- If I went onto the old Realms Boards and consistently shared how much I hate the Realms*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
- If I went onto the Previous Edition Boards and consistently share how much I hate the 3.5* edition, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
- If I went onto the old Astrid board and consistently shared how much I hate the reason for the forum*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
Can we get a little bit heavier moderation of the negative?
*Note, these positions may or may not represent my personal feeling on any of these, and are used for example.
There comes a point at which the moderators need to recognize that there is a difference between not liking an aspect of 4e, and contributing to conversations aimed at discussing, correcting, or defending these perceived shortcomings and the disruptive role many posters have played in the threads he jabs.The publication of 4e has caused a great deal of mutually exclusive opinions on the former and current edition. This is the norm with every new edition. While dissatisfaction is reasonable and understandable, it is NOT reasonable to willfully enter into the meeting place of those who enjoy the edition you do not only to comment that you do not like it.
- If I went onto the old Realms Boards and consistently shared how much I hate the Realms*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
- If I went onto the Previous Edition Boards and consistently share how much I hate the 3.5* edition, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
- If I went onto the old Astrid board and consistently shared how much I hate the reason for the forum*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
Can we get a little bit heavier moderation of the negative?
*Note, these positions may or may not represent my personal feeling on any of these, and are used for example.
While I agree that the moderators need to make sure to trim actual blatent trolling there are some posters who dislike 4th edition and post reasonable reasons why. Granted they do it ad nauseum at times, but they are still voicing their opinion and not truly trolling
Unless it crosses the line and becomes bating or trolling then they can get away with it.
Here an example from quite awhile back that should show that people actually do this.
I'm also decent in working in my bashing of 4e and the people who buy it into my posts, but they still get moderated out.
Yes i realise this is the fourth edition forum. But that does not give people the right to abuse other posters. And if someone does not like any aspect of the edition maybe posting here at all would be somewhat of a waste of time.
But i see it happening in rather limited amunts. It is hardly overwhelming the forums.
Things seem to have quited down quite a bit.
Just complain about the thread until it is closed.
I've had this happen to one of my threads that until the point of the disruptive poster was well received. That same poster then did it to another thread on the same topic in the same day.Closing threads because of a disruptive poster is lazy moderation. However, if we don't hit the report button then they spiral downward.
When this happens it is a lose/lose situation, but I'm for reporting of threads anyway.
Things seem to have quited down quite a bit.
I'll agree on this part.
Letting them post in 4e forums is akin to inviting Rush Limbaugh to be the speaker at the Democratic Convention, or MIchael Moore at the Republican Convention. I have seen similar previous-edition bashing when I was still using the 3.5/other edition forums while I prepared for my transition (although with a different set of consistently bashing posters).
This isn't a generalized problem. It is a specific five or six person's problem. And they are clever enough to keep their posts "just this side" of the CoC. But there comes a point (that I believe we have reached) at which slamming 4e in the 4e forums should be considered baiting, and result in baiting-result disciplinary action.
These are our forums. ENWorld has a pretty solid policy regarding bashing 4e. I would think the publisher of the game could have at least as 4e-player-friendly a policy.
Seriously, they thought they were hitting gold this time out, and I hope all the negative opinions keep pouring in, if only to instill a little humility.
The problems is that while negative comments can be good, it's only when they are *contructive*. And that's the thing; there is so much things disguised as critics that are just bashing.
Plus, you have to realize that all negative comments are probably even more useful because it tells Wotc what needs fixing; these threads are the real playtest feedback.
There is a difference between constructive criticism and thread crapping and spewing hate.
The first one it just fine, but the second derails threads.
Annoying posts can be simply ignored and the thread can go on. Now, I agree that the "4e D&D sucks" type are just lame, and should be summarily deleted by mods outright.
But if someone has something to say, then they should be free to say it.
And i truly believe that this forum is the way WotC trouble-shoots and gets honest playtesst feedback. I mean, there's a lot of problems with 4e, and they ought to know what they are...and often.
Plus, you have to realize that all negative comments are probably even more useful because it tells Wotc what needs fixing; these threads are the real playtest feedback.
Seriously, they thought they were hitting gold this time out, and I hope all the negative opinions keep pouring in, if only to instill a little humility.
This is a very good post. QFT.
Not if someone had a valid opinion.
Valid opinion is fine. If it's not on topic then start a new thread and it can be discussed there.
Annoying posts can be simply ignored and the thread can go on. Now, I agree that the "4e D&D sucks" type are just lame, and should be summarily deleted by mods outright.
I all in favor or ignoring them, but many people will not and the threads gets derailed and then locked quite a bit.
Also the WizOs no longer have the ability to delete such posts. It must violate the code of conduct instead of being an editorial problem
But if someone has something to say, then they should be free to say it.
That's fine within reasonable limits. We all agreed to the code of conduct when we signed up. That means we agreed not to flame, bait, or troll.
And i truly believe that this forum is the way WotC trouble-shoots and gets honest playtesst feedback. I mean, there's a lot of problems with 4e, and they ought to know what they are...and often.
How do they know the feedback is honest? Do they even read it?
I really doubt that they WOTC gives feedback from the forums much though, except in a few thread that are exactly for that. There are reports from those threads that extreme negative posters drove them from it.
4th does have problems, but some of the "critics" have even gone so far as to say that they have not read the books. Yet the freely claim what is wrong with the rules they haven't read.
It isn't those that honestly put forth there views that are a problem. It's those that come to the boards just to bash and cause trouble.
Here's a few threads that might be worth looking into.
[thread=1050989]State of the General Discussion forum[/thread]
[thread=1051340]how/why do the motivator threads keep getting locked?[/thread]
[thread=1065390]How do you contact WotC about 4th ed[/thread]
[thread=1051856]Reducing the Negativity on the FR Forums[/thread] <- Notice the quote in the first post.
[thread=1046960]4th Edition Motivators[/thread] <- Deleted do to disruptive poster.
Annoying posts can be simply ignored
It is not constructive to try to tell fifty people to ignore one disruptive person, because it only one of the fifty to respond to disrupt a thread. All things being equal, somebody is going to take the bait every time.
Moderation can stop threadcapping. Don't ignore the "annoying" (and by annoying I mean "serves no purpose but to antagonize" posts; report them.
there's a lot of problems with 4e, and they ought to know what they are...and often.
Again, I don't think people are complaining about constructive criticism. The problem are the people who will cloak threadcapping under the veneer of constructive criticism, but soon it becomes apparent that all responses are being stonewalled, countered with insults or blanket statements of disbelief.
Yes, there are problems with 4th; there are problems with all editions. But if people are making fallacious arguments, and refuse to acknowledge any responses, how is WotC supposed to separate the wheat and the chaff?
If the goal is to communicate to Wizards about actual problems with the game so they can fix them, then lax moderation is antithetical to that goal because the signal-to-noise ration means that the forum becomes a cacaphony of noise.
(I think that goal is dubious at best -- the internet is a terrible place to go for objective opinions. Playtesting is really the best way to test a game.)
There comes a point at which the moderators need to recognize that there is a difference between not liking an aspect of 4e, and contributing to conversations aimed at discussing, correcting, or defending these perceived shortcomings and the disruptive role many posters have played in the threads he jabs.The publication of 4e has caused a great deal of mutually exclusive opinions on the former and current edition. This is the norm with every new edition. While dissatisfaction is reasonable and understandable, it is NOT reasonable to willfully enter into the meeting place of those who enjoy the edition you do not only to comment that you do not like it.
- If I went onto the old Realms Boards and consistently shared how much I hate the Realms*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
- If I went onto the Previous Edition Boards and consistently share how much I hate the 3.5* edition, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
- If I went onto the old Astrid board and consistently shared how much I hate the reason for the forum*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
Can we get a little bit heavier moderation of the negative?
*Note, these positions may or may not represent my personal feeling on any of these, and are used for example.
In other words "mods please stop them from saying things I disagree with". It is not a violation of the CoC to express a critical opinion about wizard products.
That's bashing on a thread about how annoying bashing is. Ironic.
Why couldnt' you just say, "I disagree," and leave it at that?
Perhaps those threads that get "highjacked" do so for a good reason: That the posters said to be doing the "highjacking" and "derailing" are CORRECT! i kno wit seems amazing, but sometimes slamming something is completely fair and valid. Oddly, noone ever seems to say as a response to these posts, "Hmm...gosh, I never saw it that way. Let me look into your assertion."
People who don't read the material have no right to bash or support a product without flexibility on thier position. Plus, there's a lot to be said for lables like "H4ters" to describe peole who don't like 4e the best. It connotates irrational thinking, and, quite honsetly, is incindiary in and of itself.
I don't think 4e sucks as a game, but I think it's a lame excuse for D&D. My opinion is perfectly valid, but where pointing out why I think that attacks someone personally, that is a "flame" and should be policed. However, just because I have a dissenting opinion doesn't mean I'm being disruptive or shold be kept from saying "4e sucks", at least with some amount of reasonal expression anyway.
In other words "mods please stop them from saying things I disagree with". It is not a violation of the CoC to express a critical opinion about wizard products.
Strawman argument.
Again, one side claim moral ground.
In other words "mods please stop them from saying things I disagree with". It is not a violation of the CoC to express a critical opinion about wizard products.
I really am comfortable with disagreement.
But when your "reason" for disagreeing with a position on an aspect of 4e is that you don't like 4e, it becomes trolling. If you don't like 4th Edition in total, then there is nothing you can contribute to a thread on a specific aspect of 4e.
Perhaps those threads that get "highjacked" do so for a good reason: That the posters said to be doing the "highjacking" and "derailing" are CORRECT!
The ends don't justify the means. Even assuming that 4th edition is as bad as they say, if the arguments being made are not substantiated, if they are ignoring rebuttals, or issuing fallacious justifications, if they jump from argument to argument to keep the rancor level high without having to defend a position, then it doesn't matter. Nobody has learned anything, Wizards hasn't received anything constructive and the general level of civility of the boards is lessened.
Who wins there? Not Wizards. Not people who want 4th edition's problems to be addressed. Not people who seek rational and reasonable discussion. Just the people who thrive on the disruption.
I don't think 4e sucks as a game, but I think it's a lame excuse for D&D. My opinion is perfectly valid
"Validity" should not be the threshold for posting to a forum. Lots of opinions are valid, but that doesn't make them useful or productive.
I could go onto a Ben & Jerry's forum and say "I hate marshmallows. Any ice cream with marshmallows should be shoot out of a cannon and nobody should eat Ben & Jerry's ice cream until they stop using marshmallows." When asked to justify my opinion, I will simply say "Hey, that's my opinion", but I will do so in every thread, even threads in which it is only marginally relevant (say, a thread in which people are discussing what flavor of ice cream maintains the best consistency when marshmallows are added).
Yes, the opinion is "valid" but there's no reason to post it. It's not constructive. It's not substantiated. It's only possible purpose is to increase rancor in the forums.
Validity is no defense to posting non-constructive criticism, or to refusing to acknowledge valid rebuttals.
Just because I have a dissenting opinion doesn't mean I'm being disruptive or should be kept from saying "4e sucks",
And here is where I would draw the line. What you have just described is trolling, baiting, and flaming.
If I went into a Republican discussion forum and said "The Republican Party sucks"
or went into a GLB discussion forum and said "gays suck"
or went onto a White Wolf forum and said "White Wolf sucks"
I would be trolling.
So why do people think it is not trolling to go onto a 4e forum and say 4e sucks?
Saying 4e sucks on the 4e forums is trolling.
Strawman argument.
Again, one side claim moral ground.
You like that fallacy, don't you?
How is this a strawman argument? He clearly is asking for people to be banned for saying things he disagrees with. And it is definitely not a violation of the CoC to be critical of 4E.
It is not a violation of the CoC to express a critical opinion about wizard products.
Not in itself, no. But if the critical opinion is posted in a place where it is likely to disrupt rational discussion and is not itself substantiated, then, yes it shoul dbe banned, notwithstanding that expressing a critical opinion about wizard products is not banned.
That's because a post can contain several elements, some consonant with the CoC and some against it.
For instance, it is against the CoC to spam through repeated posts
Writing "I don't like that the PHB lacks bards" is not against the CoC. But if in response to suggestions or requests for clarification, you write the same sentence every time and repeatedly, you are violating the CoC and saying "But I'm only expressing a critical opinion" is no defense.
I really am comfortable with disagreement.
But when your "reason" for disagreeing with a position on an aspect of 4e is that you don't like 4e, it becomes trolling. If you don't like 4th Edition in total, then there is nothing you can contribute to a thread on a specific aspect of 4e.
How is it trolling to express your honest opinion about a game, on the game's forum?
Again, being critical of 4E is not a violation of the CoC. You are just trying to get people who disagree with you banned. Back when 3E was out, we had people who came on all the time to complain about it. They said they like 2E better. I didn't care. It was fine with me that they had a criticism. And this was certainly the place to bring it.
Not in itself, no. But if the critical opinion is posted in a place where it is likely to disrupt rational discussion and is not itself substantiated, then, yes it shoul dbe banned, notwithstanding that expressing a critical opinion about wizard products is not banned.
That's because a post can contain several elements, some consonant with the CoC and some against it.
For instance, it is against the CoC to spam through repeated posts
Writing "I don't like that the PHB lacks bards" is not against the CoC. But if in response to suggestions or requests for clarification, you write the same sentence every time and repeatedly, you are violating the CoC and saying "But I'm only expressing a critical opinion" is no defense.
But this is a very different issue form the one the OP is raising.
Saying 4e sucks on the 4e forums is trolling.
Then why wasn't this thread deleted?
BTW, it is obvious that this thread has been viewed by at least three WizOs based on the fact that three of us have posted, and yet the thread is still here. What does that tell us?
It tells us that the original post is permissible.
It sure is Billy. It sure is.
...as you disect my post line by line with increasing ire about how wrong I am.
That's bashing on a thread about how annoying bashing is. Ironic.
Why couldnt' you just say, "I disagree," and leave it at that?
First, I'm not getting angry. I find that it isn't useful to post in anger.
Second, I'm not bashing. I'm disagreeing. There is a difference.
Third, While I could just say that "I disagree," and leave I want the moderation improved. I'm willing to put forth an argument on why they should.
Perhaps those threads that get "highjacked" do so for a good reason: That the posters said to be doing the "highjacking" and "derailing" are CORRECT! i kno wit seems amazing, but sometimes slamming something is completely fair and valid. Oddly, noone ever seems to say as a response to these posts, "Hmm...gosh, I never saw it that way. Let me look into your assertion."
It is illogical to assume the worst about a posters motive. It is the same to assume the best motives as well. It's best to start with the position that the motives are unknown.
I've seen perfectly reasonable criticisms attacked. I've also seen threads attacked derailed and locked without a good cause. Both of these need to be moderated better.
People who don't read the material have no right to bash or support a product without flexibility on their position. Plus, there's a lot to be said for lables like "H4ters" to describe peole who don't like 4e the best. It connotates irrational thinking, and, quite honsetly, is incindiary in and of itself.
I wouldn't call anyone a 4th hater, though I might use the term in general without naming anybody. If someone does name someone a 4th hater it should be a code of conduct violation and needs to be reported.
Such names are usually a ad hominem more specially poisoning the well. A poster argument should stand separate from that poster.
I don't think 4e sucks as a game, but I think it's a lame excuse for D&D. My opinion is perfectly valid, but where pointing out why I think that attacks someone personally, that is a "flame" and should be policed. However, just because I have a dissenting opinion doesn't mean I'm being disruptive or shold be kept from saying "4e sucks", at least with some amount of reasonal expression anyway.
Your welcome to your opinion on the game. If you voice your opinion in context and without violating the code of conduct and the thread gets derailed and locked it wouldn't be your fault. Instead it is another disruptive poster that would be at fault. Would you say that better moderation would be preferred in such an instance?
As for and example, let me point you once gain to the thread that I started and got deleted, the [thread=1046960]4th Edition Motivators[/thread] thread. In that thread a poster made a motivator of Hitler and titled it "Law" and put forth in the text "In 4th edition he is good." I asked him to start a new thread on the topic, but in spite of the repeated moderation he continued in this line of behavior until the thread was locked.
After that a new thread on the subject was started by another and the poster started again on that thread instead of starting there own. That thread was also derailed and lock. Though it was eventually moved and reopened.
This kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated by anyone no matter there views on 4th. I was all for a honest and open discussion on 4th alignment and its flaws, but not for derailing my thread.
Can we get a little bit heavier moderation of the negative?
-You see something you think is against the CoC, you report it. The WizO who handles it then makes the judgment call as to whether or not it is against the CoC or not.
-That's all you can do.
-You can't control what other people say, do, or think.
-You see something you think is against the CoC, you report it. The WizO who handles it then makes the judgment call as to whether or not it is against the CoC or not.
-That's all you can do.
-You can't control what other people say, do, or think.
I think the issue here is that the CoC or the enforcement thereof doesn't do a good job of making the 4e General forum a good place to discuss 4e.
For example, let's say I start a thread discussing some aspect of game design, such as save-or-die effects. My OP makes it very clear that I am talking about game design, that is, about the effects that rules and mechanics have on the way game events unfold. There is a reasonably high chance that one of the concern trolls will come along and derail the thread. It is also very unlikely that the mods will react except maybe with a vague warning to stay on topic.
By saying "one of the concern trolls will come along and derail my thread" I mean that someone will say something like, "Save-or-die spells were a big part of the flavor of casters in previous editions of D&D. They made the game unique, just like Craft skills and spammable Trip. That's why they should be in the game. Some people have the opinion that 4e isn't very good and they need to be heard here. I hope the designers are reading this thread and paying attention to what fans of D&D like. Pretty soon my group will be switching to Paizo because we're tired of playing a bland game with no variety or flavor in its casting system." (Incidentally, it's really easy to write this kind of flamebait).
This is vaguely on topic, but it has nothing to do with game design and everything to do with someone's personal aesthetic and visions of story-telling. As such, it's off-topic. Since some version of this is posted 20 times a day by some people, in context it's not an attempt at discussion as much as it is attention whoring.
And a fair number of people will take the bait and try to discuss the trolls opinions, as if such a thing is even meaningful. Then we have a thread that has shifted from a discussion of game design to a discussion of that laundry list of complaints that gets trotted out in EVERY. SINGLE. THREAD.
This is what makes the forums fairly ****** right now. I want to talk about 4e here. I don't want to deal with someone's attention whoring. I realize that opinions are everywhere and not everyone shares mine, but I don't care.
People need to stop viewing every thread about 4e as a tacit invitation to post their complaints or "feedback" to WotC. The forums are here for members to communicate with each other, not for agenda-driven zealots to send a message to WotC. We can't rely on trolls to moderate themselves and not steer every thread toward a discussion of their gripes, so it would be great if the folks in charge of this site prevented them from monopolizing the 4e boards as an outlet for their bad feelings.
Some "troll" may hop in and "derail your thread"? There's an implicit opinion in the terms your using that sounds as if contrary statements as viewed as "trolling" first and constructive second. I know there are trolls out there - not denying it. However, your claim to any thread is false and your feeling that threads are derailed from some unseen ley-line streaming out of your well placed good intentions is a tad arrogant.
Loosen up. See the people you initially see as trolls a either a challenge towards making your point or, more favorably to the thread, let them know their off topic and just move on with the discussion.
In your example scenario, simply stating "I'm only talking about deth effects as they exist in 4e. Thanks tho. Try starting your own thread if ou want to discuss death effects in other editions."
No mods necessary. Really, it can't possibly be that bad. Try the diplomacy check first....lol
Sometimes it is a bit subtle to tell the difference, but the moderators have experience in dealing with the issue.
Now, the odd goon who swoops in andjsut to drop a "4e sucks" in a thread is definitely a troll. Someone (like me, again) who doesn't live on this bloody forum (lol) and who stops by about once a month to find the same 4e zombies trying to make thier case (or worse, ninnies talking about what they want 5e to be...sheesh!) shouldn't be clasified as "troll" because the aren't prolific and have a strong dissenting opinion.
Take it for what it is - words on a screen. Don't take it so personally.
In your example scenario, simply stating "I'm only talking about deth effects as they exist in 4e. Thanks tho. Try starting your own thread if ou want to discuss death effects in other editions."
that has been tried and it doesn't work. It's why I don't start discussions in the General Board any more. It won't stay on topic and will turn into a general rant about 4E (pro or con, it doesn't matter).
Really, it can't possibly be that bad. Try the diplomacy check first....lol
It can be that bad.
I think the issue here is that the CoC or the enforcement thereof doesn't do a good job of making the 4e General forum a good place to discuss 4e.
-Every post you flag as disruptive, and explain why goes to a WizO, who reviews it. The WizOs have guidelines for determining what exactly constitutes baiting, flaming, trolling, and so on. If something is flagged and submitted to a WizO, and the WizO does nothing about it, odds are the post in question doesn't meet the criteria that the WizO has to determine if something is baiting, or trolling, or flaming, and whatever else.
-Just because you want something done about it doesn't necessarily mean that something needs to be done about it.
Never said they weren't. I'm just saying that if you feel someone is trolling/baiting or just generally being a jerk, don't let it get to you.
That's good advice. I wish more people would do this.
I've been accused of being troll before, [snip], but if everyone had kept cooler heads or really just listened to what I was saying...or ignored me altother instead of taking it personally, there would never have been a disruption.
That's correct.
Here's the official proceeder for trolling, baiting, and flaming.
1). Report it.
2). Ignore it.
Disruption require at least two people to happen, if no one response the offender then disruptor stick out like a sore thumb.
However, it's rare that SOMEONE doesn't take the bait, pull out there own flamethrower, or feed the troll.
In such case better moderation is needed.
I do remember one instance where I was severally flamed. I did the report and ignore tactic. Some one else politely asked them to calm down and got flamed for the effort.
The flamer then posted a "4th sucks" (part of the actual title) thread that got quickly moderated and then a spam thread after that one got moderated.
Agreed, but consider this: Your perception is your reality.
Some "troll" may hop in and "derail your thread"? There's an implicit opinion in the terms your using that sounds as if contrary statements as viewed as "trolling" first and constructive second. I know there are trolls out there - not denying it. However, your claim to any thread is false and your feeling that threads are derailed from some unseen ley-line streaming out of your well placed good intentions is a tad arrogant.
Loosen up. See the people you initially see as trolls a either a challenge towards making your point or, more favorably to the thread, let them know their off topic and just move on with the discussion.
In your example scenario, simply stating "I'm only talking about deth effects as they exist in 4e. Thanks tho. Try starting your own thread if ou want to discuss death effects in other editions."
No mods necessary. Really, it can't possibly be that bad. Try the diplomacy check first....lol
That would be nice, but here's the thing. I don't object to disagreement. If I start a thread on a topic, it's specifically because I want people to offer their criticisms of my ideas. That means some people will agree and other won't, but all will be on-topic.
However, there are people who see every topic as an opportunity to say 4e sucks. It isn't very hard to find someway to connect some complaint about 4e to whatever is being discussed. And once that complaint is out, other complaints are brought up in order to "bolster" the "argument" being offered (i.e. "I don't like 4e because..."). Someone will always take the bait and the thread will go downhill.
Being diplomatic works when the other party has good intentions. It doesn't work when you're dealing with someone who wants attention and knows how to get a lot of it without getting banned.
Not happening. I've already pledged a minimum of one complaint about 4e every day until the new edition comes unless I'm somehow incapable of doing so.
All for the sake of consistency.
Here's an excerpt from a PM I sent to [name snipped]:... want me to stop, but I've made up my mind. At times I have piques of insanity and almost think that a damage based system is more fun and that at will/per encounter/per day is simple yet ensures no one is ever completely useless and am even tempted to the books, but then I reign myself in and remember that I'd be a hypocrite to do so.
Besides, I look at 3.5 every time and ask myself "Is it really worth giving up the freedom"? The answer is always no.
I have fun with those PM's to [name snipped]... lots of fun, they're always so entertaining.
Still debating it. See, just by reading the books I'd be a hypocrite so I'm weighing the pros and cons.
All three are by the same poster. I removed the names, but [thread=1067656]you can find them if you really want.[/thread]
As shown the poster not only has stated that they don't have nor have read the books and still pledged to make at least one negtive comment a day when possible.
that has been tried and it doesn't work. It's why I don't start discussions in the General Board any more. It won't stay on topic and will turn into a general rant about 4E (pro or con, it doesn't matter).
This is a lot of the reason that I'm more of a lurker at this point than anything.
Actual discussion is practically impossible in "General Discussion" unless the discussion you want is "4E sucks," "no it doesn't," "yes it does," etc. Every thread turns into a soapbox session or a grandstand and it's getting old.
What's even the point of asking for bans when we know that bans mean nothing but 'pic a new name to use with your trolling' here?
Ever since I found this out, I've spent less and less time here. If bans don't stick, they don't work, period. I don't really think of myself as a hardass, but seriously, this is touchy-feely moderation just isn't getting the job done. People deserve second chances in real life, but this isn't it. This is a private discussion forum, kick the trolls out for good.
What's even the point of asking for bans when we know that bans mean nothing but 'pic a new name to use with your trolling' here?
I don't know... I've had the same account for six years - plus I go by the name "Estelindis" wherever I go. I'd be pretty upset if I lost the use of this account.
That said, I don't imagine that people suddenly start disrupting forums overnight, totally out of the blue. I guess the chances are that if someone's behaving in a ban-worthy fashion, they probably have at least one account that's already been banned (either here or somewhere else) and thus probably aren't all that attached to it.
Ooops. Did I end up strengthening the point I was originally disagreeing with? :embarrass
Now if someone comes into a "101 things you like about 4e" thread and starts rattling of things they don't like, that might be disruptive (though perhaps vaguely kinda-sorta-not-really on topic).
Really people should be free to mention things they dislike about something in the related section. But if they disrupt other threads or don't provide meaningful discussion (even if they start their own thread), then I could see it being time for the mods to take action.
Okay... but if I have a complaint about 4e or 3.5e, which forum do I go to?
Depends. Why are you voicing your complaint? Is it just to vent? Then I would recommend not voicing it.
Is it because you have a specific problem with the game, like a rules issue and would like to know if you have read it correctly or if other people have worked around it? Post your concern in the appropriate D&D Fundamentals Forum. As long as the question is posed politely and sincerely, it should be well-received.
Is it because you think 4E is a mistake and you want Wizards to stop producing it? I would recommend you not voice that, because it cannot lead to productive discussion, and thus could only be an attempt to increase forum rancor.
Is it because you think you see a specific problem with 4E and you want Wizards to fix it? Don't bother. Rather, ask people for help with fixing it in your game, and don't worry about whether an errate will or will not adopt such changes. The House Rules forum is a good place for that.
Wizards is going to make its decision of the success of 4E on sales, not on internet chatter. People who post to the forums complaining about 4E, for the ostensible purpose of killing 4E are wasting their time, my time and your time.
Okay... but if I have a complaint about 4e or 3.5e, which forum do I go to? There's no longer a concerns and criticism section, even.
Now if someone comes into a "101 things you like about 4e" thread and starts rattling of things they don't like, that might be disruptive (though perhaps vaguely kinda-sorta-not-really on topic).
Really people should be free to mention things they dislike. But if they disrupt other threads or don't provide meaningful discussion (even if they start their own thread), then I could see it being time for the mods to take action.
There is a big difference between "4e sucks, any game without ... isn't an RPG" and "I am looking for some advice on how to change/reflavor/add x to my 4e game"
If you want to discuss something about 4e that you don't like bring it up in the general discussion forum. People will happily offer you options to houserule it, ways to convert a class or monster from earlier editions or just explain why that works in their game to see if thinking about it differently will help.
If you just want to complain and not discuss contact WotC through email or letter. While I am not the OP, what I am getting tired of is people posting a list of complaints and then flaming people for offering houserules, alternative flavor, or some other help.
If you don't want to discuss fourth edition (good and bad parts) why are you posting on a forum rather than contacting the company directly?
What's even the point of asking for bans when we know that bans mean nothing but 'pic a new name to use with your trolling' here?
-It's a double-edged sword. Some people who have received bans before have come back more somber posters, and "learned their lesson". Unless it's something grievous, or repeated, you can ban someone's screen name, email address and IP address.
-It's a double-edged sword. Some people who have received bans before have come back more somber posters, and "learned their lesson". Unless it's something grievous, or repeated, you can ban someone's screen name, email address and IP address.
Which doesn't stop the die hard trolls in the slightest...
Which doesn't stop the die hard trolls in the slightest...
-Sure, I know. I have lots of experience with Trolls.
-Now, are you going to throw everyone under the bus? Say, there's a new "no nonsense, one strike and you're out forever" policy put into place. Two people are having a 'heated' debate, one person makes a sarcastic comment that is, in turn, reported as baiting, and suddenly, someone is banned forever.
-Now, are you going to throw everyone under the bus?
I think people can throw themselves under the bus just fine.
The number of posts that [user x] has had *deleted* from threads is high enough to identify his consistent trolling intention. He doesn't get heated. He causes the heat. It is easy to distinguish the heated sarcastic reply from the reported all over the place troll. What surprises me is how long these reported all over the place trolls get to keep doing this.
I think people can throw themselves under the bus just fine.
-You misunderstood my post. Again, if a 'zero tolerance' policy is put in place, you have one strike, and you're out. Seeker95 and someone else are debating something, Seeker says something sarcastic, the other person reports it as baiting, a WizO, unfamiliar with the posting habits of Seeker, determines that it's baiting, and Seeker95 is now banned permanently. Is this a good situation?
I found some quotes to show that some come to the 4th boards just to complain.
All three are by the same poster. I removed the names, but [thread=1067656]you can find them if you really want.[/thread]
As shown the poster not only has stated that they don't have nor have read the books and still pledged to make at least one negtive comment a day when possible.
Hmm, that poster seems to be reasonable.
Hmm, that poster seems to be reasonable.
Yes, calronmoonflower is quite reasonable.
-It's a double-edged sword. Some people who have received bans before have come back more somber posters, and "learned their lesson". Unless it's something grievous, or repeated, you can ban someone's screen name, email address and IP address.
Take a look at the CoC. We have at least three strikes even before a ban. Then we get to make another screen name. Over. And Over. And the only way you can be banned for it is by referencing your old name.
Note that referencing you own name is held to the loosest possible standards. Apparently, it's okay to use the same avatar, sig, user info and repeatedly refer to how awesome your previous accounts are whenever they're referenced and that doens't count.
the diehard trolls are managable on a few and far between basis. The ones currently trolling just this side of the CoC line are not (I would hope) diehard. Just hard to kill.
Nope, diehard. The most pathetic of the pathetic from here attempted to invade my forums early in the change over from the 4e forums to the DnD forums. He circumvented bans, email bans and an IP ban until I was forced to ban an entire university library.
Yes, calronmoonflower is quite reasonable.
So why does that poster he's quoting keep posting that stuff? Why not just play the game he likes instead of wasting his time with this stuff.
Take a look at the CoC. We have at least three strikes even before a ban. Then we get to make another screen name. Over. And Over. And the only way you can be banned for it is by referencing your old name.
Note that referencing you own name is held to the loosest possible standards. Apparently, it's okay to use the same avatar, sig, user info and repeatedly refer to how awesome your previous accounts are whenever they're referenced and that doens't count.
-That should actually be "Can't", I noticed. My sentence doesn't make much sense if it's "Can" and not "Can't".
-You misunderstood my post. Again, if a 'zero tolerance' policy is put in place, you have one strike, and you're out. Seeker95 and someone else are debating something, Seeker says something sarcastic, the other person reports it as baiting, a WizO, unfamiliar with the posting habits of Seeker, determines that it's baiting, and Seeker95 is now banned permanently. Is this a good situation?
Maybe I am misreading the posts of the other posters, but I don't see anyone asking for a zero tolerance policy. I see people asking for permanent bans, that stick, for people that repeatedly violate the CoC badly enough to get banned.
Really, if people get temporarily banned 3, 4 or 5 times haven't they had enough strikes?
-You misunderstood my post. Again, if a 'zero tolerance' policy is put in place, you have one strike, and you're out. Seeker95 and someone else are debating something, Seeker says something sarcastic, the other person reports it as baiting, a WizO, unfamiliar with the posting habits of Seeker, determines that it's baiting, and Seeker95 is now banned permanently. Is this a good situation?
Given Seeker's past, some people would tell you "yes." :P :P :P :P
I know this would be important to me as I was really upset by something that came up way way back in the year but usually feel pretty positive about most things. People get upset and sometimes they need to vent.
I would guess that Wizards would want to know when its customers are upset and hear from many varied opinions without shutting it all down. Booting people completely pretty much ends their coming to the wizards website and potentially the loss of a life long customer. WIth the state of the shrinking RPG market I'd venture a guess that Wizards needs to hang onto as many of those lifetime customers shelling out forty to fifty bucks a month on RPG books as they possibly can.
Maybe I am misreading the posts of the other posters, but I don't see anyone asking for a zero tolerance policy. I see people asking for permanent bans, that stick, for people that repeatedly violate the CoC badly enough to get banned.
Really, if people get temporarily banned 3, 4 or 5 times haven't they had enough strikes?
Exactly. No one is saying that anyone who crosses the line is undesirable. But people who cross the line every day are. I can think of several people with whom I almost never agree and whom I find to be rude at times. Yet I'm sure they are making positive contributions here. The career trolls don't and we shouldn't wait around for months or years hoping they do
People get upset and sometimes they need to vent.
But their need to vent shouldn't come at the expense of all the other forumgoers. I don't think it's a good policy to let one user abuse everyone else because he "needs to vent."
I would guess that Wizards would want to know when its customers are upset and hear from many varied opinions without shutting it all down.
That's not what these forums are for, and it wouldn't be a good use of the forums if it were. There are better ways to gauge customer reactions than internet chat. (In fact, it would be difficult to devise a worse way to gauge customer reaction.)
I'd venture a guess that Wizards needs to hang onto as many of those lifetime customers shelling out forty to fifty bucks a month on RPG books as they possibly can.
I agree. I think, however, that keeping a troll at the expense of driving polite people from the forum would be counterproductive to that goal.
I appreciate the warning option. It allows people to cool off and rethink how they are presenting their arguement or to just give it a rest without being kicked off the boards.
I know this would be important to me as I was really upset by something that came up way way back in the year but usually feel pretty positive about most things. People get upset and sometimes they need to vent.
I would guess that Wizards would want to know when its customers are upset and hear from many varied opinions without shutting it all down. Booting people completely pretty much ends their coming to the wizards website and potentially the loss of a life long customer. WIth the state of the shrinking RPG market I'd venture a guess that Wizards needs to hang onto as many of those lifetime customers shelling out forty to fifty bucks a month on RPG books as they possibly can.
Even if that were the point of the boards, we already have heaps and heaps of evidence that a lot of the repeat offenders, going on their 4+ names aren't so much angry as gleeful in their ability to stir up trouble unhindered.
As for this somehow helping Wizards, we've got people on here who've devolved to simply trying to sell people other companies' products now that they've determined 4e is not for them. How does allowing that behavior help WotC?
(or condoning LEGAL actions against WOTC as in the DDI place...)
Given Seeker's past, some people would tell you "yes." :P :P :P :P
Baiting reported Just kidding! ;)
Plus, you have to realize that all negative comments are probably even more useful because it tells Wotc what needs fixing; these threads are the real playtest feedback.
Seriously, they thought they were hitting gold this time out, and I hope all the negative opinions keep pouring in, if only to instill a little humility.
There was plenty of constructive criticism in the 3rd edition forums. I still remember monster threads like "Bards Really Do Suck" "Fighters Suck" and "Monks are Overpowered" (heh) Those were good threads, even though they went on forever and opinion was heated. The difference is that you had people discussing the topic, as opposed to a couple of guys popping in a couple of times a page posting random threadcraps like:
"Yeah man, that's why we play 2nd edition. 3rd Edition is for losers!"
or "Let me tell you how much I hate bards"
or "Yes! this is what I've been saying! 3rd edition will fester and die because Bards aren't the best class and that's why we should all switch to Castle and Crusades right now."
or "Heh. Bards suck because 3rd edition is Diablo 2 on paper"
It is actually possible for a poster to engage in discussion and critism without trying to relate everything back to his "4th Edition=Wow" Master Thesis.
[thread=1042917]Wizards DO Suck[/thread]
It is currently 59 pages. The original poster was baited and called names here and there, but he brushed it off and got on with his argument.
I didn't agree with his analysis, but it did go on from a long time, stayed on topic, and remained for the most part civil.
There was plenty of constructive criticism in the 3rd edition forums. I still remember monster threads like "Bards Really Do Suck" "Fighters Suck" and "Monks are Overpowered" (heh) Those were good threads, even though they went on forever and opinion was heated. The difference is that you had people discussing the topic, as opposed to a couple of guys popping in a couple of times a page posting random threadcraps like:
"Yeah man, that's why we play 2nd edition. 3rd Edition is for losers!"
or "Let me tell you how much I hate bards"
or "Yes! this is what I've been saying! 3rd edition will fester and die because Bards aren't the best class and that's why we should all switch to Castle and Crusades right now."
or "Heh. Bards suck because 3rd edition is Diablo 2 on paper"
It is actually possible for a poster to engage in discussion and critism without trying to relate everything back to his "4th Edition=Wow" Master Thesis.
But this is not what is happening. There are instances of this on both sides. However, there are plenty of 4E critics making reasonable and even tempered posts. This is a hasty generalization you are making, in order to down play the level of criticism. There is a reason you are seeing so much criticism of the new system, and it isn't because there are two guys trolling the boards. Lots of people are not happy with the new system.
Maybe I am misreading the posts of the other posters, but I don't see anyone asking for a zero tolerance policy. I see people asking for permanent bans, that stick, for people that repeatedly violate the CoC badly enough to get banned.
Really, if people get temporarily banned 3, 4 or 5 times haven't they had enough strikes?
-I do not believe that there is any kind of "tracking" being done. That is, no one keeps track of how many times X is given an unofficial warning, an official warning, an edit in a post, a deletion in a post, an entire post being deleted, a temporary ban, and so on.
-That may or may not have been exacerbated or changed with the CS-CM-WizO movement recently.
If I went onto the old Astrid board and consistently shared how much I hate the reason for the forum*, I would get warned, and if I continued it, banned.
Actually, Astrid's suffers under much the same problem, and always has.
spoilered for being slightly irrelevant to the current debate
If you gave me a day, I'm pretty sure I could find close to 20 female posters who've either left, cut drastically down on their posts, and/or taken long breaks, because of the large (or just very vocal) amount of posters who're (to put it shortly) against the whole idea of the board, believe every single issue with women in gaming can be tracked down to women being stupid, and manage to work that into practically all their posts. OK, maybe I could only find around 15, but considering that the current number of regular female posters on Astrid's is probably below 10, that's still a lot.
One poster admitted being on his fifth account, with all his former bannings being related to women, and didn't get banned despite having several of his posts deleted. Another invoked *****-envy and irrationality as the reason women wouldn't want to play with sex-based modifiers, and the only thing the WizOs did, was to remove a link in his post to a website that offered treatment for homosexuality.
One poster admitted being on his fifth account, with all his former bannings being related to women, and didn't get banned despite having several of his posts deleted. Another invoked *****-envy and irrationality as the reason women wouldn't want to play with sex-based modifiers, and the only thing the WizOs did, was to remove a link in his post to a website that offered treatment for homosexuality.
If you have complaints or concerns about Customer Service, please use the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page to submit a ticket.