact, which you dispute. Furthermore, please don't throw around such terms as defamation. Loki is not defaming your group. Defaming your group would be saying something to the effect of "The members of the TWF are pedophiles". Loki's statements don't even come close to libel, any more than saying "I think Windows sucks because it's counter-intuitive and needlessly obtuse" is defamation of Microsoft. Finally, the very fact that your group has a limited membership indicates that you have entry requirements; otherwise, everyone would automatically be considered members of the TWF. After all, don't most of us want to see fewer trolls and flame-wars pervading these forums? Shouldn't we all be listed as members, then? No? Then what are the criteria for being inducted as members? If there aren't any, what prevents some notorious troll from joining your ranks? Can you just exclude that person out of hand? If so, then you have entry requirements of some kind, whether they are well-established and defined or arbitrarily applied at the whim of the organization (which only further ensures that you'll be labeled as elitist). Sorry, mate, but you simply can't have it both ways.
Loki5654 12-22-06, 06:16 PM	(I'm assuming the male gender only because the Norse god Loki was usually depicted as male; Loki, please forgive any confusion if you are not, in fact, male) Yep. I'm a dude.:D
DemonDavyJones 12-22-06, 06:16 PM	Unfortunately, that seems to be the way this discussion has turned out. People disagree with us, and all we ask on that from is that they disagree with us for what we are. Failing that, we hope that they see that our intentions are good, and give us a chance to prove ourselves. Which we haven't done yet. [begin sarcasm] But we will... oh, yeeeeesss... the Empire will rule these boards with an iron fist... and I will overthrow Sylvy and create the Empire of Davy Jones, and a new golden age will span the Internet from now untill the day the sun explodes! MWUAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH AHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHHHAH AAAAAA! [/sarcasm] But seriously, we're essentially agreeing to politely disagree with what others think of us. Now all we need to do is prove that our good intentions will translate to what we say we are doing.
Madhouse 12-22-06, 06:23 PM	Okay, so how do we know who is like-minded? Observation of their posts and forum conduct. Even then, you'll likely get a bad apple or two that sounded great initially but turned out to be trolls-in-hiding. It's certainly better than the other option, which is an open call for the 'like-minded' to join the select group, since that will almost certainly appeal more to those who want to be part of the 'elite', regardless of what form that takes. Consider this: I am a reasoning individual. I make statements based on objective research and determination based on the evidence provided. I've consistently espoused a desire to avoid trolling and flame-baiting. Would you not consider me 'like-minded' enough to join? Funny thing is, I have no interest in being a part of the TWF as it stands; however, were I approached by a group of people who just want to quietly work together behind the scenes to advocate a more constructive and friendly forum environment, I probably would have jumped at the opportunity. It's the difference between those that really want to (and are equipped to) help and those that just want something else to put in their sig file.
Madhouse 12-22-06, 06:26 PM	Yep. I'm a dude.:D LOL! You know what's really silly??? I actually knew that already, because I visited your web page earlier today. Jeez, I feel like a doofus sometimes...:D
Sylvaroth 12-22-06, 06:46 PM	Why do you call them sheep? They say, do not feed trolls, but sometimes there is a sheep in troll's clothing. Be always sensitive to the subtle shades between coarse manners and actual trolling. However, I think your analogy is a little flawed. In the Soup Kitchen you have a line of people standing there saying "Can I have some soup?". The flaw is in the eye of the beholder. I will try to use this analogy, to explain my view of the TWF: There is a Soup Kitchen (the Wizards.Community), a line of people standing there saying "Can I have some soup?" (posters regardless whether they are new to the boards or not, e.g. asking a question), gang members who roar at them "your a lousy, stoopid ?*&$, ur need for soup is just showing what an idiot u r, GTFO and never ask for soup again!" (trolls), and volunteers who serve the soup to whoever asks for it (posters who e.g. try to help by answering the posed question). On the one hand, every member can be in the role of the people standing in the line from time to time, and only some seem to prefer being a member of the gang. On the other hand the TWF sometimes decides to assume the role of the volunteer, provided they have any soup, and... "..., because I think the needy need to be helped, and if everyone else waited for someone else to do it, no one would help." So by setting a good example, the TWF is not trying to make those in the line feel even worse about their situation, but rather showing their philanthropy as Loki5654 called it. Wait, if my personal opinion is that you are a mouse, then are you a mouse? Yes and no. If it was your personal opinion, that Loki5654 was a mouse, then he is a mouse. At least in your perception. While Loki5654's opinion about the TWF is not congruent with your own, it is his right to see things different from the way you do. You may not like it, but it is (as is the TWF's belief) his right to have a different opinion. We don't go around hunting flamers or flame wars, but if we run into one, we try to douse it by asking nicely. However, if you are interested in a thread, or you feel you could be, if flaming and arguments stopped, or if you think a newcomer to D&D and/or the Wizards.Community has been rudely dealt with, all of these are good reasons for a TWF member to act. So when your favourite thread, or a thread with an interesting topic impends to derail into a flamewar, try to rerail, so you might go on with the topic that is much more interesting than knowing who think who is or is not stoopid. In the end, it's not the intentions that are hurting you...it's the packaging. Do not judge a book by its cover, I say. ;) But seriously, we're essentially agreeing to politely disagree with what others think of us. Now all we need to do is prove that our good intentions will translate to what we say we are doing. That is exactly my point: actions speak louder than words, so let's get into action!:fight!: You Can Make Wizards.Community a Better Place
Tenzhi 12-22-06, 11:52 PM	With all the talk of sheep, I just gotta say: "Mutton today, mutton yestreday, an' blimey if it don' look like mutton tomorrow..."
theotherdraxen 12-23-06, 12:22 AM	15 days and we've go nothin' but mutton to eat...
Loki5654 12-23-06, 02:43 AM	There is a Soup Kitchen (the Wizards.Community),OK. a line of people standing there saying "Can I have some soup?" (posters regardless whether they are new to the boards or not, e.g. asking a question),Sure. gang members who roar at them "your a lousy, stoopid ?*&$, ur need for soup is just showing what an idiot u r, GTFO and never ask for soup again!" (trolls),Who are immediately evicted by the kindly police officers stationed at the kitchen (the WizO's) and volunteers who serve the soup to whoever asks for it (posters who e.g. try to help by answering the posed question).Whatever. Some days you're asking for soup, some days you're serving the soup. But you don't get to come in and evict gang members because you decided to be a cop. It doesn't work that way. If you think you can do a better job than the WizO's, apply to be a WizO. I've used this analogy before, but I'll drag it out again. The neighborhood is not as bad as you think. The cops are doing their jobs. Your little 3.5 person neighborhood watch will annoy more residents than it helps. The (virtually non-existant) "sheep" don't need your help, they need WizO intervention. The Trolls don't need you, they only delight in the attention you give them. They need the WizO's to shut them down. The rest of us (in my opinion, as well as other's) just plain don't need you.
DemonDavyJones 12-23-06, 08:03 AM	But we're not evicting the gangsta's... we ask them to stop, and if they don't, we do what any sane person does when a gangster refuses to listen to you and continues to be a gangster... calmly walk away and let the police deal with it.
Sylvaroth 12-24-06, 08:12 PM	Draxen, as for your pm, I do my best. ;) DemonDavyJones, we don't ask anything from trolls. Please understand that we don't advise people about how to do things. We just don't. What we do is much simpler, we try to be exemplary members on these boards. We try to act as everybody is expected to do. We are anti-trolls in a sense we may have a stabilizing influence on destabilized threads, not by "asking the trolls" to do us a favor, but rather by concentrating on the topic, which is the initial reason why the specific thread caught our attention, in the first place.:teach: Mods tend to (as I have seen) send warnings or wait a while after a thread has gone flame, spam, or troll, before they act. I'm betting that's because they know how negatively people will react to the WizOs butting into every teensy disagreement. Who are immediately evicted by the kindly police officers stationed at the kitchen (the WizO's) Now do they wait or do they act immediately? But you don't get to come in and evict gang members because you decided to be a cop. It doesn't work that way. If we didn't use this example as an analogy I'd answer: Since the police cannot be everywhere, how is it I (as volunteer as well as one of those in the line) cannot kick some dumbass out of the place he violates, if he threatens those who are looking for soup, not slanders? Seeing that we do use it as an analogy I ask, where did I say I wanted something like this? I know I did not, but I politely ask you to prove me wrong. As for your analogy and to add another of those popular catchphrases, it is a case of red herring fallacy. Because there is not THAT much crime around, does not make the existing crimes more acceptable all of a sudden. Another thing you (and maybe some other people, too) seem to confuse is the help the TWF may provide, and the kind of help the WizOs are here for. We answer questions, suggest alternatives, aso. While WizOs may do so, too, (for they are also interested in D&D) it is not their task to do so. They are here to voice warnings and overall enforce the CoC. The rest of us (in my opinion, as well as other's) just plain don't need you. 1. We do not expect to be needed by anyone, but we are here.:fight: 2. You may offer your opinion, but who makes you the speaker of the others?:confused: Madhouse, what's your point? Is it entry requirements = elitist? Well, you need to register to become a member of the Wizard.Community, are we all elitist for being members now or is it the Wiz.Com being elitist?
Loki5654 12-25-06, 02:47 PM	What we do is much simpler, we try to be exemplary members on these boards. We try to act as everybody is expected to do. We are anti-trolls in a sense we may have a stabilizing influence on destabilized threads, not by "asking the trolls" to do us a favor, but rather by concentrating on the topic, which is the initial reason why the specific thread caught our attention, in the first place.:teach:And the rest of us, by inference, are non-exemplary? Now do they wait or do they act immediately?The WizO's usually wait. I say usually because I've reported several Trolls myself and seen the threads locked and deleted moments later. The fictional cops in the overstretched analogy we concocted act immediately. Were you confusing the two? Because any analogy will fall apart when picked at. Another thing you (and maybe some other people, too) seem to confuse is the help the TWF may provide, and the kind of help the WizOs are here for. We answer questions, suggest alternatives, aso. While WizOs may do so, too, (for they are also interested in D&D) it is not their task to do so. They are here to voice warnings and overall enforce the CoC.Trolling is covered in the CoC. By trying to moderate Trolling you are trying to enforce the CoC. That's not your job. 2. You may offer your opinion, but who makes you the speaker of the others?:confused:Read that sentence again: The rest of us (in my opinion, as well as other's) just plain don't need you.I simply stated my opinion, which is obviously shared by others who have spoken out against the need for the TWF. Nowhere in that sentence did I say I was a spokesperson, please don't try and Strawman me into that role. Madhouse, what's your point? Is it entry requirements = elitist? Well, you need to register to become a member of the Wizard.Community, are we all elitist for being members now or is it the Wiz.Com being elitist?You've created a club-within-a-club. You are not endorsed by the original club, you have your own Code of Conduct and your own rules for entry. You are trying to set yourself above the rest of us, to make yourselves "elite". Ergo, you are being elitist. As I showed theotherdraxen, you have a perceived superiority over other posters and you show preferential treatment to those you decide to recognize as "sheep". You meet the textbook definition of elitists.
Sylvaroth 12-25-06, 03:32 PM	*sigh* after reading your post, I decided you are just too smart for me. Merry Christmas to all of you Drax, what's next on the to-do-list?
theotherdraxen 12-25-06, 08:37 PM	But-but-but I wanna argue some more...awww.... Anyway, next on the list is Vestigial Thumb, oddly enough. We had an incident in which a poster openly (and unapologetically) insulted his english skills during a debate. The insult, quoted here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10919229&postcount=231), was deleted for one reason or another. I only quote it because without proof, we could not give Thumb an honorary motion: I am not quoting it for any amount of distaste towards the original poster. Anyway, I PMed Thumb about it, and he said 'I wasn't really offended. I figured it was a mistake.' (My PM box got empited over christmas for some reason). I thought that this might be worthy of an honorary motion: he let it slide and pretty much forgave the guy for his slander, even though he could have reported him (I don't think he did, but I can ask him) or troll the guy back. What do you guys think? Is this the sort of thing that honorary motions go for?
DemonDavyJones 12-26-06, 10:07 AM	If Thumb becomes an honorary member, people will think we're power control freaks. After all, we'll have a lord of a layer of the Abyss on our side. (If you can find the thread Elves Wielding Greatswords? than you might know what I mean.) :P Seriously, though, if this nomination of him passes (which it probably will, but I'm not in a voting mood today) we should probably ask him if he would like it before we put him on the list. On an unrelated note: Maybe they're too smart for you Sylvaroth, but I wanna argue some more! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?
theotherdraxen 12-26-06, 11:23 AM	If Thumb becomes an honorary member, people will think we're power control freaks. After all, we'll have a lord of a layer of the Abyss on our side. (If you can find the thread Elves Wielding Greatswords? than you might know what I mean.) :P Heh, did you see 'Can a dwarf wield a rapier?' Seriously, though, if this nomination of him passes (which it probably will, but I'm not in a voting mood today) we should probably ask him if he would like it before we put him on the list. I already PMed him about it. He said sure.
DemonDavyJones 12-27-06, 11:06 AM	Horaay! Yeah, I saw Rapier, did it get locked as well or did it just fade? Or is it still around?
Sylvaroth 12-27-06, 06:10 PM	It was brought to my attention, that my last post could be seen as insulting, so I would like to clarify. It was a humorous comment, no sarcasm, no irony, no brownnosing. As for the TWF cookie motion, I second it. I would however like to see a post from our popular neighborhood stubby digit stating, if he accepts it or not.
Loki5654 12-27-06, 06:40 PM	It was brought to my attention, that my last post could be seen as insulting, so I would like to clarify. It was a humorous comment, no sarcasm, no irony, no brownnosing. Since the comment was obviously not meant literally, it can only be meant sarcastically. Sarcasm is inherently insulting. You can say "I was joking." all you want, but the bare bones of the matter is that you insulted me just because I disagreed with you. Very nice coming from the TWF's fouding member.
Sylvaroth 12-27-06, 06:59 PM	Loki5654, as I told you in my pm already, this is your opinion. I also told you that I do not share your opinion (not completely that is), and I do not see any reason for me to be insulting in addition. I told you about my intention, but you do not believe my words. That is your decision. I am disappointed that your response was rather insulting in a way that leaves no room for interpretation. Feel free to post your theories and comment in this thread. They make for very good examples of what every member of the Wizard.Community may face once in a while. I however, will stop to comment your posts, since I think they speak for themselves. Draxen, since you are in contact with VT already, would you pm him about his TWF cookie or would you like me to do it?
theotherdraxen 12-27-06, 07:50 PM	I'll PM VT.
Loki5654 12-27-06, 07:52 PM	Very well. Return to your talk of cookies and honors and exemplars. Just be aware that when someone who disagreed with you made a complaint you turned up your nose and ignored it. I've been here since day one. I was the first person after Sylvaroth to post in this thread. I warned that this group would lead to exclusionary, elitist behavior. Guess what? You just did.
theotherdraxen 12-27-06, 08:38 PM	Horaay! Yeah, I saw Rapier, did it get locked as well or did it just fade? Or is it still around? The Dwarf rapier thread died once the Werg lost interest in it. Since the thread was legal (while the Greatsword Elf thread was not), it just wasn't as much fun for everyone. We did conclude, however, that Vestigial Thumb was a hyper-intelligent gorilla, and in no way a hamster. :D
Vestigial_Thumb 12-27-06, 09:46 PM	I'll accept the cookie. I have to note, though, that I'm not very interested in openly reminding people, rather setting examples. I won't insult anyone intentionally, but I am somewhat set in my ways (I like to keep things casual; people should feel like they can say anything to me (that's the best way to keep them friendly, you know)).
Tenzhi 12-28-06, 12:00 AM	Since the comment was obviously not meant literally Wasn't it? I took it to literally mean that your wit was far too much for Sylvaroth to handle.
DemonDavyJones 12-28-06, 09:33 AM	:rolleyes: It probably was ;) :P ;) . BTW, Sylvaroth, an easy way to make sure people aren't offended by humor that you use is to add lots of smilies. Like so: ;) ;) :P
Loki5654 12-28-06, 11:48 AM	Wasn't it? I took it to literally mean that your wit was far too much for Sylvaroth to handle.It probably wasNo, no. Sylvaroth has already said he meant it as a joke.It was a humorous commentIt was a joke. A joke at my expense. Which is the same as an insult. His fellow TWF members joined in the mocking.But-but-but I wanna argue some more...awww.... Maybe they're too smart for you Sylvaroth, but I wanna argue some more! Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease? The Tame War Foundation: Exemplars of Etiquette and Paragons of Politeness.* *Unless you happen to disagree with them. Then they openly insult, mock, and then ignore you.
DemonDavyJones 12-28-06, 10:15 PM	Let me clarify my post on wanting to argue more: It was actually jokingly making fun of Sylvaroth. However, if you feel offended by it, I apologize, and will edit it. We are not mocking you, Sylvy made a joke. Personally I don't see how it could be taken as an insult, but, hey, he didn't say it to me, but I'm sure he didn't mean it as an insult. Again, if I was mocking anyone it was Sylvaroth, and even then it was only friendly... Have a nice day/week/(fort)night/whatever time period strikes you the best. :) ;) :P ;) :)
WizO_Shadow 01-08-07, 11:37 PM	Reopened upon further evaluation. My apologies on the interruption. As always, my friendly reminder of the CoC (http://www.wizards.com/coc). Renee Shadow
Sylvaroth 01-09-07, 01:44 AM	Reopened upon further evaluation. My apologies on the interruption. As always, my friendly reminder of the CoC (http://www.wizards.com/coc). Renee Shadow Thank you very much, WizO_Shadow! :w00t: As I told you already, there is no need for apologies. I only wish you had PMed me earlier to clarify some issues. Now let's go on to our latest news: Since the temporary closure of this thread the members of the foundation have decided to abandon the concept of a ranking system. This means that every member of the foundation (which is in effect everybody who shares the goals formulated in the section 'Statutes'), no matter if they are active in this thread or not, share the same status. Also I would like to introduce you to the latest member of the foundation: Welcome journeyman777! :clap:
theotherdraxen 01-09-07, 01:02 PM	Reopened upon further evaluation. My apologies on the interruption. As always, my friendly reminder of the CoC (http://www.wizards.com/coc). Renee Shadow :dancin: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :dancin:
theotherdraxen 01-09-07, 05:23 PM	Okay, so back to business. The ranking system has been (thankfully) abolished. Journeyman777 is now an official member (his quote: "Some things I say can be taken more than one way. If you find some of those ways are offensive, rest assured that is not the way I meant it. If I meant to offend you, there wouldn't be another way to take it."). Also, Darth Singe (the inspiration (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10462537#post10462537) for this group) may be joining in the future. Anyone else got any news?
Loki5654 01-10-07, 06:05 PM	The ranking system has been (thankfully) abolished.Granted I wasn't privy to your Yahoo Groups discussions, but I feel I should ask: Did you eliminate the ranking system because it was elitist or because you were afraid it made you look elitist? I certainly hope its the former. That would mean there may just be hope for this group yet. I'm still here, still watching you. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Me, that's who.
DemonDavyJones 01-10-07, 06:31 PM	The ranking system was not intended to be elitist, however, in a subconcious (and partly concious) way it was. However, it was percieved as much worse, so we abandoned it for both reasons. Primarily the former.
journeyman777 01-12-07, 03:49 AM	Now that we have the thread again, what are we going to use the yahoo group for? (and can someone remind me how to tweak my sig to get it to link this thread instead of the group?)
theotherdraxen 01-12-07, 05:25 PM	Now that we have the thread again, what are we going to use the yahoo group for? I'm thinking put it on reserve, use it for polls and possibly as a main group if we ever branch out to areas outside the Wizards Community (not likely, but hey, it can happen). (and can someone remind me how to tweak my sig to get it to link this thread instead of the group?) When editing your sig, you should see a little globe at the top of the Message box. Select the text you want to link, and then click the globe. Then, copy-paste in the URL of the site you want to link. It should look like this: Humble member of the Tame War Foundation (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=728678)
Sylvaroth 01-13-07, 06:57 PM	A new masterpiece of a board member who is in a huff: My Thoughts on the Tame War Foundation version 2.0 The locking of the Tame War Foundation could have been the best thing that ever happened to that group. It would have allowed them to forget about Quotes, Statutes, and self back-patting that the group engages in and allowed them to get out into the boards and simply be the exemplars of "proper" behavior that they claim they wish to be. Bottom Line: If you agree with them, they'll pat your head and give you a cookie. If you disagree with them, they'll passive-aggressively insult you. They are a group that insists on imposing their version of "proper" behavior on others while remaining unaccountable for their own behavior. :rolleyes: While I have gotten used to Loki's rather strange behavior, and am reaching a point now, where I can see it as amusing, I still feel I have to thank him. In the end, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. :D
Loki5654 01-13-07, 11:06 PM	A new masterpiece of a board member who is in a huff: Go ahead and trivialize me. It only strengthens my point about your condescending attitude. :rolleyes: If you have something to refute my statement with, then by all means post it. Even this one small emoticon is a symptom of your disrespectful and passive-aggressively insulting attitude towards those that disagree with your philosophy. While I have gotten used to Loki's rather strange behavior, and am reaching a point now, where I can see it as amusing, I still feel I have to thank him.Again you marginalize and insult me in the same sentence. Is speaking out against something you disagree with "strange behavior"? If you only want to hear from those who agree with you 100% then you should retreat back to your little Yahoo hidey-hole, kick out the other members and become a Foundation of One. That's the only way you'll get 100% agreement all the time. Keep your condescending and arrogant thanks, I'm not doing this for you. In the end, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. :DThat only works if the people listening don't pay attention to what's actually being said. I happen to think the members of these boards are smarter than that. Do you? Final thought: You claim to be an Exemplar of Etiquette, a Paragon of Politeness, and yet your comments about me have grown more snide and insulting as of late. Is it getting too hard, balancing on that pedastle of yours?
Tenzhi 01-14-07, 12:44 AM	You claim to be an Exemplar of Etiquette, a Paragon of Politeness An Archon of Alliteration? The sentiment of your arguments seems familiar to me for some reason. They spin a cautionary tale that I cannot wholly disagree with, though the expressed tone is a bit antagonistic.
theotherdraxen 01-14-07, 02:57 AM	Go ahead and trivialize me. It only strengthens my point about your condescending attitude. I apologize for Sylvaroths behavior here. I also ask that you judge us not as one. If you have something to refute my statement with, then by all means post it. Even this one small emoticon is a symptom of your disrespectful and passive-aggressively insulting attitude towards those that disagree with your philosophy. Just a thought (and I am not trying to be condescending or hurtful here), but is it possible that he is just expressing his opinion of you? If this is the case, then certainly you could respect that. If Sylvaroth (and this is purely hypothetical) thinks that you're a marginal fool, then doesn't he have just as much right to say that about you as you do to call us eliteists? Is speaking out against something you disagree with "strange behavior"? The same philosophy (it is his opinion, and he is entitled to it) could be applied here as well. Keep your condescending and arrogant thanks, I'm not doing this for you. Then who, pray tell, are you doing this for? I would really like to know. Final thought: You claim to be an Exemplar of Etiquette, a Paragon of Politeness, and yet your comments about me have grown more snide and insulting as of late. Is it getting too hard, balancing on that pedastle of yours? Well, we've never made such claims in my recollection, and at no point did we promise to be perfectly nice. I myself joined up stating that 'a little flame never hurt anyone'. However, our attitude towards you was driven by malignent emotions. These must be quelled, and so, I apologize.
Loki5654 01-14-07, 03:57 AM	I apologize for Sylvaroths behavior here. I also ask that you judge us not as one.While appreciate your good intentions in this case, I cannot accept your apology as you were not the transgressor. I'm trying my best not to paint you all with the same brush (JM777 can attest to this). I assure you my comments in this matter were directed at Sylvaroth himself. Just a thought (and I am not trying to be condescending or hurtful here), but is it possible that he is just expressing his opinion of you? If this is the case, then certainly you could respect that. If Sylvaroth (and this is purely hypothetical) thinks that you're a marginal fool, then doesn't he have just as much right to say that about you as you do to call us eliteists? The same philosophy (it is his opinion, and he is entitled to it) could be applied here as well.The distinction here is not that his opinions aren't his opinions, but that he is hiding his opinions behind snide and derisive tones. If he's going to marginalize me or call me a fool, I really must insist he do it to my face (metaphorically speaking) and not out of the side of his mouth to his fellow TWF members. He's bashing me to you guys while I'm standing in the room. Then who, pray tell, are you doing this for? I would really like to know.No one individual in particular (except maybe myself). Its an issue I've chosen to be interested in and I haven't seen/heard anything that has satisfied me enough so I can walk away. Well, we've never made such claims in my recollection, and at no point did we promise to be perfectly nice. I myself joined up stating that 'a little flame never hurt anyone'.My comments were directed at Sylvaroth not at the TWF. As a matter of fact, due to my correspondance with Journeyman777 I've decided to soften some of my criticism of the TWF as a whole (hence my newer sig, which you have to admit is softer than its predecessor). Sylvaroth continues to backhandedly insult me so I continue to call him on it. However, our attitude towards you was driven by malignent emotions. These must be quelled, and so, I apologize.Thank you, I appreciate that. In concession, I will try not to direct my criticism at the TWF as a whole (unless the situation merits it).
Sylvaroth 01-14-07, 03:05 PM	Since my past attempts to calm the waves with an explanation of my intentions have been taken as a cause for new insults and accusations, I feel, there is no point in further clarifying the intentions of my last post. I appreciate criticism in any form and flavor. Even if there is no truth in a certain accusation, there still might be a reason it was made in the first place. Still there is no point in constantly ranting about a subject that is fully hypothetical and, as of yet, nonexistent. As the question was asked about the further actions of the TWF, I suggest to go on, as was the initial goal, to do what we are here for.
Sylvaroth 01-14-07, 03:25 PM	Btw DemonDavyJones, this was no motion to kick some serious ass ;)
DemonDavyJones 01-14-07, 03:33 PM	Dangit! Back to baking cookies, my minions! :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :invasion: :duel: :duel: :emp: :fight!: :fight!:
Loki5654 01-14-07, 05:42 PM	I appreciate criticism in any form and flavor.No you don't. Twice now you've made derisive and sarcastic responses to my dissenting opinion. You ridicule my comments in the hopes of rallying your fellow TWF members around your attempt to minimize and marginalize my disagreement. You are trying to push me down so you can boost yourself up. Nice behavior from someone who says "Do tame, not flame." You are saying you appreciate criticism while at the same time you are rolling your eyes, making sarcastic jokes, and painting me as a lone nut.
JasonOrlandoHawk 01-14-07, 09:52 PM	I am not a member of the Tame War Foundation, nor do I claim to represent it. In fact, it should probably be noted that I am probably too argumentative to have any hope of ever earning any rank w/ such a group. Loki, :) :) :) :) :) :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :D :D :D :D :D Btw, any negative response to this post should be directed at me, and only me. This post was made w/o the consent or knowledge of TWF, and TWF should not be held responsible for anything that I said. Thank you, Jason
Loki5654 01-15-07, 02:21 AM	From everything I've read on this thread (you were post #2, right?), you seem to get quite the kick out of trolling a thread built on the premise of trying to curb flaming and trolling on these threads.I don't like what I'm being accused of here. I certainly don't believe anything I've done constitutes trolling or flaming. All I've done is stated my opposition to this group and rightly taken offense to insults and jokes made at my expense. If you think anything I've done is flaming or trolling, do what you are supposed to do: Report me and let a WizO sort it out. You'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be following proper protocol. Flaming, by definition, is a personal attack. "I'm ignoring you," does not qualify as a personal attack unless your in kindergarten. The personal attacks I have been offended by are the passive-aggressive insults ("You are too smart for me" etc.). Sylvaroth is free to ignore me all he wants but I still intend to speak out when I see this group take a misguided step. There's also a critical difference between jokes and attacks. Learn it.Please stop insulting my intelligence. I understand what jokes are, I am not without a sense of humor. But I am perfectly within my rights to take offense to jokes made at my expense. A pie in the face may be funny to some, but not always to the guy with pie on his face. If Sylvaroth insists on making me the butt of his jokes, I will continue to be offended by him and insist me make apologies for his rude behavior. From what I've read, Sylvaroth has 3 options: 1) Respond to your criticisms, earning repeated arguments, frequently on previous points of contention. An apology would be a response that would end this current round of arguments. 2) Ignore you or make light of the situation, earning responses more appropriate to a pre-pubescent child than a member of these forums.Again you insult my intelligence and maturity. Doesn't this make you as guilty of "trolling and flaming" as you think I am? People in glass houses and all that... If Sylvaroth is willing to concede the high ground by ignoring me, then all the more power to him. But he hasn't, you see. He actually went out of his way to copy my new opinion sig and post it here. Said I was "in a huff" and all that. Not very good at ignoring, is he? 3) Attack you personally, which defeats the point of the thread. Which option would you prefer he take? He's already taken this option. At least twice by my count. You seem to favor this option yourself, calling my maturity into question. I personally think that ignoring you is about the only reasonable option he has at his disposal. You've proven that you consider his point completely invalid, so why should he continue discussing the matter with you. You're entitled to your opinion, and he allows you to express it. Leave him be. It's obvious that you can't get along, so why continue this discourse?But he hasn't been ignoring me, has he? He's been saying he's ignoring me while he talks me down to the TWF in an attempt to marginalize me. He refuses to be held accountable for his comments which even his fellow TWF members believe were inflammatory. I've already stated that I am willing to ease up on the TWF as a whole. But Sylvaroth still owes me an apology and if he thinks ignoring me will make me go away, he is sorely mistaken. My personal philosophy doesn't line up w/ TWF either, but that doesn't mean I'm wasting my time arguing w/ them. My code of ethics (in regards to these discussions) could best be stated, "Conflict is inevitable, it's how you behave during conflict that shows your character." I know that I'm prone to getting caught up in debates, so I try to temper my natural urge to argue, and I attempt to keep the edge off by using humor and wise cracks when I post on heavily debated topics. I will say this, however. Every time I've seen a post by a TWF member, it has been clean, calm, and worth reading. While their philosophy and mine don't match up precisely, I still consider them some of the better members of these boards.With all due respect, what are you doing here then? You don't agree with them, you don't agree with me, you don't have any skin in the game. Why get involved? I have already admitted that some of the TWF are alright and have agreed to ease up on the group as a whole. Sylvaroth, however, made it personal. I'm not letting go of that that easily. There are a lot of individuals who have done vastly more damage to these boards than TWF members. Want to clean up the boards? Locate the people who think rape is funny and do something about that. Campaign against snide sexual comments about women. Curse Words. Drug References. Discussions of Fecal Matter. There are a lot of other things that need to be cleaned up.All of which is covered under the CoC. Anyone engaging in such behavior should be reported and/or added to your ignore list. That's what I do, and it works just fine for me. That's why I don't see a need for the TWF. I am coming to terms with the need others seem to have, but I'm not going to stop trying to convice them that the need is false. "They're elitist b/c they are attempting to self-police their own behavior to avoid flaming and trolling, AND they are attempting to serve as mediators to prevent the same among other board members." Seems a little weak to me.Do you have a counter-argument there, or is "seems a little weak" all you have? Your counter-argument seems weak to me, let me know when you have one with more meat on it. Find a better target. I'm fine with the one I've got, thank you very much. Feel free to continue condescending and insulting me. You've seen how well that dissuades me. Btw, any negative response to this post should be directed at me, and only me. This post was made w/o the consent or knowledge of TWF, and TWF should not be held responsible for anything that I said..Considering that you managed to accuse me of trolling and flaming while at the same time trolling and flaming me, you should be very careful about inviting negative responses. If the TWF gets more friends like you, they won't need me much longer.
Tenzhi 01-15-07, 09:04 AM	Flaming, by definition, is a personal attack. "I'm ignoring you," does not qualify as a personal attack unless your in kindergarten. Openly stating "I'm ignoring you" has been considered trolling around these boards (and others), however. And rightly so. There's no reason to state said action except to bait someone's ire. And amusingly enough, the act of stating it is familiar to kindergarten children as well since it is essentially the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la I'm not listening." The problem here, is that while Loki is largely (I won't say solely) attacking an idea, the replies he is receiving are largely (again, not solely) attacking him. Often indirectly via insinuations, but there you have it.
theotherdraxen 01-15-07, 02:06 PM	The problem here, is that while Loki is largely (I won't say solely) attacking an idea, the replies he is receiving are largely (again, not solely) attacking him. Often indirectly via insinuations, but there you have it. I think the problem is more people trying to objectively prove subjective beliefs. It's like those arguements that spring up over rolling stats versus point-buy. After digging myself into one of those, I realized that none of us could really prove that either one was superior to the other. The same stands true for this: we can't really prove that Sylvaroth's joke was meant to be offensive. Stating 'I've concluded that you are all just too smart for me' could have been a humurous concession, not trying to imply 'Loki is an idiot', but instead trying to imply 'Let's just agree to disagree', which is how I took it when I first read it. Again, Loki is attacking an idea, but he is trying to objectively prove we are eliteist, or he is just restating his opinions ad nauseum. Either way, his points cannot hold any ground for the same reason our points (we are not eliteists) cannot hold any ground: the very term eliteist is subjective, and thus, cannot possibly be proven. Loki is free to think and feel however he wishes about us, and state so. However, he should respect our right to disagree and our right to be here as a guild. Likewise, Sylvaroth is free to think and feel however he wishes about Loki, although stating so is against the CoC. Sylvaroth, IMHO, should respect Loki's right disagree with us. The real issue I have isn't with Loki attacking our ideas via debate: it's his consistent manner of posting here and interrupting the workflow. Thus, if we want to get anything done (like amending the ranking system or making new proposals) we have to ignore him, which offends him and compels him to continue posting. Again, neither side can be objectively proven, so debating the matter is pointless IMO. I would really like to get back to figuring out the TWFs next step, and we can't do that with a raging debate going on between two posters that just seem not to like eachother very much.
Tenzhi 01-15-07, 02:32 PM	the very term eliteist is subjective, and thus, cannot possibly be proven. This is very true. Things like condescension and other insulting notions may also be a matter of subjective perception. And as many of the heated arguments which, I believe, this Foundation looks to smooth over shall likely be based around (mis)understandings of that nature, how shall they deal with it "in the field" if it troubles them at their doorstep, I wonder? A misspoken word in a potential situation might do more harm than good. I would say that members should try to be as covert in their manipulation of discourse as possible.
DemonDavyJones 01-15-07, 03:03 PM	*Pokes head out through the curtains* Is it safe to come out now? Are the subjectively objective arguments over ;) ? No? Well then, I'll just have to apply Holy Smites and Geas spells all around. :P Seriously though, lessall get this debating behind us and continue on our mission, to *cough assimilateverythinginathousandmileradius cough* I mean taming and warring and foundation...ing. :cool:
theotherdraxen 01-15-07, 03:28 PM	Seriously though, lessall get this debating behind us and continue I don't think it's that easy. We still have a conflict (or two) here that begs a resolution. I think a solution can be found if both parties of this conflict are willing to work together. In the smaller conflict, we have the argument between Loki and Sylvaroth, which I think a simple apology from both parties will be all that is necessary. Both Sylvaroth and Loki have made comments which were either directly offensive or were subtly offensive(and therefore could be taken offensively in the absence of objective proof). I think that both members need to realize that no matter who was right, no one was empowered with the right to sling insults at the other, no matter how subtle or how opinion-based. In the larger conflict, we have Loki, Madhouse, Orcy the Green Wonder, and others that possibly find (I may not understand them fully) our groups mission statement offensive or threatening. In turn, we have endured a number of attacks and have had our progress marred by repeated dissent. This is not to lay blame, or to imply that blame is even the order of the day, but instead, to simply say that both larger parties have felt the negative impacts of this feud, and that recompensation, again from both sides, may be in order. All I ask is that we be allowed to continue our discourse and advancement of our organization by our own right means, and in exchange for this, I am proposing that we negotiate with Loki and others on a specific statute which will explicitly limit the Tame War Foundation from achieving the end goal that is feared: that we will become a group of polite eliteists.
Sylvaroth 01-15-07, 03:47 PM	This is my apology as sent via pm to Loki: Dear Loki, Please take the following words as my honest and coming-from-the-heart apologies for my behavior in reaction to your postings in the TWF. I seem to have misinterpreted your comments as inflammatory and aggressive, when they really were meant to point out the factual and hypothetical problems, the TWF is facing. I have come to realize, that your sometimes straightforward and direct way of commenting things, is not intended to insult, but rather to call to attention the things, which, while they are not pleasant to realize, have a certain point. Please accept my honest apologies for comments I made in the past that may have insulted you. I will also repost this letter in the TWF thread, so everybody may see it. I really do appreciate your criticism and admit I am also most contrite I may have angered you, thus blocking the way for a future productive dialogue, out of wounded pride of my part. Sincerely, Sylvaroth
Loki5654 01-15-07, 03:52 PM	And I have accepted his apology. I shall now fade back into the background and watch. This group is actually starting to take steps I approve of (removing the ranking system and such-like) so I'll only reappear if I see something that really needs my attention. Good day.
Tenzhi 01-15-07, 04:15 PM	Hurray for peace on all fronts!
DemonDavyJones 01-15-07, 04:24 PM	Yay! Happy Holidays and happy Halloween everybody! Trick or treat! Minutes after we thought the conflict still needed to be resolved, it was! Yaaaaaaaaay! Drinks of water all around!
theotherdraxen 01-15-07, 04:29 PM	Well agreed. Peace is a good thing. :w00t: ...er, now back to business? I'd like to propose amending my other foolish proposal of the censorship system. I don't think it was ever made official, but perhaps a statute banning such exclusionary behavior might even be in order.
DemonDavyJones 01-15-07, 04:35 PM	Well, for starters, I think we should have a "We will not insult board members who disagree with us and express this disagreement in the form of a signature" statute. Sylvaroth, I'm looking at you for this one ;) :P ;) . Smileys are a delicious part of any humorous comment, and they help keep people from misunderstanding your funny intentions. Yay smileys! :)
Sylvaroth 01-15-07, 04:47 PM	Well, then again, maybe we should also state that any comments we include in our signatures are not meant to threaten everyoneinathousandmileradius :poke: :poke: ;) :D
DemonDavyJones 01-15-07, 04:49 PM	Touche.
Sylvaroth 01-15-07, 04:52 PM	:D :duel::D
DemonDavyJones 01-15-07, 05:03 PM	Parry riposte! :duel: I can weild a foil, epee, and saber. At the same time even! :D Beat that!
Sylvaroth 01-15-07, 05:10 PM	Lad, I am a uranium katana wielding DMPC fighter with a hasted spiked chain as my off-hand weapon. :rolleyes:
DemonDavyJones 01-15-07, 05:11 PM	Oh. Oh, dear. EDIT: This thread has derailed. I will now re-rail it. *ahem* All to Helm's Deep! And leave naught alive! ... That was what we were doing, right? :P
theotherdraxen 01-15-07, 05:44 PM	Helm's Deep? What the hell? Demon, you didn't drink a potion of epic awesomeness again, did you? 'Cause my 40th level rebalanced Aasimar Paladin/Marshal will totally pwn3d your uber 1337 ZOMG build. Oh, and CAEWAGS (Can an elf wield a great sword) is back....sort of (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=772209). BTW: Anyway, any thoughts on my, er, last post?
Sylvaroth 01-15-07, 06:06 PM	As I said, just forget it. We cannot do anything about members acting 'out of line'. Still, there are examples of people who are members and did misbehave, but were given a hand to find back on the path of Exemplars of Etiquette, Paragons of Politeness, and Archons of All...uhm...think you get my point. Btw :D
JasonOrlandoHawk 01-15-07, 08:39 PM	:rant: :confused: :embarrass Seems the debate ended before I could return... Good to see that everything has calmed down. Although that does leave me in the position of explaining the previous post... Again you insult my intelligence and maturity. Doesn't this make you as guilty of "trolling and flaming" as you think I am? People in glass houses and all that... First and foremost, my comments were not an insult to your intelligence, but rather your maturity. You have quite the vocabulary, and you're obviously a talented writer, so I would not question your mental abilities, but that is not the point... I was, how could I best explain this... using the Bluff skill to create a diversion so that Sylvaroth had time to make a hide check. Having mediated several disputes in the course of my life, the first thing that almost always needs to be done is to seperate the individuals fighting. Seeing what was happening, I "stepped into the line of fire" w/ the intent of incuring your wrath. Once we started arguing, Sylvaroth was under instructions to leave you alone. At that point, I would start using PM's to converse w/ you and slowly let all parties involved calm down. I definitely wanted to prevent you and Sylvaroth from continuing to insult one another on this actual thread since that would continue to escalate the situation. As an outsider stepping in, I didn't have a long-standing rivalry that had been established between you two, so I figured if I distracted you all from fighting, the storm would pass fairly quickly. At that point, I intended to try and convince Sylvaroth to swallow some Humble Pie and apologize. Sadly, he beat me to it, meaning I only got to implement phase one of my plan. Btw, Sylvaroth can confirm everything I just said. After allowing everyone to have time to read the post, and noticing that I had started to draw fire as planned, I sent him a PM explaing what I was doing and how I hoped to end the argument occuring on this thread. Anyways, now that everything has calmed down (w/o my tactics being necessary), please allow me to extend an apology. The previous post was a being used as a distraction, so please do not take it too literally. I'm sorry for the harsh comments, but I was trying to work quickly. I will shortly edit my post so that rather than distracting you, it will contain a large number of smiley faces. As I have said before, my goals do not line up 100% w/ this group. Thank you for your vigilance, Loki. :tiphat: Thank you for your willingness to set an example TWF. :tiphat: I just didn't want to see to much more of this. :fight!: :duel: :fight!: My apologies all around, Jason
Loki5654 01-15-07, 11:27 PM	JasonOrlandoHawk: One of the tenets of the TWF I happen to agree with is the need for open and honest communication. Personally, I find the idea of entering into a debate under false pretenses and with ulterior motives to be extremely distasteful. While I am letting this matter drop for now, I will leave you with this to think about: Posting with the explicit intent of illiciting a negative reaction is referred to as "baiting". However noble you think your intentions were, such behavior can end up exploding in your own face and could be considered a violation of the CoC. Please be careful in the future.
JasonOrlandoHawk 01-16-07, 01:04 PM	:incog: 1) My posts were not entirely a bluff check. I was being quite honest when I said that TWF represents some of the calmest, cleanest, and well thought out posts on this board. I was standing up for TWF, I just was also aiming to move the argument off the thread pages. 2) If ulterior motives bother you, then this may be a bad time to admit that I try to post several times a day, in multiple locations on the boards, solely b/c I want to advertise the Hero Craftsman Contests on the "What's a Player to Do?" Threads (see sig on page 7). And yes, that is part of the reason I posted. I knew a lot of people would read what I said... :blush: 3) Yes, I admit my post was intending to draw your fire. Much like your ego-sig insult was intending to draw a response and Sylvaroth's comments were to draw a response. However, just like you edited your sig shortly there after, I have also edited my post to include 15 smileys, rather than my original comments. (On a side note: I was very upset that they limited me to only 15 smileys. I really wanted to use more.) 4) @ Sylvaroth: You asked for my advice in this situation, so I shall give it to you. Take the example set by Loki. Remove the offending comments from your earlier posts. Replace them w/ Smileys!!! 5) @ Loki: Apology accepted or argument merely stalled for a later date? My goal was reached, so I've got no issue left in these matters. :cool: Now to my original purpose for visiting this thread in the first place: theotherdraxen, I have noticed several of your posts across the boards, and I came here to compliment you on the quality of your work. Well done! :incog:
theotherdraxen 01-17-07, 03:05 PM	theotherdraxen, I have noticed several of your posts across the boards, and I came here to compliment you on the quality of your work. Well done! I sure hope you're talking about my homebrew stuff, 'cause my TWF tact is supposed to be, well, incognito... Thank you very much, Jason. :) On other matters, I think that our feud here was settled, and someone deserves a cookie for it. As I recall, Journeyman was the one that negotiated with Loki and brought the rest of us to our senses. If he will accept it, I propose that he be given a TWF cookie for his fine job here. I would also propose that Loki recieve one as well, since it was he who was first to point out the wrong direction we were taking (and I'm sorry for spearheading those centralized motions). The TWF is better as a whole, in my opinion, thanks to Loki.
Sylvaroth 01-17-07, 03:15 PM	On other matters, I think that our feud here was settled, and someone deserves a cookie for it. As I recall, Journeyman was the one that negotiated with Loki and brought the rest of us to our senses. If he will accept it, I propose that he be given a TWF cookie for his fine job here. I would also propose that Loki recieve one as well, since it was he who was first to point out the wrong direction we were taking (and I'm sorry for spearheading those centralized motions). The TWF is better as a whole, in my opinion, thanks to Loki. Other than what you told me, drax, I know nothing about Journeyman's actions, so I would like to hear Loki about this matter, before I give my vote. As for Loki, seconded! So, Loki, would you care to step out of the background for a moment, to both give a comment and accept this great honor? :D
Loki5654 01-17-07, 05:36 PM	Journeyman was kind enough to "cc" me on part of your internal discussion. This simple gesture of open communication led me to rethink my criticism of the TWF as a whole. As I said to him via PM: Him, I like. Get 10-12 more just like him and, heck, I might just join up myself (emphasis on might). As for myself? The fact that you are removing the ranking system and taking a good long look at your other practices is much more satisfying to me than a sugary treat. Then again, there's always room for dessert. I leave the decision in your hands.
Sylvaroth 01-17-07, 06:21 PM	Well, that is good enough for me. I give it my vote. So here we have: Member: Journeyman777 :cookie: Honorary Member: Loki5654 :cookie: As for the ranking system, it has already been removed (i.e. there are only members and honorary members in the OP now).
Sylvaroth 01-17-07, 06:32 PM	Also I'd like to make a motion to cut Vestigial_Thumb's cookie in half, giving the other half to Bmuht_Laigitsev (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=522508) just for being so awesome ;)
Loki5654 01-17-07, 08:06 PM	Honorary Member: Loki5654 :cookie:Not to be picky and all, but could you make that "Honoree" or similar. "Honorary Member" doesn't quite feel right to me. Like an itchy sweater.
theotherdraxen 01-17-07, 08:23 PM	Did thumb get banned? I hope not. Anyway, the next thing I have to bring up: expanding the TWF over to Warboards. I have an old account there, and I'm going to try to start a TWF guild over there as soon as I'm away from finals. Now, I've started a bit of a 'prep' thread here (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=24289), and as you can see, I've been warned a number of times that an 'initiative for politeness' will likely not be well recieved (though I've been wished the best of luck). If anyone has any advice to offer, or perhaps has a warboards account, then I'd appreciate your help. Also, if anyone has any suggestions for how the mainpage should be written, please feel free to post them (my current plan is to copy-paste our main page and edit it for relevance). Edit: Well, Loki, the main page just says Honorary Members and lists them. Do people think a new category is in order, or just a title notation before the name? In any case, I'm glad you accepted the honorary motion, Loki.
Loki5654 01-17-07, 11:22 PM	Edit: Well, Loki, the main page just says Honorary Members and lists them. Do people think a new category is in order, or just a title notation before the name?Its not the "Honorary" part the bugs me. I'm not too keen on the "member" part, is all.
journeyman777 01-18-07, 02:34 AM	Conquering the world can wait for tomorrow, today the meek inherit the :cookie:. Thanks guys, I'm honored.
Sylvaroth 01-18-07, 11:15 AM	Its not the "Honorary" part the bugs me. I'm not too keen on the "member" part, is all. That's what I guessed. Maybe we should expand the entry describing the honorary membership. In short, honorary members are members of the Wizards.Community, who received/accepted a TWF cookie. The membership part involves but is not restricted to the possibility of participating in discussions which require a vote. I would say a honorary member deserves this title as much as somebody who received a honorary doctor title ;)
theotherdraxen 01-18-07, 01:27 PM	Right. So the word member refers to members of the Wizards community, and not necessarily members of the Tame War Foundation.
Loki5654 01-18-07, 03:52 PM	Right. So the word member refers to members of the Wizards community, and not necessarily members of the Tame War Foundation.OK, I can live with that. I just had that Groucho Marx quote reverberating in my head.
theotherdraxen 01-18-07, 04:03 PM	We should probably still clarify that on the main page so people don't get confused. Anyway, anyone got any suggestions for the Warboards TWF? I should be posting it either tomorrow or on Saturday.
Sylvaroth 01-19-07, 12:24 PM	OK, I can live with that. I just had that Groucho Marx quote reverberating in my head. Something along the line that you didn't want to be member of a club that wants you to join them?
Loki5654 01-19-07, 02:42 PM	Something along the line that you didn't want to be member of a club that wants you to join them?"I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member." -Groucho Marx
theotherdraxen 01-19-07, 10:36 PM	Okay, so I just opened the TWF on Warboards (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=24390), and now I'm having troubles: a couple of posters there seem to be derailing the thread (though I suspect they will die down soon enough, since I stopped playing along), and the morale there is too low to get any members. I'm really getting stuck over there. Any advice as to what I should do? Edit: oh god, it's devolving into a flame war. Double edit: and now there's an evil twin (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=24399).
DemonDavyJones 01-20-07, 09:47 AM	I'm going to drink a Potion of Epic Fire and Acidicness (my sequal to the Potion of Epic Awesomeness!) and go pwn those trolls by denying them their regeneration ability! (Translation: I'll go join the Warboards and join the TWF over there in the hopes of promoting mob psychology and getting more to follow!)
theotherdraxen 01-20-07, 10:07 AM	Thanks, DemonDavyJones. There is a very strong sense of culture there, however, so you might want to watch out.
DemonDavyJones 01-20-07, 10:15 AM	Uh... define "Culture"... It doesn't sound very fun...
Tenzhi 01-20-07, 04:18 PM	Uh... define "Culture"... It doesn't sound very fun... A purposely created colony of bacteria that will continue to grow until it chokes to death on its own effluvium. ;)
theotherdraxen 01-20-07, 11:57 PM	I'm really struggling to make headway with diplomacy over there. People literally say stuff like this: draxen, seriously? WTF. Do you think you are some sort of revolutionary? GTFO. No one wants you here and you will accomplish nothing. I hereby vow to be a dick to everyone on the forums all of the time. You have inspired me, draxen. If you guys are going to increase the level of nice-ness, then I am going to have to balance it back out. This forum needs a disclaimer... I have to admit, these are very discouraging. Journeyman777, I accidentally deleted your PM about diplomacy. Would you mind posting it here? And please, if anyone can offer any advice, I'd be very grateful. On the plus side, in addition to Demon and I, we have two new members.
Loki5654 01-21-07, 02:30 AM	I'm really struggling to make headway with diplomacy over there. People literally say stuff like this: I have to admit, these are very discouraging. Right, you've caught me in a good mood. So read this well and save it in a TXT file somewhere 'cause I'll probably delete it once I come to my senses. Your detractors on Warboards aren't as serious as they seem. In my opinion, they are either being contrary for the sake of being contrary or attempting to ridicule you to make themselves feel better or both. Do what you came to do: be an example. Stop trying to actively change them. Just be yourself and if they come around, you'll be all the better for it. When you try to lead by example, you run the risk of not being followed. The smart ones know not to be bothered by this and keep on leading anyway. There, I'm done. Now you kids get offa my lawn.:behold:
DemonDavyJones 01-21-07, 08:12 AM	Right, you've caught me in a good mood. So read this well and save it in a TXT file somewhere 'cause I'll probably delete it once I come to my senses. Your detractors on Warboards aren't as serious as they seem. In my opinion, they are either being contrary for the sake of being contrary or attempting to ridicule you to make themselves feel better or both. Do what you came to do: be an example. Stop trying to actively change them. Just be yourself and if they come around, you'll be all the better for it. When you try to lead by example, you run the risk of not being followed. The smart ones know not to be bothered by this and keep on leading anyway. HAH! I quoted it so you can't delete it! :D All your nice are belong to us! There, I'm done. Now you kids get offa my lawn No way, man! This is our lawn!
theotherdraxen 01-21-07, 10:51 AM	Thank you very much, Loki. I never saw things that way.
Sylvaroth 01-21-07, 12:32 PM	Do what you came to do: be an example. Stop trying to actively change them. Just be yourself and if they come around, you'll be all the better for it. When you try to lead by example, you run the risk of not being followed. The smart ones know not to be bothered by this and keep on leading anyway. QFT Thank you very much, Loki. I never saw things that way. Why, what else is the point in being Exemplars of Etiquette, and Paragons of Politeness? :D
Loki5654 01-21-07, 04:12 PM	HAH! I quoted it so you can't delete it! :D All your nice are belong to us! No way, man! This is our lawn! Thank you very much, Loki. I never saw things that way. QFT Why, what else is the point in being Exemplars of Etiquette, and Paragons of Politeness? :DBah! I'm regretting it already. One of you guys needs to do or say something elitist so I can feel normal again.
Sylvaroth 01-21-07, 04:24 PM	That reminded me so much of that Sesame Street guy living in a garbage can, I was rolling on the floor laughing so hard I almost felt like a child again. :D Thank you Loki, you just made my day ;)
DemonDavyJones 01-21-07, 07:59 PM	People who are <insert elitist thing here> cannot join. :P There you go Loki, you have your elitist comment. :mrt: ... Now get off our lawn. ;)
theotherdraxen 01-21-07, 10:14 PM	Eliteist? I say that kittens may not join the TWF! http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/toocute.jpg Too bad. Anyway, the reason I'm so relieved is that it looks like the TWF arguments and fears are subsiding. We ignored the jokers and countered the one person that actually tried to summarize a logical argument against us. Right now, the members there are basically going, "Let the stubborn goat have his way." Which is exactly what I wanted. Once people realize that we actually pose no threat to their liberties, the fears will die down, and we'll have a strong place there.
journeyman777 01-22-07, 02:36 AM	Since you asked, here's the advice I sent. 1. Listen. 2. Assume the other person is genuinely trying to help. 3. Treat all criticism as constructive. 4. Acknowledge the validity of the other person's opinion. 5. Thank him for his help. 6. If you can't say something nice, take some time to cool down. 7. Attack the problem, not the people. 8. Apply logic. 9. Take the time to use proper spelling and grammar 10. Never be afraid to admit your errors or ask for help. A few quotes I find help keep me in the proper frame of mind: It is better to do right, than to be right. A soft answer turneth away wrath. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it! As long as you can still laugh at yourself, you'll be just fine.
Loki5654 01-22-07, 03:01 PM	I say that kittens may not join the TWF!:D Aha! Now the true perfidy of the TWF is finally revealed! Is there no depth to which you will sink?!?:D But seriously...awwww.
theotherdraxen 01-22-07, 04:14 PM	Since you asked, here's the advice I sent. All sigged, for great justice!
theotherdraxen 01-28-07, 08:12 PM	When should a Tame War Foundation member act? ... If everyone is up for the discussion, I think I'd like to try to get this question answered. Before I make my own, anyone got any proposals?
Sylvaroth 01-29-07, 11:36 AM	theotherdraxen, as I already said before, I do not think we should actively search the boards for such situations. However, if you are interested in a thread, or you feel you could be, if flaming and arguments stopped, or if you think a newcomer to D&D and/or the Wizards.Community has been rudely dealt with, all of these are good reasons for a TWF member to act. Still, try not to appear to be too much of a smart-ass, -since the ultimate truth has many faces- but rather try to be helpful and illuminate the path leading the disputing parties to a constructive dialogue at the least. Of course there are and will be people, who will continue to be rude, no matter what you do, but concentrate on those who need help, and you will see, nobody who is obviously trying to find the way will turn down a helping hand. They say, do not feed trolls, but sometimes there is a sheep in troll's clothing. Be always sensitive to the subtle shades between coarse manners and actual trolling. Try to be cautious, impartial, and most of all fair, and willing to help, and you will have nothing to fear, when deciding to mediate in a conflict. QFT:D
theotherdraxen 01-29-07, 10:08 PM	I see. Generally, I act when I see a dispute breaking out, and I think that a few calm words can help settle things down. When people get angry at me, simply saying "Let's not get hostile" or even "Calm down, I'm not flaming you" can usually get them to resume a more reasonable tone. I guess, thought, that this doesn't confer any specific reason for a TWF member to act, whereas Sylvaroth's post does. How about this: When should a Tame War Foundation member act? If you are interested in a thread, or you feel you could be, if flaming and arguments stopped, or if you think a newcomer to D&D and/or the Wizards.Community has been rudely dealt with, all of these are good reasons for a TWF member to act. I still feel it's lacking something, since I act in threads I'm not all that interested in (though I may find them amusing). I don't hunt flame wars down, but if I see one, I might try a calm word or two to see if it can get people to cool down. If it fails, I move on.
CaptainShar 01-29-07, 11:23 PM	Claps :clap: to the various posters on this thread for generally good suggestions and resolutions even of internal arguments. Would the TWF be open to non-members wishing to discuss/ask for help in particular boards situations here? I don't think I'm lawful enough to want to join (yet) despite what all the online character personality tests say, but a thread like this could be useful for such purposes. Also, it would make it seem less police-y and exclusionary.
theotherdraxen 01-30-07, 08:10 PM	Claps :clap: to the various posters on this thread for generally good suggestions and resolutions even of internal arguments. Thank you. :) It's ironic that it wasn't until we started opposing each other that we actually got somewhere. Sylvaroth was right when he said that it was the diversity of the TWF that was it's strength. Would the TWF be open to non-members wishing to discuss/ask for help in particular boards situations here? That is what we are here for, ma'am (er, miss?). I've never been asked to mediate before, but I'm always willing to do so if requested. I'm pretty sure the other members feel the same way. Do you have a board situation in mind? I don't think I'm lawful enough to want to join (yet) despite what all the online character personality tests say, but a thread like this could be useful for such purposes. Also, it would make it seem less police-y and exclusionary. This is good by my book. Glad to see you've taken an interest in us. :D
CaptainShar 01-30-07, 11:10 PM	It's ironic that it wasn't until we started opposing each other that we actually got somewhere. Well, I think "getting somewhere" would have been even more admirable if the arguments hadn't devolved into some name-calling back there, but it did succeed in demonstrating what you guys are trying to do. But the demonstrating could have been done elsewhere, and the arguments here kept completely polite. That is what we are here for, ma'am (er, miss?). Yes, "miss." Funny how the avatar gives it away... Do you have a board situation in mind? Nope. Just joining the discussion. I love discussions (and respectful but lively arguments, too). And I'm happy that this board is open for various help and discussions. I was actually thinking something like - Poster X sees a flame war getting out of control on his thread. Poster X wants a little advice on how to handle it, and so feels free to PM TWF members about it, gets some advice or encouragement, and goes back to handle it himself. Or call in an outside party if he really thinks that'll help the situation. It'd just be nice to know that certain people are willing to help think through the wisest/most charismatic thing to do in a certain situation.
theotherdraxen 01-30-07, 11:58 PM	Well, I think "getting somewhere" would have been even more admirable if the arguments hadn't devolved into some name-calling back there, but it did succeed in demonstrating what you guys are trying to do. But the demonstrating could have been done elsewhere, and the arguments here kept completely polite. Er, yeah, can we settle on "holy hell" not being the best turn of phrase for persuading people? If it wasn't for Journeyman777, I think we'd have all become exactly what Loki was saying we would. Yes, "miss." Funny how the avatar gives it away... No, miss, you created a female character over in the Paladin thread. Besides, Sylvaroth can tell you: I can usually figure out a thing or two about a poster. ;) Nope. Just joining the discussion. I love discussions (and respectful but lively arguments, too). Where were you at the fighter debates? Now those are lively. And I'm happy that this board is open for various help and discussions. I was actually thinking something like - Poster X sees a flame war getting out of control on his thread. Poster X wants a little advice on how to handle it, and so feels free to PM TWF members about it, gets some advice or encouragement, and goes back to handle it himself. Or call in an outside party if he really thinks that'll help the situation. It'd just be nice to know that certain people are willing to help think through the wisest/most charismatic thing to do in a certain situation. Er, isn't that on the main page? ... Huh, I guess I must have just assumed that that's what we do. It certainly does add to the 'When should a TWF member act' question.
CaptainShar 01-31-07, 12:49 AM	Where were you at the fighter debates? Now those are lively. In case you haven't noticed, I've been on the boards for less than a year, and am still rather new to D&D in general (started playing last school year, my first ever RPG of any kind; I've played in one campaign and one one-shot, DMed a total of one campaign, two one-shots, and have just recruited two players for my next campaign). Edit: Forgot the Star Wars one-shot. Er, isn't that on the main page? The main page implies more arbitrary abritration, and less "receiving of PMs, or requests specifically placed on this thread, for advice." I did take another look at the FAQ, and it does mention something like this in there. The first post, however, makes the main activity of the TWF seem like arbitrating whenever they run into something on another thread. If you want to emphasize the "advice column" aspect of the thread, I suggest Sylvaroth amends the first post. P.S. - I'm actually really curious as to what made theotherdraxen guess why I was a gal, if it wasn't just the avatar and the Paladin character. So, if you feel like it, PM me (since this is seriously off-topic for this thread).
Sylvaroth 01-31-07, 11:20 AM	Sylvaroth was right when he said that it was the diversity of the TWF that was it's strength. QFT Would the TWF be open to non-members wishing to discuss/ask for help in particular boards situations here? I think this is a great idea, since not only we (the TWF members), but everybody may then give some advice. But the demonstrating could have been done elsewhere, and the arguments here kept completely polite. Well, I guess we needed a good example of how to handle a conflict. Thanks to Loki and me we have got one now :D It'd just be nice to know that certain people are willing to help think through the wisest/most charismatic thing to do in a certain situation. Well, that's what we Exemplars of Etiquette, and Paragons of Politeness are here for, aren't we :D All members of the Wizards.Community are encouraged and invited to join in TWF discussions, to post questions or give suggestions if they feel like it. Just changed the FAQ a little. Btw. Drax can cast clairaudience/clairvoyance at will, that's the whole secret about his 'figuring out a thing or two about a poster' ;)
theotherdraxen 01-31-07, 10:53 PM	In case you haven't noticed, I've been on the boards for less than a year, and am still rather new to D&D in general (started playing last school year, my first ever RPG of any kind; I've played in one campaign and one one-shot, DMed a total of one campaign, two one-shots, and have just recruited two players for my next campaign). So, have you been called a cultist yet? The main page implies more arbitrary abritration, and less "receiving of PMs, or requests specifically placed on this thread, for advice." I did take another look at the FAQ, and it does mention something like this in there. The first post, however, makes the main activity of the TWF seem like arbitrating whenever they run into something on another thread. If you want to emphasize the "advice column" aspect of the thread, I suggest Sylvaroth amends the first post. I do think that the first post as written has done us some harm. I need sleep right now, but I'll think about how it can be amended to better represent us, er, tomorrow. P.S. - I'm actually really curious as to what made theotherdraxen guess why I was a gal, if it wasn't just the avatar and the Paladin character. So, if you feel like it, PM me (since this is seriously off-topic for this thread). Sure thing. I think this is a great idea, since not only we (the TWF members), but everybody may then give some advice. Agreed. Well, I guess we needed a good example of how to handle a conflict. Thanks to Loki and me we have got one now :D Hey, I rallied the mob! Give credit where it's due. All members of the Wizards.Community are encouraged and invited to join in TWF discussions, to post questions or give suggestions if they feel like it. Just changed the FAQ a little. Good, glad to see our FAQ completed. Btw. Drax can cast clairaudience/clairvoyance at will, that's the whole secret about his 'figuring out a thing or two about a poster' ;) Yes. Your room, Sylvaroth, has blue walls. So, am I right?:)
Loki5654 02-01-07, 02:22 AM	Can't believe I'm doing this. I must be really bored. What is the Tame War Foundation? The Tame War Foundation (TWF) is an initiative for more politeness in the Wizards.Community. We see it as a network of helpful members of the Wizard.Community who want everybody to have the opportunity to feel comfortable on the boards. We hope to help not only in mediating disputes, but also in helping our fellow members with useful pieces of information. Please see our members as guides to turn to if you are searching for help. This includes questions from newcomers about the boards, D&D related conflicts, or general questions about interpersonal communication. I have been to other forums and the Wizard.Community is very civil in comparison, so do we really need the Tame War Foundation? While we agree that the WizOs do a very good job in moderating the boards, we believe that the amount of flaming and trolling on the boards (while negligable) are still an issue of concern. Certainly we agree that these boards are nicer than some. However, we also believe that by setting good examples a higher level of "niceness" can be achieved. Is the Tame War Foundation actively spying on people who misbehave in your opinion so you can denounce them to the WizOs? It is not our intention to run around on the boards and accuse anyone we do not like of violations against the CoC. The point of being a member of the TWF is not about pin-pointing people who say controversial things, but about showing the community how conflicts can be resolved without resorting to disrespectful and rude behavior. Expressing controversial opinions is not against the CoC, and the members of the TWF support everyone’s right to free expression. If, however, you post on these boards in a blatant violation of the CoC we will (saldy) report you if no other resolution is available. Are TWFs endowed with special moderator rights? That is, do you have powers similar to those of the WizOs? In short: No. The TWF has the power to do good for the well-being of the community. This power is granted to everybody by the sense of responsibility and community and the aspiration for a harmonious arrangement of all forms of opinions and views.Suggested Replacement Paragraph: We do, however, believe that by setting good examples of behavior and communicating openly and with honest intent we can resolve conflicts before they reach the point of needing moderator intervention. When should a Tame War Foundation member act? If you are interested in a thread, or you feel you could be, if flaming and arguments stopped, or if you think a newcomer to D&D and/or the Wizards.Community has been rudely dealt with, all of these are good reasons for a TWF member to act. Also it has been suggested that, if one saw a thread that seemed in danger to degenerate into a flame war, or if one otherwise felt a few calm words might pour oil on troubled water, one should give it a try.This needs to be re-written too, but for certain reasons I am leaving it alone for now. I am not a member of the TWF, can I post here anyways? All members of the Wizards.Community are invited (and encouraged!) to join in TWF discussions and to post questions or give suggestions if they so choose. What are TWF cookies and how can I get one? Anyone can nominate someone for a :cookie: award. Cookie Awards are in recognition of outstanding accomplishments by TWF members as well as general members of the boards. Honorary members are members of the Wizards.Community who are not members of the TWF but have been awarded a TWF cookie. To nominate someone for a cookie motion, please include a short explanatory statement and a link to the appropriate thread(s). Please do not nominate yourself or, in the case of being nominated, vote for yourself. In order to prevent this any nominations must be seconded by at least one member of the TWF or a WizO.There. Softened some language and tweaked some vocabulary and grammar. No offense, but a sub-par FAQ can make you seem foolish. Now I thought I told you kids to get off my lawn! :rant:
DemonDavyJones 02-01-07, 07:40 AM	Now I thought I told you kids to get off my lawn! Ay caramba... This. Is. OUR. LAWN!!! :headexplo (;) ) Your lawn is over there by the dumpster :smirk: You crazy oldster! Geeet off of our laaawn :ahem: ! ... :D Have a nice day.
Sylvaroth 02-01-07, 06:17 PM	Hey, I rallied the mob! Give credit where it's due. Credit cookie :cookie: Good, glad to see our FAQ completed. Inspired by Loki's suggestions I made some changes. Thanks, Loki! Yes. Your room, Sylvaroth, has blue walls. So, am I right?:) I won't tell you, and you'll probably never know. Why? Well, I have screen wallpapers ;)
journeyman777 02-02-07, 03:47 AM	I was actually thinking something like - Poster X sees a flame war getting out of control on his thread. Poster X wants a little advice on how to handle it, and so feels free to PM TWF members about it, gets some advice or encouragement, and goes back to handle it himself. Or call in an outside party if he really thinks that'll help the situation. It'd just be nice to know that certain people are willing to help think through the wisest/most charismatic thing to do in a certain situation.I'm generally on in the evenings and would be more than happy to help out in response to a PM. I'm hardly the wisest/smartest/most charismatic guy around (or even on this thread), but I readily offer a calm mind, a soothing word, and some pretty decent advice (or so I'm told) where necessary.
DeeL 02-17-07, 06:06 PM	I have read this thread and one or two linked threads, and while I'm not sure about joining, I have something to add that I hope will contribute. (My not joining has simply to do with adding more bookkeeping to my various internet fora. Some of them are like organizational russian nesting dolls as it is.) My recommendation - a tactic. Guerilla Signal Fidelity The problem with many threads going off-topic is that post after post piles up that collectively engages the readers' attention, consequently obscuring the posters original signal. My technique - and I have done this, but on the mature forum so I'm not sure I can link to it - is to try to restore the original signal. (For these purposes, a flame war can be construed as a subset of an off-topic thread. A flame war is simply a digression on the topic of 'who can acquire more social prestige.') For best execution of a GSF tactic, the operator should have an interest in the original topic and must be able to dispassionately analyze the content of the distractors. Once the operator is cognizant of the pertinent issues, he should post something on-topic, something long enough to be clearly distinguishable from the distraction but short enough to quickly engage attention. My experience has been that three or four paragraphs is about right. For best effect, the operators post should quote or reference content from the distractors post - as long as that content is on-topic, and not part of the distraction. Only when this is not possible should the distractors be utterly ignored. Absolutely no references to manners, politeness, WizOs, CoC, or flaming should be included, as this is itself part of a different topic. Obviously, this would be excused if the topic is actually something about manners, the CoC, etc. More than one such post may be required, but assuming the thread is still being read by anyone other than the distractors themselves, it is possible with some diligence to restore the conversation to the most edifying topic for members of the WotC forum. That is, restore the fidelity of the signal. If anyone thanks the operator for a successful GSF execution, public acknowledgement of such gratitude should be brief; anything longer than 'you're welcome :)' should be confined to PMs. There ya go. My two cents.
Sylvaroth 02-17-07, 07:24 PM	Thank you very much for your very interesting ideas, DeeL! I added a new paragraph to the FAQ and linked it to DeeL's post. Everybody, feel free to post your own ideas so they can be discussed here. This way you contribute to an ever growing set of information for all of us who are interested in the topics in question here. Keep up the great work persons :D
Sylvaroth 03-15-07, 02:52 AM	Think we cannot get along on these boards? Come and visit 'Kitty vs. Commoner' to feel real love ^_^
theotherdraxen 03-17-07, 11:22 PM	Think we cannot get along on these boards? Come and visit 'Kitty vs. Commoner' to feel real love ^_^ I'll be honest, I found your first few posts kind of shocking. I'm glad you managed to negotiate peace and that (most) others maintained cool heads there.
Sylvaroth 03-18-07, 07:21 AM	Well, that demonstrates what I meant, when I said we can all have a bad day once in a while. :D What matters in the end is how we handle it and whether or not we are able (or willing) to confess and repent. ;)
Sylvaroth 04-25-07, 06:55 PM	Vestigial_Thumb aka. Ventilatory_Threshold aka. Laigitsev_Bmuht, aka. UndefinedDemonicEntity, one of our honorary members has been banned. Any comments?
theotherdraxen 04-25-07, 10:04 PM	I guess. This doesn't really seem like anything the TWF should get involved with, but I've got mixed feelings about it as an individual. Before I can make up my mind in any direction what-so-ever (either for VT or for Cat) I need proof. Ironically, the removal of the posts has made it impossible to make up my mind on the matter. As far as business being business goes, what do we do about an honorary member no longer being a member? Do we keep them as an honorary member?
Loki5654 05-02-07, 04:49 PM	Vestigial_Thumb aka. Ventilatory_Threshold aka. Laigitsev_Bmuht, aka. UndefinedDemonicEntity, one of our honorary members has been banned. Any comments? That's a shame. What did he get banned for?
Sylvaroth 05-02-07, 04:58 PM	That's a shame. What did he get banned for? Please look at this thread for further info.
theotherdraxen 05-06-07, 01:52 AM	Please look at this thread for further info. Which thread?
Sylvaroth 05-06-07, 06:20 AM	Sorry, fixed the link to the thread. :hides: :D
theotherdraxen 05-08-07, 11:59 PM	Okay, so here's the question, if VT has been banned, can he remain as an honorary member?
Sylvaroth 06-23-07, 06:41 PM	I vote for yes. To all who are interested in the why of V_T's banning, go and read this (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.badongo.com/file/2864471).
theotherdraxen 06-29-07, 02:09 PM	Now, I remain impartial on the subject of his banning, however having given this some thought, here's my conclusion: An honorary member logically needs to be a member of the Wizards Community. So, if VT is no longer a member, he cannot be an honorary member. However, we have no actual proof that he is no longer a member. Only the moderators can verify that, and they have a strict policy not to. Therefore he must remain an honorary member. :)
Sylvaroth 06-29-07, 02:32 PM	Strikingly logical argumentation, drax. Seconded! :D
Sylvaroth 07-14-07, 04:20 AM	http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/Farzul/26.jpg HAPPY BIRTHDAY to me! As you can see my luck in die rolls is not that good, so my annual Age check resulted in a 26 today. At least I rolled a natural 20, yay! :ayyyy!: