community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...
This thread brings up lots of vaid points and comparisons between 2E/3E and has a lot of interesting topics for discussion. However, it was almost immediately closed because a few posters took one sentence even vaguely referring to 4E and decided to get super sensetive about it. The sad part is that the thread wasn't even about 4E.
Part of creating a new edition will always be talking about places where prior editions failed and why. If you can't do that then what are we even here to discuss? Yet it seems that even well-reasoned and detailed critiques over the way various editions did things is off-limits.
It's a truly sad state of affairs for these boards.
I'll be moving this thread to Community Business where it is more on-topic.
Thanks.
I think some folks have developed a tendency to "jump the gun" on Zardnaar, and beat him to the "edition war" punch, as it were.
It seems to me that some people are trying to use edition warring as a means to shut down any discussion on 4th edition at all. Whether it's trying to stop people from talking about it by claiming they're doing something bannable, or by starting the war with the intention of shutting down the thread so it can't be discussed.
Further, it becomes kind of offensive, because many of these people have signatures that proclaim 4th edition as the solution to the topics under discussion. I've seen several instances where someone is accusing people of "Edition warring" for mentioning 4th edition, and in their signature is an essay about how 4th edition's (Insert mechanic) is superior to every other edition.
But the topic does need to be discussable, 4th edition is an extremely relevant talking point with 5th edition, as 5th edition's success hinges on those discussions.
Honestly, IMO, they should just let it happen while maintaining the other rules (Baiting, harrassment, threats, etc).
Right now, this is more like that abyssmal wing commander movie where when someone dies everyone pretends he didn't exist. We can talk about 1st, 2nd, 3rd, even SAGA, but we can't talk about 4th edition?
The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Also, your section of the forums isn't the only one to experience this kind of behavior.
IMO it seems to be calculated.
Eh, I always get the impression that it's much less controlled than that. Maybe I think you're giving people too much credit.
A few people seem to have obvious grudges with one another at this point, and tend to re-hash the same topics in multiple threads (often, but not always, "edition warring" in the process). I see more of a lack of control than any calculated plan.
The original poster from the thread in question is one of those people who have picked up "enemies" - as ridiculous as that sounds. Does "rivals" sound better? And honestly, while I don't agree with their methods (and report them), I've seen enough "discussions" involving that particular poster turn into "[Insert standard "edition war" comments here]" to at least understand why they might be so... willing to jump the gun on him (to put it nicely).
Moderation is better than it has been in the past, but it's still not perfect. Again, I really don't see the problem with the thread that was closed, and I think some cleaning and later - if necessary - banning (temporary or not) would have been a better course of action.
And honestly, that seems to be the usual course of action.
IMO it seems to be calculated.
Eh, I always get the impression that it's much less controlled than that. Maybe I think you're giving people too much credit.
A few people seem to have obvious grudges with one another at this point, and tend to re-hash the same topics in multiple threads (often, but not always, "edition warring" in the process). I see more of a lack of control than any calculated plan.
The original poster from the thread in question is one of those people who have picked up "enemies" - as ridiculous as that sounds. Does "rivals" sound better? And honestly, while I don't agree with their methods (and report them), I've seen enough "discussions" involving that particular poster turn into "[Insert standard "edition war" comments here]" to at least understand why they might be so... willing to jump the gun on him (to put it nicely).
Moderation is better than it has been in the past, but it's still not perfect. Again, I really don't see the problem with the thread that was closed, and I think some cleaning and later - if necessary - banning (temporary or not) would have been a better course of action.
And honestly, that seems to be the usual course of action.
I disagre. I've been on a number of threads where the most innocent of posts draw "Edition warring! Edition warring!".
Additionally, as I'm on the other side of the edition fence than you, perhaps I'm seeing it more than you are? I've received forum reply notifications from specific individuals that are deleted in minutes, and are often pretty crude.
I'm not saying the moderation is bad, I'm just saying that the moderation on this topic might be inhibiting the pursuit of important topics, and maybe there's a better course. It's perfectly fine for me to say that some feature in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition was terrible design, but it's not ok for me to say any feature in 4th edition was terrible without risking being accused of baiting. How useful is any discussion here if negative sentiments about 4th edition can't be expressed without risking disciplinary action for baiting or edition warring? Is it even possible to have a discussion on the direction of 5th edition while being unable to respond with your open thoughts about 4th edition? IMO, all you really end up with is a board filled with the impression that 4th edition was well liked when that may not be the case.
I know the Wizo's are quite kind about that, but the threat is omnipresent.
I too thought there was nothing wrong with Zardnaar's inital post (other than the fact that it should have been in a different forum). More importantly, and this is something I've expressed to him before, many of Zardnaar's posts are more appropriately blog articles. His walls of text don't invite discussion (beyond agree or disagree). And when all you have as response is general agreement and disagreement, those threads are the most likely to descend into inappropriate behavior.
Truly, despite Zardnaar's best intentions, I think that starting a thread in the Next forums that are about prior editions and not the playtest have a high likelihood of descending into edition wars. A lot of people -- for good or ill -- see the Next forums and the playtest in general, as an arena to demonstrate that their favorite edition or playstyle is universally better than others. They see these forums as an oppotunity to shapee the playtest to be more like their preference and -- less constructively -- less like their dispreference.
If you stick to tying your thread to stuff actually going on in the playetst and not make it about a prior edition, then you have a higher likelihood of there not being a flame war in your thread. (Of course, the longer the thread lasts, the more likely something can go wrong, but such is the nature of the Internet.)
Howdy folks,
I'll be moving this thread to Community Business where it is more on-topic.
Thanks.
On topic? No offense, but I was under the impression that discussion of forum moderation was against the CoC and thus not really "on topic" anywhere on the forums. Does this mean the policy has changed?
Oh goody. I know a few doods what would appreciate it if things have, in fact, changed.
Yay! No more rides on the banned wagon!
Howdy folks,
I'll be moving this thread to Community Business where it is more on-topic.
Thanks.
On topic? No offense, but I was under the impression that discussion of forum moderation was against the CoC and thus not really "on topic" anywhere on the forums. Does this mean the policy has changed?
IIRC, discussing moderation falls under the catchall of "disruption".
But yeah, it would be nice if monkey explained this seeming contradiction.
I've been banned and have had threads deleted for "disruption" because of discussing moderation... in ComBiz.
So yeah, I'm kinda wondering why this thread was moved here and not deleted.
In this case, this was an editorial moderation move, not a conduct action. Discussing conduct actions is considered disruptive because, first and foremost, they are of a personal nature and discussing them may violate the privacy of the individual who was moderated and often lead to harassment and cyberbullying, which are also against the Code of Conduct and will thus result in more conduction actions.
Editorial moves are handled by the community team and the VCLs and can be suggested or requested by any member of the community.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Not at all.
It seems what you are saying is that you ban people for discussing moderation when you want to and don't when you don't want to.
This thread is still discussing moderation, which you have just said is a CoC violation. And then you use words like "editorial moderation move" to excuse it. Whether or not the thread was moved due to a request doesn't change the fact that it is talking about moderation, which is a CoC violation. I have been banned and had posts deleted for doing the very same thing that is being done in this thread. So are you saying if a VCL had requested that it be moved to ComBiz, I wouldn't have received a ban? That is ridiculous, and so is your excuse.
No, I am not satisfied.
Editorial moves are handled by the community team and the VCLs and can be suggested or requested by any member of the community.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Not really. The OP said that the thread in question was closed, not moved. By editorial moves, I assume you mean threads posted in the VCL request thread. Unless threads are also closed by that same process, or maybe there's something else here that I'm missing.
We are still waiting on a better excuse.
