As it is I think the biggest problem is moderation is now split between two groups and a few posters repeatedly get accounts permanently banned and just start a new one. I understand the reluctance of an ISP ban, but when a person has an account permanently banned repeatedly, it's time to get a bigger hammer.
As it is some people just come to the 4th boards to complain and insult the game 4th edition.
[edit]
These quotes are all from the same thread.
WizO_Paradox;16661769 wrote:
Mark Charke
Then it will just be dealing with the blatant trolls, which i have noticed has died considerably over the last week or so, which is awesome.
I think a whole lot of this would be fixed with a little renaming and possibly some re-organization on the forums, for example if the main boards are intended for the current edition.... name them that. At the moment there is a lot of crap going on courtesy of a few people saying, these boards are for ay D&D discussion, and others countering with, no they are the 4th ed boards. Sort this out and you will end a lot of the flaming.
Then it will just be dealing with the blatant trolls, which i have noticed has died considerably over the last week or so, which is awesome.
Well there is a previous Edition board for those that play, uh, previous editions.
Bel
Well there is a previous Edition board for those that play, uh, previous editions.
Bel
Yes, but the fact that 4e broads do not say 4e has been an excuse of many trolls for a longtime now. Changing the names would help, if only by taking away that little loophole.
It's not a Commnity Managment issue (the poor forum structure is though), it's a Customer Service issue and they apprently don't give a crap and have zero representatives here.
No the problem is it should NOT be two separate groups managing the forums.
The only reason CS should have to be on the forums is IF the forums were the method for contacting CS about consumer related issues.
No the problem is it should NOT be two separate groups managing the forums.
The only reason CS should have to be on the forums is IF the forums were the method for contacting CS about consumer related issues.
qft
1st offense; Temp ban
2nd offense; Perma ban
Sockpuppet; Immediate IP ban
There goes 95% of the unnecessary bile in GD right there.
If we want to clean up the General Discussion forum, we need to drop the pattycake moderation policies.
1st offense; Temp ban
2nd offense; Perma ban
Sockpuppet; Immediate IP ban
There goes 95% of the unnecessary bile in GD right there.
Why? The 4E critics are honestly not the ones making this a hostile environment. It is people with sigs like this:
4E Nightcrawler
Member of the Discussions-Team Support-Alliance (Excalibur + Birds of Prey)
"I am everywhere."
Got a problem or need help? PM me or another member of the Discussion-Groups if you need help, we'll help you if we can!
That are seeking out critics or criticisms of the game and going into all out attack mode.
Why? The 4E critics are honestly not the ones making this a hostile environment. It is people with sigs like this:
That are seeking out critics or criticisms of the game and going into all out attack mode.
So, it's the people with sigs that say they're open to helping people with questions about D&D. Those are the problem, huh?
Wow. Myopic much?
The problem is people who seek out people to harass, do so until banned and then start a new account to do it some more. Those are the ones that need removed. Half of them probably don't even care about the game anymore; it's just about annoying the people who are here to discuss it.
So, it's the people with sigs that say they're open to helping people with questions about D&D. Those are the problem, huh?
Wow. Myopic much?.
If the purpose of these sigs were to simply help people with rules questions it would be fine. But we all know that anyone with a 4E [blank] on their sig is part of a group that harrasses and bullies people who have criticisms of the game. They say they are just trying to clarify the system for people, but they seem to attack those who have a good understanding of the rules, and just disagree on the quality of the game. The invitation to PM in the sig I posted, is meant to make it easier for the 4E avengers to pile up on 4E critics in an organized way.
The problem is people who seek out people to harass, do so until banned and then start a new account to do it some more. Those are the ones that need removed. Half of them probably don't even care about the game anymore; it's just about annoying the people who are here to discuss it.
The problem is, the mods have only been banning the 4E critics for some reason. Plenty of the 4E avengers have been doing ban-worthy things. But they never seem to get reprimanded.
If the purpose of these sigs were to simply help people with rules questions it would be fine. But we all know that anyone with a 4E [blank] on their sig is part of a group that harrasses and bullies people who have criticisms of the game. They say they are just trying to clarify the system for people, but they seem to attack those who have a good understanding of the rules, and just disagree on the quality of the game. The invitation to PM in the sig I posted, is meant to make it easier for the 4E avengers to pile up on 4E critics in an organized way.
Tinfoil hats do seem to be in style this season.
The problem is, the mods have only been banning the 4E critics for some reason. Plenty of the 4E avengers have been doing ban-worthy things. But they never seem to get reprimanded.
The mods have been banning the people that have done banworthy things, like insult other posters, post obscene pictures or actively harass people they disagree with. If there's any bias built into the moderation around here, it's the fact that people who have proven they can't carry on reasonable discussion (i.e., trolls) get to keep coming back with new names and the same propensity for ********.
Tinfoil hats do seem to be in style this season..
There is no need for insults.
So it is just a coincidence that the same 4E avengers appear on threads together to attack unsuspecting critics of the system?
The mods have been banning the people that have done banworthy things, like insult other posters, post obscene pictures or actively harass people they disagree with. If there's any bias built into the moderation around here, it's the fact that people who have proven they can't carry on reasonable discussion (i.e., trolls) get to keep coming back with new names and the same propensity for ********.
The problem is they haven't been. 4E avengers have been harrassing posters, acccusing them of wearing "tinfoil hats", accusing them of never having played the game, calling them trolls (absolutely a CoC violation), but they never seem to get banned. I even had one of the Wizos email me (in response to a customer service complaint from my last ban) saying that yes he does come down harder on 4E critics.
Besides perma-bans have been handed out. There are posters on this forum that have been banned permanently.
There is no need for insults.
Not an insult, just an observation. You seem to jump to completely unbacked conspiracy theories extremely quickly.
So it is just a coincidence that the same 4E avengers appear on threads together to attack unsuspecting critics of the system?
Well, given that we are all fans of the new edition (which should be fairly obvious from those same sigs you're basing your accusations on), General Discussion doesn't seem like a terribly odd place for all of us to check in on occasionally. We're there posting back and forth, and when a troll drops in there are lots of us already there who feel like responding.
Your implication of malicious intent on our part or of some shadow organization within the forum is laughable when you look at the facts; It's a forum about 4E filled with people who want to talk about 4E. Anyone who decides to drive-by troll is going to get a reception that reflects that.
The problem is they haven't been. 4E avengers have been harrassing posters, acccusing them of wearing "tinfoil hats", accusing them of never having played the game, calling them trolls (absolutely a CoC violation), but they never seem to get banned. I even had one of the Wizos email me (in response to a customer service complaint from my last ban) saying that yes he does come down harder on 4E critics.
Again with the baseless accusations. Can you prove any of this, or are you just spouting random character assassination at this point?
Besides perma-bans have been handed out. There are posters on this forum that have been banned permanently.
Then those posters need IP banned so they stop coming back.
The problem is they haven't been. 4E avengers have been harrassing posters, acccusing them of wearing "tinfoil hats", accusing them of never having played the game, calling them trolls (absolutely a CoC violation), but they never seem to get banned. I even had one of the Wizos email me (in response to a customer service complaint from my last ban) saying that yes he does come down harder on 4E critics.
If true (that there is a bias based on preference), this is something that should be brought to the attention of WotC_Eric (Link to PM him) ASAP. The CoC, as written, is edition neutral. No bias should be brought forward because of the preferences of the poster with respect to the edition of D&D that they prefer.
If true (that there is a bias based on preference), this is something that should be brought to the attention of WotC_Eric (Link to PM him) ASAP. The CoC, as written, is edition neutral. No bias should be brought forward because of the preferences of the poster with respect to the edition of D&D that they prefer.
I do not want to get the mod who emailed me in trouble for his honesty. He was just giving me his honest opinion on the subject and made it clear he didn't speak for Wizards.
I do not want to get the mod who emailed me in trouble for his honesty. He was just giving me his honest opinion on the subject and made it clear he didn't speak for Wizards.
It is not the place of the WizO to interpret the CoC based on what people think about 4E. The CoC applies to all people equally.
I have PMed WotC_Eric about your accusation of bias and asked him to look into it.
Not an insult, just an observation. You seem to jump to completely unbacked conspiracy theories extremely quickly.
Well, given that we are all fans of the new edition (which should be fairly obvious from those same sigs you're basing your accusations on), General Discussion doesn't seem like a terribly odd place for all of us to check in on occasionally. We're there posting back and forth, and when a troll drops in there are lots of us already there who feel like responding.
Your implication of malicious intent on our part or of some shadow organization within the forum is laughable when you look at the facts; It's a forum about 4E filled with people who want to talk about 4E. Anyone who decides to drive-by troll is going to get a reception that reflects that.
Again with the baseless accusations. Can you prove any of this, or are you just spouting random character assassination at this point?
Then those posters need IP banned so they stop coming back.
There is plenty of circumstancial evidence to support my claim: similar sigs, posters all appearing to attack any critic, similar arguments, the fact that they are usually the first ones on the scene, and the fact that there sigs say things like "4E batman", "4E venom" etc.
This is a forum for all D&D fans and anyone who plays 4E.
It is not the place of the WizO to interpret the CoC based on what people think about 4E. The CoC applies to all people equally.
I have PMed WotC_Eric about your accusation of bias and asked him to look into it.
I agree. Bias shouldn't inform their enforcement of the CoC. But the mod who emailed me was trying to answer my question honestly, and I just wouldn't feel right about getting him into trouble over it. That said, I firmly feel that enforcement of the CoC has been terribly lopsided.
There is plenty of circumstancial evidence to support my claim: similar sigs, posters all appearing to attack any critic, similar arguments, the fact that they are usually the first ones on the scene, and the fact that there sigs say things like "4E batman", "4E venom" etc.
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for the moon landing being fake or alien bodysnatchers taking over the Senate if you're looking for it.
I know you hate this term, but you're seeing what you want; it's called confirmation bias.
This is a forum for all D&D fans and anyone who plays 4E.
... and who can act like enough of an adult to maintain a pleasant experience for everyone else. The posters in question fail at that, often and in rather spectacular displays.
The Avengers, is what you perceive. Because most of the "Avengers" are rather silent in the last weeks (Batshido for example, Hocus as well, IIRC).
I've been on less, for a variety of reasons. Some life related, some forum related.
I spent this last week being followed from thread to thread by malicious sock puppets with the intent of actively derailing any conversation I was a part of. I figured it was probably better to just let other people have those discussions without injecting my "fan club" into them. So I've been sticking to forums where those folks don't tend to go.
I spent this last week being followed from thread to thread by malicious sock puppets with the intent of actively derailing any conversation I was a part of. I figured it was probably better to just let other people have those discussions without injecting my "fan club" into them. So I've been sticking to forums where those folks don't tend to go.
Just wanted to make it clear that I'm not one of those. We disagree on a lot of stuff, but I was honestly arguing. I don't think you put me into that classification, but I just wanted to make everything perfectly clear.
That said, sort of on topic: I actually witnessed the badgering that Batshido was subjected through. It's not a misunderstanding. This stuff does come from both sides, guys. Pro-4es get away with stuff and get modded, too. Anti-4es get away with stuff and get modded, too. I'm not seeing any bias. There are some people that are more ... reactionary than others, to be sure (I was mislabeled for simply disagreeing with a somewhat tinfoily pro-4e stance), but it's not a question of edition affiliation. Some people post to troll. Others post to converse. Until the trolls are removed - and their puppets, too - this is how it's gonna be. Solice has already taken action on an issue that previous management simply let fade away. Let's hope this proactive approach continues and finds it's way to moderation - if that is indeed under her purview.
Worst thing is, it's mostly just a small "Elite" that really does the harrassing. With a bunch of the hardcore-anti 4E folks you can still talk and argument on a at least somewhat acceptable level, but some just make this forum their new playground for harrasing others and derailing everything...
I agree. There are a good number of posters who are technically "antis" in GD that I've never had a problem with. Increasingly, it seems like there's just a handful of trolls who don't care one way or the other about the new edition or D&D in general and are here simply because the touchy-feely moderation policy lets them get their jollies harassing people with absolutely no repercussions.
Just wanted to make it clear that I'm not one of those. We disagree on a lot of stuff, but I was honestly arguing. I don't think you put me into that classification, but I just wanted to make everything perfectly clear.
Oh no, definitely. We don't see eye to eye on everything (or most things, really ;) ) but I've never felt like you were trolling.
I'm in favor of mass bannings if they get rid of the puppets and obvious trolls. This isn't the playground, it's the internet and it's serious business, we don't want or need the unnecessary amount of flaming that has been going on.
Oh no, definitely. We don't see eye to eye on everything (or most things, really ;) ) but I've never felt like you were trolling.
I didn't think so, but it's best to be sure. Since I was arguing with you in the threads that you were being ... ummm ... ganged up on in I thought I might as well make it clear. We don't need to agree to remain respectful. If we did, I think one of us would have found out where the other lives by now ... ;) :D
I noticed what you had to say about the "trolling elite". I must agree.
It seems that most of the flames have died down. There are a few "hot-points" out there doing their level best to re-ignite the inferno, though. Hopefully the calmer heads will simply ignore them enough that they fade away, too.He just says what he feels, does not persume to speak for any large, invisible or highly imaginary group, and keeps his discussion clearly focused on what's actually in the game and not on rumors or things he's made up to attack the game. When it becomes clear he's been victim of a misconception, he admits it and moves on instead of clinging to it or moving goalposts (a faovrite of others in that thread).
So if you actually have problems with the game and actually want to have a discussion about it instead of trying to provoke people and flaunt your troll powers, take a page from War Weaver, or recent Nemo the Lost.
Anyone wants to kvetch that the pro side attacks all antis and calls them trolls; talk to War Weaver. He's pretty much been holding court on the first impressions forum and has been able to hold open honest discussions about his problems with the game. There have been no concessions, there seems to be no chance of agreement, but to my knowledge, no one has felt the need to attack him or report him because... now get this: HE'S NOT TROLLING OR LYING OR BEING HYPERBOLIC OR ALARMIST
He just says what he feels, does not persume to speak for any large, invisible or highly imaginary group, and keeps his discussion clearly focused on what's actually in the game and not on rumors or things he's made up to attack the game. When it becomes clear he's been victim of a misconception, he admits it and moves on instead of clinging to it or moving goalposts (a faovrite of others in that thread).
So if you actually have problems with the game and actually want to have a discussion about it instead of trying to provoke people and flaunt your troll powers, take a page from War Weaver, or recent Nemo the Lost.
I just want to critique the game.
I just want to critique the game.
Don't you have to have at least read the books to do that?
Until that happens, you're just flailing at the other forumgoers.
Don't you have to have at least read the books to do that?
Until that happens, you're just flailing at the other forumgoers.
Not really, I just have to read what people who have played the game are saying. I may not get specifics, but I have a general idea of what 4e is like.
Not really, I just have to read what people who have played the game are saying. I may not get specifics, but I have a general idea of what 4e is like.
That's kind of like saying; "I can't speak Mandarin, but I've heard some people talking who I think were, so I should be able to fake it well enough to get by in China."
I just want to critique the game.
Read the books then. And then only discuss what's in the books, not what you've made up about the books.
Not really, I just have to read what people who have played the game are saying. I may not get specifics, but I have a general idea of what 4e is like.
And this is why NOONE takes what you write seriously.
If true (that there is a bias based on preference), this is something that should be brought to the attention of WotC_Eric (Link to PM him) ASAP. The CoC, as written, is edition neutral. No bias should be brought forward because of the preferences of the poster with respect to the edition of D&D that they prefer.
I tired, but he was not available for phone call, and i was refused to b able to leave him a message. PMs are able to be read BY moderators, and I refuse to use a secondary company for customer support through Right Now Technologies that hosts the CS website. They have NO need for any of my information as I do not do business with them, and WotC should NOT have some other company handling the WotC Customer Service website or issues.
You yourself know that moderation was abused in the thread about C&C for Teir 1/CS where things were removed to be hidden by moderators, and there is no real place to be able to discuss moderation problems as even this post will be viewed by someone as "baiting" as a thread like the one Solice requested to replace C&C for CM WAS created by me and a helpful (
) WizO explained that others may see it as baiting when it was not. So what should be done then?Solice says make a thread in CB for the area about the problems, but IF one is made it will be viewed as "baiting" the moderators....
Something fishy there.
read the books to play/dicuss the game
This sort of bias needs to stop. Would you tell a prospective player that they need to read the books before discussing anything aobut D&D with them?
There was one thread where someone asked what books to buy, and was told to read them and decide for themselves. Well did this new person post again? No, Because that person was run off.
That crap needs to stop!
You don't need to read the books to discuss anything about D&D, and there is ample material in the dDI articles for people to discuss without reading the books. If these forums are only for people who have read the books, then there needs to be a verification system built into the forums so that before you can register you have to prove you have read the books.
See how silly it sounds?
As for your comment about moderation being abused, I do not believe it was, and I told you that, both by PM and in a post.
The thread that Solice wants someone to start (should it be required) is for discussion about CM, not CS. There is already a thread for comments/concerns about CS actions that is read by WotC_Eric. And seeing as how he is the head of CS(AFAIK), he sees any posts that have been deleted or moved.
hellmute, as has been explained to you before, CM and CS are two different departments. CM has no control over what CS does, and vice-versa.
As for your comment about moderation being abused, I do not believe it was, and I told you that, both by PM and in a post.
The thread that Solice wants someone to start (should it be required) is for discussion about CM, not CS. There is already a thread for comments/concerns about CS actions that is read by WotC_Eric. And seeing as how he is the head of CS(AFAIK), he sees any posts that have been deleted or moved.
This is exactly where people do NOT understand forums. Moderation is a PART of managing the community, therefore no matter what you or anyone else thinks they ARE a part of community management, even if some silly titles state otherwise.
Administration and moderators are the management team for ANY forum.
This is exactly where people do NOT understand forums. Moderation is a PART of managing the community, therefore no matter what you or anyone else thinks they ARE a part of community management, even if some silly titles state otherwise.
Administration and moderators are the management team for ANY forum.
sigh
For the WotC forums, Community Management and Moderation have been split into two seperate teams. The way that it is done on other forums is irrelevant. The fact that other forums do it differently is irrelevant. This is the way that it is currently done on the WotC forums.
Why? The 4E critics are honestly not the ones making this a hostile environment.
Batshido didn't make any accusations against 4e critics. Sounds like someone has a guilty conscience.
Ironically you are right, though, it's no longer just the 4e critics. It's neither "side" at this point. It's at such a point where 4e people are attacking 4e people and 3e people are attacking 3e people, all for petty reasons. It's just horrible, and it's why I don't post there any more.
sigh
For the WotC forums, Community Management and Moderation have been split into two seperate teams. The way that it is done on other forums is irrelevant. The fact that other forums do it differently is irrelevant. This is the way that it is currently done on the WotC forums.
With the recent change in Community Management there will likely be many things that we review and reconsider. Every policy and action is up for consideration as we move forward.
Having said that, I will now close this thread. Should there be any concerns regarding community management please feel free to post in the community business forums for the brand or area that is appropriate, or start a new thread here.
I would like to ask the VCL's and Forum Guides to ping either Mike or I if any concerns are posted that we need to be aware of. (There is a lot to stay on top of and I hate to see things sit without response!)
Thank you all for your commitment to this community, you are appreciated!
Note the bold portion in Solice's post.
If the situation changes, CM and CS will be under the same banner. As of right now, they are not, so complaining about CM to CS or to CS about CM will not get you anywhere nearly as quick as following the proper procedures for making complaints. For CS, it is using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the pages. The fact that you refuse to use it does not remove the fact that it is the right way to submit complaints about CS.
If true (that there is a bias based on preference), this is something that should be brought to the attention of WotC_Eric (Link to PM him) ASAP. The CoC, as written, is edition neutral. No bias should be brought forward because of the preferences of the poster with respect to the edition of D&D that they prefer.
As the WizO who wrote this particular response, I have no problem publicly clarifying it. If anyone wants to bring it up with my bosses, I would stand by my statement, and if they think that its worthy of disciplinary action I would accept responsibility for my actions.
At no point did I say we were "favoring" pro-4e posters. I simply said that in most cases "positive" statements ("I like...", "I love...", "This is awesome...") are not as easy to classify as baiting as negative statements ("I hate...", "I despise...", "This sucks..."). Unfortunately, that means you have to be a bit more thoughtful in your criticism than you might have to be with your praise (As an aside: That's not something unique to this message board. That's a fact of life. It's a lot easier to tell your wife she looks good, than to tell her the hundred and fifty dollar sweater she just bought looks absurd).
The definition of "baiting" is not an exact science, and it depends largely on the audience being addressed as well as the type of language being used.
- Coming onto the 4E boards and posting nothing more than "4E SUXXORS!" is baiting. It's a negative statement that is likely to infuriate many of the people who read these boards, the majority of whom, we assume are people who play, or are at least interested in, 4th Edition.
- Posting "I REALLY, REALLY LOVE 4E" on the 4e boards more than likely isn't baiting in anything other than an extreme scenario (such as, in response to someone posting "4e killed my hamster..."). It's a statement reflecting a positive opinion, and even if people disagree it's unlikely that it will offend someone.
- Coming onto the 4E boards and posting a specific criticism of the system likely is not baiting. However, it may not engender the most civil response if not posted respectfully.
- Posting on the 4E boards that you like 3.5 better is probably not deliberately baiting, but unless there's a reason for it to be on the 4E board, you're probably going to get a friendlier conversation regarding 3.5 on the part of the forum dedicated to that topic.
While the Code of Conduct is deliberately neutral, it tends to favor positivity and community building. The moral of the story is that we're not deliberately being harder on people just because they don't like 4th Edition. That would be petty and unfair, and I like to think that we've proven ourselves bigger than that. We are being harder on people who are deliberately spreading negativity, whether that person is bashing 4th edition or any other editions. However, given the current atmosphere on the boards, I can see why people might feel that we were "being hard on" the anti-4e people. That isn't our intention, however, and we aren't making those decisions based on edition preference but rather based on the content of the posts and the likelihood of it causing a conflict with the rest of the community.
I also offered the following piece of advice in my letter: If anyone receives a warning and wants an explanation, you are more than welcome to respond to the incident. We are genuinely happy when someone expresses interest in the warning, because it allows us to show you why we took the action that we did and hopefully keeps you from getting in trouble in the future. We would love for members of the community to better understand why we respond the way that we do, and are more than willing to explain our actions.
Hopefully that is helpful for all of you. It was far more than I originally intended to type, but I think it might help clear the air a bit and help us move forward.
:D
I appreciate the clarification greatly, and thank you for taking the time to post it.
Thanks Tao. I was *quite* certain that that there was more to the story than "The WizO told me he was harder on people who were critical of 4E than pro-4E people".
I appreciate the clarification greatly, and thank you for taking the time to post it.
No problem. I'm also going to shoot an email to my lead and to Eric, just so that its all out in the open. I don't want anyone to think I'm sweeping anything under the rug. If anything, I tend to open my mouth too much. Probably comes from a lot of my prior job experience being in PR/Marketing rather than Customer Service. ;)
I'd also like to add that we really are doing our best to make the place as friendly as possible. I know that it might seem like we just "hit and run", but you'd be surprised how many reported posts we can get sometimes and we can't always respond in detail to every action we take. However, we are always available for clarification, if you feel it is needed. Simply drop us an email through the Customer Service site.
This is a hideous way to look at message boards, since it greatly limits what people say. In a fight or a war, people aren't going to be honest. Posters will think first of what their "side" needs, not what their actual opinions are. Even people who don't want a fight will worry that their words will be twisted by someone and used against them. Everyone who starts a thread will wonder who will post and whether one side or another will take offense at the thread. People who are on the fence will speak guardedly, for fear of being attacked by one or both sides.
If the General board (and I would also say Astrid's, CB, the GSL board, and DDI General are similar) ever is going to improve, CM and CS need to do one thing: get rid of the people who wouldn't be here without a war. There are clearly a lot of people who are rude or angry at times. But if we ban or punish all of them, we may not have much of a community. There are people, however, who are rude or angry *and* who never make any productive posts. Some people are just here to fight, and they are pretty easy to spot. They only go to certain boards (see above) where they do nothing but fight. When posters like that know they don't have a place here, this will be a better community.
No problem. I'm also going to shoot an email to my lead and to Eric, just so that its all out in the open. I don't want anyone to think I'm sweeping anything under the rug.
If anything, I tend to open my mouth too much. Probably comes from a lot of my prior job experience being in PR/Marketing rather than Customer Service. ;)
I doubt that anyone thought what was posted about this originally was the complete, 100% truth. I know I didn't. Still, good-on-ya for bringing this out into the open. It's transparency and ownership of "questionable" behavior that fosters trust from the masses. Even though you were accused of some wrongdoing (inaccurately, IMO), you had the brass ones to explain the situation. And that's a good thing.
I doubt that anyone thought what was posted about this originally was the complete, 100% truth. I know I didn't. Still, good-on-ya for bringing this out into the open. It's transparency and ownership of "questionable" behavior that fosters trust from the masses. Even though you were accused of some wrongdoing (inaccurately, IMO), you had the brass ones to explain the situation. And that's a good thing.
In fairness, I do see how he might have taken my words to mean that I was harder on anti-4e posters, and I think he was very respectful in not wanting to "get me in trouble". I'm just glad I noticed this thread so I could clear the air. I don't want there to be any doubts of WizO integrity because of something I left unclear.
I also offered the following piece of advice in my letter: If anyone receives a warning and wants an explanation, you are more than welcome to respond to the incident. We are genuinely happy when someone expresses interest in the warning, because it allows us to show you why we took the action that we did and hopefully keeps you from getting in trouble in the future. We would love for members of the community to better understand why we respond the way that we do, and are more than willing to explain our actions.
Sadly many WizO's ignore such requests to identify anything and only return some canned response, with no actual content to describe what "they" consider to be need for the warning other than some verbatim quote of the CoC.
The members of the forums as well would love to understand the CoC and other policies, but the severe lack of communication to the community from ALL WotC parties has caused much stress to the community and will only worsen if communication from not only devs, but WizO's WotC's etc does not pick up.
It is the left hand not knowing what the right is doing syndrome, and only serve to cause further stress.
You post is very helpful as it helps to serve opening the lines of communications WITH the community, so it does not seem that WizO's are some outsiders. I wasn't here prior, but recall some threads that had former WizO acting LIKE users and posting and having a good time with the users and not just some CoC gestapo that swoops in and vanishes.
So much thanks for taking you time to say ANYTHING that furthers the lines of communication within the whole of the community including all the WotC/WizO/users/dev/etc.
I did, and it still doesn't address my comments.
If the situation changes, CM and CS will be under the same banner. As of right now, they are not, so complaining about CM to CS or to CS about CM will not get you anywhere nearly as quick as following the proper procedures for making complaints. For CS, it is using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the pages. The fact that you refuse to use it does not remove the fact that it is the right way to submit complaints about CS.
Then you and I are reading two very different things in Solice's post.
Sadly many WizO's ignore such requests to identify anything and only return some canned response, with no actual content to describe what "they" consider to be need for the warning other than some verbatim quote of the CoC.
.
This is why I didn't want to out Tao. I appreciated him taking the time to give me an email response. But yes, I have responded to every warning I receive and his was the only response I ever got (and I get ALOT of warnings).
While we are on the subject, one sincere problem I have with the warning system, is they only rarely show you the post you are being warned about. There have been times when I wasn't even sure why I was being warned or recieved a ban.
This is why I didn't want to out Tao. I appreciated him taking the time to give me an email response. But yes, I have responded to every warning I receive and his was the only response I ever got (and I get ALOT of warnings).
While we are on the subject, one sincere problem I have with the warning system, is they only rarely show you the post you are being warned about. There have been times when I wasn't even sure why I was being warned or recieved a ban.
Yes Tao IS informative, but it seems not to be a standard for others in the same position. EVERY dealing I have had with Tao has been pleasant and exemplary from an understanding and communication standpoint. It would be nice to see more like Tao putting that effort into explaining things rather than having blanket/canned responses that leave people none the wiser about things.
Like for Solice, Tao...
I have to say that the venom is coming from both sides on this issue.
I actually agree here. I've seen a couple of posts that attack those that have got a bad reputation.
When I see it, I then use the report button. I don't really care which side they are on. For example the post that I quoted the moderations from in the original post. Last I checked it has received a fourth moderation.
If the purpose of these sigs were to simply help people with rules questions it would be fine. But we all know that anyone with a 4E [blank] on their sig is part of a group that harrasses and bullies people who have criticisms of the game. They say they are just trying to clarify the system for people, but they seem to attack those who have a good understanding of the rules, and just disagree on the quality of the game. The invitation to PM in the sig I posted, is meant to make it easier for the 4E avengers to pile up on 4E critics in an organized way.
I can honestly say that I've never got a private message like that, nor do I know of such an effort. Proving it however is next to impossible.
Truthfully you wouldn't need to put anything in your sig to do this.
The problem is, the mods have only been banning the 4E critics for some reason. Plenty of the 4E avengers have been doing ban-worthy things. But they never seem to get reprimanded.
Do you report them?
Beyond that the how you report a violation changes the chance of moderation. Some violations of the code of conduct of quite obvious. Others are subjective and need to be explained. Also not that the person that shows up to moderate might not know the context.
While we are on the subject, one sincere problem I have with the warning system, is they only rarely show you the post you are being warned about. There have been times when I wasn't even sure why I was being warned or recieved a ban.
Yes that would be a huge problem. If a person doesn't know what you did wrong, then they cannot alter their behavior to fit with the code of conduct.I suggest that anyone that receives a warning or ban with no explanation e-mail customer service about the lack of communication. This is a extremely user unfriendly way to moderate.
People that express concerns about 4e can be put in to a few groups that have lots of gray areas in between.
- Folks that are confused on the rules.
- Folks that are concerned about rule changes and want work arounds.
- Folks that heard rumors elsewhere and are looking for confirmation/denial
- Folks that haven't looked at the rules closely enough or overlooked something
And then we have the trolling category where people aren't interested in discussions, they just want to cause problems or make cheap shots at WotC and anyone that likes 4e as much as they can. Or they just want to either rant or have a shouting match.
We can't just ban a "viewpoint" because it's not fair to the first group of people who ARE trying to make an effort to learn the new rules.
While we can't get a definitive answer on which edition is better, because it is clearly an matter of opinion. But this is one aspect of the nonsense that can be finished with one answer.. which as of yet, nobody official has done.
Not really, I just have to read what people who have played the game are saying. I may not get specifics, but I have a general idea of what 4e is like.
Others of us have played the game and like it, so does that mean your ignoring those who like it?
That would mean that your admitting bias, and bias has no place in reasoned criticism.
Criticism, in the non-derogatory sense is a good thing when it is reasoned and un-biased, not when it is like a Michael Moore film.
We can't just ban a "viewpoint" because it's not fair to the first group of people who ARE trying to make an effort to learn the new rules.
I don't think anyone wants to see a viewpoint banned, unless you're counting "I <3 trolling" as a viewpoint, in which case some of us are eager to see a viewpoint banned.
Folks that don't like 4e won't like being kicked off the boards. That's an extreme measure to take and one we shouldn't have to take. The problem is in determining motivations of people that post.
People that express concerns about 4e can be put in to a few groups that have lots of gray areas in between.
- Folks that are confused on the rules.
- Folks that are concerned about rule changes and want work arounds.
- Folks that heard rumors elsewhere and are looking for confirmation/denial
- Folks that haven't looked at the rules closely enough or overlooked something
And then we have the trolling category where people aren't interested in discussions, they just want to cause problems or make cheap shots at WotC and anyone that likes 4e as much as they can. Or they just want to either rant or have a shouting match.
We can't just ban a "viewpoint" because it's not fair to the first group of people who ARE trying to make an effort to learn the new rules.
I think you are missing a few groups in your bias there buddy.
Please, report conduct issues to Customer Service on a case by case basis so that they can be handled accordingly.
I've deleted a large number of posts in this thread. This isn't the place for publicly calling out any specific users. While I understand the intention, it won't end in a good place and will simply serve to divide the community further.
Please, report conduct issues to Customer Service on a case by case basis so that they can be handled accordingly.
I completely and absolutely agree. It happens so often on these forums with people making attacks against posters instead of an argument. I really wish that others would be more considerate and simply post rebuttals instead of attacking the posters making the arguments.
I completely and absolutely agree. It happens so often on these forums with people making attacks against posters instead of an argument. I really wish that others would be more considerate and simply post rebuttals instead of attacking the posters making the arguments.
Yup. Both "sides" can get fairly aggressive. That's a fact.
Off topic: I like you're sig. He's back. What's that mean, exactly, if you don't mind me asking. Those off-the-wall sort of statements always get me curious! :D
Please, report conduct issues to Customer Service on a case by case basis so that they can be handled accordingly.
That's the problem; they're not being handled accordingly.
As it is now, someone can troll for months on end and the only punishment is having thier troll psots hidden from public view *maybe*. And if they finally do get banned, it's just fine and dandy, by the CoC, for them to make another account and do it AGAIN.
If whoever does the banning in CS was doing what they were supposed to do, this would have stopped months ago and even if people generated new IPs, their pathological need to tell everyone would have gotten them re-banned in sort order.
The real conduct issue here is CS's own and I doubt reporting that to them will end well for anyone.
Let's move past the kvetching. Please. Let's get down to solutions.
I haven't read the entire thread, but here's some things I've gleaned. I'd love to see people expand on these ideas, and come up with their own ideas on how to make this community better.
Slightly Renaming Forums to Clarify the Purpose
Sorry, I forget who suggested it. But somebody in this thread suggested that there's honest-to-goodness confusion about what goes where. Is it OK to discuss 3.5 in D&D General? What about in the House Rules forum?
How can this be resolved? Does slapping "4e" in front of "D&D Fundamentals" resolve the problem? Does it take something else?
Moderation Confusion
SpearSpike tossed out that warnings often come without any sort of link to the offending post. I don't know if it's true, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him. So, working on the assumption that he's correct... That's really damn silly. Every communication between customer service and a member over conduct should include a link to the offending post(s).
What do we need to do to get this policy changed?
"Robotic" Moderation
Some folks have mentioned that Tao is the only moderator they've dealt with who is willing to answer questions. I've certainly noticed a more "robotic" nature to the WizOs over the past year. I'd like to propose to customer service that they change that; allow the WizOs to have a personality. Permit them to answer questions without using copy/paste text.
I mean - go back and read the three posts Cal linked in the first post. A robot could've posted those as easily as the three mods who came along. Canned responses are (in my opinion) usually a bad thing.
How do we effectively go about convincing CS that canned responses aren't in their best interests?
Banning Policy
(thanks to Val's post, I remembered another point...)
Trolls get tons of warnings before they're banned (at least three, oftentimes more). And once they're banned they can just create a new account and get a fresh set of warnings with which to work.
This seemed to work out more or less OK in the past. I've seen people who got banned and returned under a new name and became productive members; and I've seen trolls who grew tired of the game and just stopped coming. But it seems to not work any more.
IP bans suck, because there's a good chance of getting somebody else wrapped up in the ban. What are the other options? How can Customer Service improve the process?
*
What else? What else can be done to repair this community?
We can go on kvetching and moaning about this stuff. Or we can work with Community Management and Customer Service to try and repair things. Honestly, a good kvetch-fest can be a fun read; but after pages upon pages of them over the past few months, it's time for something different. Let's give the second option a try. I mean a good, honest try. Put aside whether you're a 4e fan or a 3.5 fan or a d20 Modern fan, and instead let's work together. This used to be a great community. Let's get back to that.
Off topic: I like you're sig. He's back. What's that mean, exactly, if you don't mind me asking. Those off-the-wall sort of statements always get me curious! :D
Also, yes I've had a few accounts, but no I've not lost count. I'll prove it:
PsionX (permanently banned)->PsionX_1 (permanently banned)->Leshracnuker (permanently banned)->Mortred (permanently banned)->Clinkzdps (temporarily banned 12 times)->Gondarcarry (currently unbanned, permanently banned)->Juggyslash (currently unbanned, temporarily banned 6 times).
It means just what it says.
That's the problem; they're not being handled accordingly.
As it is now, someone can troll for months on end and the only punishment is having thier troll psots hidden from public view *maybe*. And if they finally do get banned, it's just fine and dandy, by the CoC, for them to make another account and do it AGAIN.
If whoever does the banning in CS was doing what they were supposed to do, this would have stopped months ago and even if people generated new IPs, their pathological need to tell everyone would have gotten them re-banned in sort order.
The real conduct issue here is CS's own and I doubt reporting that to them will end well for anyone.
The problem with permanent bans and IP bans (which do happen in extreme cases by the way) is that it is so easy to be warned and banned for being a troll. You don't actually have to be a troll or intentionally bait and flame to get a ban. Some posters just need to think you are a troll, or trying to bait or flame. This low threshhold for evidence, actually benefits the community most. Because the wizos can ban someone freely, knowing that person will have a few days to cool off before they return. If they get a perma ban, the poster is still free to sign up again under a new name if they want. This ensures you punish all trolls, but because some innocent posters get cought in the cross fire, they need to make the punishment lenient.
4E D&D fundamentals won't work.
GD now seems to be what it sounds like and is NOT 4E centric, so would need to be removed from that section, or a GD section created somewhere for edition neutral general discussion of D&D.
Maybe it could go near the Off-Topic Tavern as it would be for General (A)D&D Discussion without any specific edition tie-ins.
Then $E Being appended to the front of of D&D Fundamentals would work.
We can go on kvetching and moaning about this stuff. Or we can work with Community Management and Customer Service to try and repair things.
How? We don't even have a representative of Cust Serv on these boards. They seem friendly enough in the contact use conversations, but they aren't talking to us, much less listening to suggestions
Hey, Solice! Any chance of getting a commitment from WotC_Eric to read this thread, and possibly have participation as well?
@Zherg
4E D&D fundamentals won't work.
GD now seems to be what it sounds like and is NOT 4E centric, so would need to be removed from that section, or a GD section created somewhere for edition neutral general discussion of D&D.
Maybe it could go near the Off-Topic Tavern as it would be for General (A)D&D Discussion without any specific edition tie-ins.
Then $E Being appended to the front of of D&D Fundamentals would work.
"GD" = General Discussion, right?
The alternative to your solution would be to move all the non-4e general chatter out of the forum and place it in the Previous Editions section. Then labeling it "4e D&D Fundamentals" as a section name works well, and clears up any confusion about what the entire set of forums is for.
@Zherg
4E D&D fundamentals won't work.
GD now seems to be what it sounds like and is NOT 4E centric, so would need to be removed from that section, or a GD section created somewhere for edition neutral general discussion of D&D.
Maybe it could go near the Off-Topic Tavern as it would be for General (A)D&D Discussion without any specific edition tie-ins.
Then $E Being appended to the front of of D&D Fundamentals would work.
4th ed.
Have you realised that there is the same exact kind of section in the out of print place? There is a D&D general section?
Why peoples don't use it more?
We can go on kvetching and moaning about this stuff. Or we can work with Community Management and Customer Service to try and repair things. Honestly, a good kvetch-fest can be a fun read; but after pages upon pages of them over the past few months, it's time for something different. Let's give the second option a try. I mean a good, honest try. Put aside whether you're a 4e fan or a 3.5 fan or a d20 Modern fan, and instead let's work together. This used to be a great community. Let's get back to that.
One thing that regular users can do is stop trying to debate people's opinions. Trolls can derail threads by throwing an opinion into a discussion. For example, let's say there's a thread on 4e rituals and someone jumps in with, "4e rituals suck because they aren't creative at all. They're just lame and nowhere near as fun as real spells were."
These are the user's feelings and we have no way of debating them. Whether he actually feels this way, whether he should feel this way, and whatever we think contributes to his feeling this way are all totally pointless for anyone else to comment on. One person has stated his feelings (likely in an effort to get attention) and *no one* really needs to respond. It's not like we all should feel a certain way about things, so when someone states his feelings and we don't agree, we should just keep having the same conversation we had before. It's a lot to ask of people, but this would go a long way toward cutting down on the fighting here.
As long as someone isn't being offensive, we can't stop him from stating an opinion, even if it has no apparent basis and is likely just meant to draw some negative attention. We all have to accept that there will be people we can't have good conversations with. When we see posts from our special people, we need to either not respond (because there is nothing to respond to) or report them (because that user crossed the line).
Why peoples don't use it more?
Very good question. Have any ideas? Here's my hunch: people don't know about it. It's the same reason topics about the game end up in this forum -- people who are new to the community don't look around. They find the first place they can post, and then do so.
Does renaming it to 4e D&D Fundamentals (and maybe even going so far as to rename the forum 4e General Discussion) solve that problem? Probably not completely. But it likely would resolve some of the problems.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
How? We don't even have a representative of Cust Serv on these boards. They seem friendly enough in the contact use conversations, but they aren't talking to us, much less listening to suggestions
We DO. He's more of a behind the scenes guy though and has been able to get at least one change between CM and CS policy changed.
And it was done by following the policy to show why it needed to be fixed.
;)
"GD" = General Discussion, right?
The alternative to your solution would be to move all the non-4e general chatter out of the forum and place it in the Previous Editions section. Then labeling it "4e D&D Fundamentals" as a section name works well, and clears up any confusion about what the entire set of forums is for.
You would think so, and so did I and The Rouse....but GZ had stated that fundamentals was for 4E-centric discussion.
GD being in Fundamanetals would mean it is in 4E-centric therefore is NOT edition neutral.
I don't mind there being a 4E-centric, 3rd-centric, etc GD, BUT I do think there should be a GD on the D&D forums, NOT WotC Com forums, that should be edition neutral.
There is also some problems about What's a DM/Player to DO where people think they are for 4th only rather than general.
It is just mass confusion after the combination of the old forums and the 4th forums.
See what I mean about it now? You need a GD that doesn't tie directly into ANY edition, but allows for discussion of D&D in general. The editions can have their own edition specific GD as well.
One thing that regular users can do is stop trying to debate people's opinions.
>>snip for space<<
A lot of what you say is true. But I'll add two counter-comments:
1) What you're basically saying is "don't feed the trolls." That's great advice. I say it a lot. It's also inevitable that somebody is going to fail their Will save and make a reply. It's just a fact of a forum this large.
2) How they reply is important, though. Using your example, I might point out that rituals are, basically, the utility spells from 3.x, but that they're better because now they're open to any class to use them. No longer does the fighter have to rely upon the wizard to fly; he can simply spend a feat and do it himself.
Or, I could rant about somebody who thought that was a stupid-head who deserved to get kicked in the nuts by a marine in steel-toed boots.
One reply is better than the other. ;)
You're right -- not replying to a troll is almost always the best answer. But I have seen a troll get completely shut down by members taking his bait and instead turning it into a thoughtful and provocative discussion -- something the troll doesn't want.
If someone is looking to start a fight about the new edition, he'll do it in 4th Edition General or General Discussion (or both).
The problem isn't that people who dislike 4th don't know about the Previous Edition Boards. (There might be one or two like that, but they are not the problem.)
The problem is editorial moderation. The problem is we need a stronger editorial policy. Something that allows people to express negativity (or praise) but not to the detriment of those who want a discussion without hostility. (Negativity and hostility being two different concepts.)
>>interesting stuff<<
At the risk of sounding overly rude...
Frankly, I don't give a flying fig what GZ thought or said. He's no longer here, and Solice has said everything is open to discussion. I absolutely encourage you to form your own opinion about Solice, but I'll tell you that I completely trust her. I think she's intelligent, thoughtful, and a straight-shooter. I think she's the sort of person who would have no problems saying a policy that's in place is bad for the community and needs to be changed.
If she says everything is open to discussion, I believe her. So let's stop worrying about what Mike did or didn't say/do, and start focusing instead on how to fix things going forward.
Is a complete re-org of the D&D/RPG area the best solution? I don't know. But it's certainly a valid point to discuss.
You're right -- not replying to a troll is almost always the best answer. But I have seen a troll get completely shut down by members taking his bait and instead turning it into a thoughtful and provocative discussion -- something the troll doesn't want.
I personally love it when that happens.
As for the 4e centric boards, that's what WotC wants, as far as I know. That's the current edition they've put out. There IS a General Discussion board for all editions. It can be found here: http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42
Perhaps a renaming of the boards is needed.
I don't think making an edition-neutral or a 4E-specific General Discussion forum will help. If someone want to discuss why he hates Third Edition, the on-topic forum for that is Previous Editions General.
If someone is looking to start a fight about the new edition, he'll do it in 4th Edition General or General Discussion (or both).
The problem isn't that people who dislike 4th don't know about the Previous Edition Boards. (There might be one or two like that, but they are not the problem.)
The problem is editorial moderation. The problem is we need a stronger editorial policy. Something that allows people to express negativity (or praise) but not to the detriment of those who want a discussion without hostility. (Negativity and hostility being two different concepts.)
Notice you default to thinking people are WANTING to start a fight.
I find this a bad thing from someone in any way related to a moderator capacity, and shows bad faith towards the community. Maybe we should leave GZ's bad faith towards the community out now that he is?
Consider for example your post there is baiting and seems to be an attempt to start an arguement such as any bad faith assumption always is.
Or would this post of mine be feeding a troll?
I personally love it when that happens.
Indeed. Too bad it doesn't happen often.
As for the 4e centric boards, that's what WotC wants, as far as I know. That's the current edition they've put out. There IS a General Discussion board for all editions. It can be found here: http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42
Perhaps a renaming of the boards is needed.
I think Hellmute is suggesting that there ought to be a "D&D General" forum that's just that -- general. Not tied to an edition at all. Your forum is in the previous editions section, which precludes 4e from the discussion.
At the risk of sounding overly rude...
Frankly, I don't give a flying fig what GZ thought or said. He's no longer here, and Solice has said everything is open to discussion. I absolutely encourage you to form your own opinion about Solice, but I'll tell you that I completely trust her. I think she's intelligent, thoughtful, and a straight-shooter. I think she's the sort of person who would have no problems saying a policy that's in place is bad for the community and needs to be changed.
If she says everything is open to discussion, I believe her. So let's stop worrying about what Mike did or didn't say/do, and start focusing instead on how to fix things going forward.
Is a complete re-org of the D&D/RPG area the best solution? I don't know. But it's certainly a valid point to discuss.
I said nothing bad towards Solice.
I said we should fix the problems left behind by GZ, and get things done right this time. He left confusion, and that needs to be fixed the best way possible.
One way I see that is having an edition neutral GD, as well as appending 4E to the Fundamentals section for more guidance on where certain posts may belong for both users and admin/mods alike.
You of all people, I would not have expected to try to start a fight about something as simple as that and try to turn my post into something against Solice.
Maybe you just have lingering angst towards GZ, that has been festering and you needed to let it out and did so in that last post?
The problem is editorial moderation. The problem is we need a stronger editorial policy. Something that allows people to express negativity (or praise) but not to the detriment of those who want a discussion without hostility. (Negativity and hostility being two different concepts.)
The problem isn't the moderation itself. As you said, how do we allow everyone to be free to discuss their negative opinion
Do you think a mega thread to put all negative comments would work?
I think Hellmute is suggesting that there ought to be a "D&D General" forum that's just that -- general. Not tied to an edition at all. Your forum is in the previous editions section, which precludes 4e from the discussion.
This lady/gentleman wins the cupie doll!
Do you think a mega thread to put all negative comments would work?
That suggests discrimination in a form that should not be tolerated on any level.
To say that positive posts can have there own threads/forum, but any negative look at a portion of the game or any edition only gets a single thread.....
A lot of what you say is true. But I'll add two counter-comments:
1) What you're basically saying is "don't feed the trolls." That's great advice. I say it a lot. It's also inevitable that somebody is going to fail their Will save and make a reply. It's just a fact of a forum this large.
People will fail, yes. Still, there are different kinds of trolls. The guy who says, "4e is full of FAIL! I can't believe they dumbed the system down this much. Is WotC after money from blastocysts now? You seriously don't need any kind of brain to play 4e. In fact, a brain would get in the way because you'd realize WoW does the same thing better!" is one kind of troll. You can report him and unless the WizO on duty hates 4e with a blinding passion, all is well. Feed or do not feed, his remarks and your responses will be deleted.
But the other kind, as described in my previous post, is likely not to look like a troll unless you know the poster's history and the content of the thread. This is why I particularly emphasize not feeding such posters.
2) How they reply is important, though. Using your example, I might point out that rituals are, basically, the utility spells from 3.x, but that they're better because now they're open to any class to use them. No longer does the fighter have to rely upon the wizard to fly; he can simply spend a feat and do it himself.
Yes, but the problem comes in when *everyone* has already tried to be reasonable with said poster (or a sock-puppet thereof) in several threads already. And the person will continue to reply with opinion only or, if pressed, outright lies and verbal abuse. So rather than trying to be friendly with someone who doesn't want it (we know who these guys are, seriously!) and trying to fight opinion with fact, it's better to say nothing.
The sad truth is that your response is the path typically taken in the 4e forums. But that still counts as feeding for some trolls. No matter what reasons you give, they will always have a way to stamp their feet and say, "I just don't like it." Replying in any way is hopeless.
You're right -- not replying to a troll is almost always the best answer. But I have seen a troll get completely shut down by members taking his bait and instead turning it into a thoughtful and provocative discussion -- something the troll doesn't want.
This happens, but some trolls are very good at finding things to fight about. A healthy dose of belligerence and a casual skim of someone's reply can always supply these guys with something to get mad about.
I said nothing bad towards Solice.
>>snip<<
Maybe you just have lingering angst towards GZ, that has been festering and you needed to let it out and did so in that last post?
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply you were saying anything bad about Solice. My comment about not carrying what Mike said was in reply to this:
You would think so, and so did I and The Rouse....but GZ had stated that fundamentals was for 4E-centric discussion.
The rest of my post was aimed at exactly what you're saying -- let's fix what's broken. Another re-org would be painful, but if it's in the best interests of the community then we should absolutely put that on the table to discuss.
I apologize for not being clear.
Do you think a mega thread to put all negative comments would work?
Oh dear god, no. No more stupid
mega-threads!And it was done by following the policy to show why it needed to be fixed.
;)
If what's already occurred hasn't convinced him -- if it's been bought to his attention at all -- then I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to commit the level of trolling and posting horrible things it would take to demonstrate the problem to him at this point.
Consider for example your post there is baiting and seems to be an attempt to start an arguement such as any bad faith assumption always is.
Since we're discussing issues, now would be a good time to bring this up.
There are a LOT of people who do not know what baiting is as it applies to the CoC. The post referenced above is NOT baiting. At all. It's a discussion, and if people agreed all the time 100%, there wouldn't be any discussions. "Fighters are great!" "Yeah!" "I agree!" "Yep, absolutely!"
Not agreeing is NOT baiting. Say that with me.
Not agreeing is NOT baiting.
Having a discussion is not baiting either.
Since we're discussing issues, now would be a good time to bring this up.
There are a LOT of people who do not know what baiting is as it applies to the CoC. The post referenced above is NOT baiting. At all. It's a discussion, and if people agreed all the time 100%, there wouldn't be any discussions. "Fighters are great!" "Yeah!" "I agree!" "Yep, absolutely!"
Not agreeing is NOT baiting. Say that with me.
Not agreeing is NOT baiting.
Having a discussion is not baiting either.
I think the very portion bolded is a problem that should be solved for all parties as well as "spamming", and a few of those OTHER lesser defined terms.
Each online forum has its own definition, and you can never tell from one to the next what the depth/level some comments could be considered as such.
It would be great to have a less legalese version of the CoC since the users of the forums are NOT all lawyers nor instinctively know what the creators of the CoC meant when it was created.
Some things like "no porn" go without saying, but those other looser articles and subsections of the CoC are a bit confusing without further explanation. And the chance of someone completely new to forums coming in for D&D or other WotC product discussion may not know what exactly is meant.
The rest of my post was aimed at exactly what you're saying -- let's fix what's broken. Another re-org would be painful, but if it's in the best interests of the community then we should absolutely put that on the table to discuss.
In that vein, http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1080766
Just wanted to pop my head in to let you know that I am reading this thread and reviewing the forums. I agree that we have some work here to be done and I am listening to feedback on the best way to proceed.
As Zherog mentioned I am open to ideas, everything is up for discussion. (Except the part where I rock, that is a law. No discussion allowed.
)I will propose solution to some of these concerns for further discussion after I have had time to receive feedback and consider our options.
While I can not promise to make everyone happy, I can say that I will listen to everyone’s opinions. Thank you for caring about this community! Your support is appreciated.
Some things like "no porn" go without saying, but those other looser articles and subsections of the CoC are a bit confusing without further explanation. And the chance of someone completely new to forums coming in for D&D or other WotC product discussion may not know what exactly is meant.
That's why there's a soft warn system in place, and people aren't instantly banned.
Notice you default to thinking people are WANTING to start a fight.
No, that's why I started with the word "if". I don't presume that people want to start a fight, but it is apparent that some fraction of the community wants to start a fight. And that fraction is the problem.
I find this a bad thing from someone in any way related to a moderator capacity... Consider for example your post there is baiting and seems to be an attempt to start an arguement such as any bad faith assumption always is.
If you think I'm violating the CoC, please please please report it. I assure you that you are reading what I wrote wildly out of context, but since you rarely if ever believe anything I write, I would ask you to report the post instead so that a neutral third party can read it to determine whether your interpretation is accurate or mine is.
That's why there's a soft warn system in place, and people aren't instantly banned.
Sadly as was noted by Tao and the interaction with his/her posts, there is oft times where warnings do not include explanation or even what the warning is referring to as the post that was warned for or the content.
Thus any warning is pretty much spitting in the wind as nothing good can come from it.
"Your post was deleted for baiting."
That tells nothing if you:
a) don't know what post
b) have no access to the post even if you knew which one to see what was considered baiting
Sadly the above is the sort of "warnings" that are sent most often, IF any PM or such is sent in regards to editorial moderation.
Sadly the above is the sort of "warnings" that are sent most often, IF any PM or such is sent in regards to editorial moderation.
CS doesn't handle editorial moderation. I, as an editorial moderator do not issue warnings.
No, that's why I started with the word "if". I don't presume that people want to start a fight, but it is apparent that some fraction of the community wants to start a fight. And that fraction is the problem.
If you think I'm violating the CoC, please please please report it. I assure you that you are reading what I wrote wildly out of context, but since you rarely if ever believe anything I write, I would ask you to report the post instead so that a neutral third party can read it to determine whether your interpretation is accurate or mine is.
As Webster noted in response to that post of mine, it is here that discussion is ongoing to iron these things out.
But again the "please please please report it" seems like baiting to me. As it seems like the interest of saying it would be to antagonize myself or another to "solicit a negative response".
Moderation Confusion
SpearSpike tossed out that warnings often come without any sort of link to the offending post. I don't know if it's true, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him. So, working on the assumption that he's correct... That's really damn silly. Every communication between customer service and a member over conduct should include a link to the offending post(s).
What do we need to do to get this policy changed?
Not to say that SpearSpike is wrong, but the one time I saw a warning email [1] (It was for a post that got deleted), it included a copy of the post for which the warning was issued.
[1] - My name had gotten accidentally added to the CC: field of the email.
So I wonder if it is more a situation of the WizO doing the warning sometimes adding it, or sometimes not.
The problem isn't the moderation itself. As you said, how do we allow everyone to be free to discuss their negative opinion
That requires a clearly delineated editorial moderation policy that sets forth the tenor of discussion we're willing to tolerate.
Do you think a mega thread to put all negative comments would work?
No. If I understand you correctly you are saying that since CM doesn't really have the authority to delete posts that violate a hypothetical editorial poicy, we instead transfer them to a trashbin.
But that all presumes we have a means to determine what are appropriate and inappropriate posts. And that requires someone to come up with an editorial policy. A megathread is just a poor man's trashbin. I'd rather inappropriate posts get deleted so that productive discussion doesn't get derailed.
But again the "please please please report it" seems like baiting to me.
No, it's sincere. There's no need to discuss whether I violated the CoC. Just report the post and have a WizO take a look at it. I don't want you to respond to this comment. Please don't. Just report the relevant posts.
CS doesn't handle editorial moderation. I, as an editorial moderator do not issue warnings.
I have never seen a post edited by yourself for any reason, and the system lists the person that edits the posts.
Only the creator of the post, or a WizO has the powers to edit another's post, and the forums record the name, time and any reason giving for editing them.
Are you saying you have some sort of powers outside of the standard of vBulletin operations that does NOT record when you edit posts?
No, it's sincere. There's no need to discuss whether I violated the CoC. Just report the post and have a WizO take a look at it. I don't want you to respond to this comment. Please don't. Just report the relevant posts.
I think you are missing the point of a discussion wrecan.
But again the "please please please report it" seems like baiting to me. As it seems like the interest of saying it would be to antagonize myself or another to "solicit a negative response".
But it's not baiting. He's responding to you. He's telling you if you feel he's breaking the CoC, click the report button. That's not baiting, that's discussion.
I have never seen a post edited by yourself for any reason, and the system lists the person that edits the posts.
Only the creator of the post, or a WizO has the powers to edit another's post, and the forums record the name, time and any reason giving for editing them.
Are you saying you have some sort of powers outside of the standard of vBulletin operations that does NOT record when you edit posts?
Posts are edited for CoC Violations, which is handled by CS. Editing CoC violations is not my job as a VCL.
Much of what I do is what I call "housekeeping". Move thread x to this forum. Merge these two threads. Make this thread sticky. That sort of thing.
I think you are missing the point of a discussion wrecan.
Please tell me what you think the point of the discussion is. I thought the point of the discussion was coming up with suggestions on how the General Discussion forum might be less rancorous, and I have been trying to lend my suggestions.
To date, my suggestions are:
1) Draft a formal editorial moderation policy that would let people know what is considered inappropriate behavior.
2) Encourage Customer Service to be more aggressive in deleting posts for inappropriate behavior.
Although I haven't mentioned it, I would also suggest:
3) When CS edits or deletes a post, the user should be informed (by PM or email) that his post has been modified/deleted, the reason for the deletion, and a link to CS, in case the person wishes to protest or appeal the moderation.
4) CS should be more aggressive about banning people who persistently violate the rules and IP-banning people who try to return after an initial ban.
As far as I can tell, these suggestions are well within the scope of this thread's discussion.
But it's not baiting. He's responding to you. He's telling you if you feel he's breaking the CoC, click the report button. That's not baiting, that's discussion.
And therein is where the problem lies. The "please please please" is egging someone on or antagonizing them.
Why not instead say:
"If you feel my post has violated the CoC feel free to report it."
Why the need to try to egg someone on with the attitude implied in the "please please please"?
It actually sounds like someone daring someone else to do something.
"Please please please" throw a punch at me so I can retaliate.
If that is not baiting, then I don't know what is.
Posts are edited for CoC Violations, which is handled by CS. Editing CoC violations is not my job as a VCL.
Much of what I do is what I call "housekeeping". Move thread x to this forum. Merge these two threads. Make this thread sticky. That sort of thing.
Housekeeping is NOT editorial moderation. You are not editing posts.
If what's already occurred hasn't convinced him -- if it's been bought to his attention at all -- then I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to commit the level of trolling and posting horrible things it would take to demonstrate the problem to him at this point.
Well if you're talking about me, the stuff I post is usually only offensive because the people reading it have such a deep investment in their game that they defend it as if it were their spouse when it is spoken ill of. You'd do well to note that I've yet to insult a poster for their stance. That's why it's not trolling or baiting, because really, it's the reader getting much too involved in the game for their own health and treating it's every chastisement as a crime. Thus, I don't get banned that much anymore for my statements against 4e.
Please tell me what you think the point of the discussion is. I thought the point of the discussion was coming up with suggestions on how the General Discussion forum might be less rancorous, and I have been trying to lend my suggestions.
To date, my suggestions are:
1) Draft a formal editorial moderation policy that would let people know what is considered inappropriate behavior.
This is a good idea. A sticky post, locked, at the top of every forum that details what the intended topic is for the forum. It'd be a good idea to also point to other locations - WaDMtD, WaPtD, Previous Editions General, etc.
2) Encourage Customer Service to be more aggressive in deleting posts for inappropriate behavior.
Agreed.
Although I haven't mentioned it, I would also suggest:
3) When CS edits or deletes a post, the user should be informed (by PM or email) that his post has been modified/deleted, the reason for the deletion, and a link to CS, in case the person wishes to protest or appeal the moderation.
4) CS should be more aggressive about banning people who persistently violate the rules and IP-banning people who try to return after an initial ban.
Agreed on these two as well.
"Editorial Moderation" does not require posts to be edited. Just because the root word is "edit" doesn't mean that actual edits need to take place. All those things Webbie mentioned fall under the umbrella of the term WotC invented (editorial moderation).
WotC did NOT invent that term or many of the other ones it uses, but quite often uses the established terms incorrectly.
"Editorial moderation" has been in use for years prior to WotC even existing.
Please do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.
Another name it has gone by over the years is "content moderation".
It is when a moderator or admin edits an actual post.
Moving threads/posts or forums is usually something left for administration to do as moderators are the "police" of the forums and administration is the builders and landscapers. Moderators are most often the ones to move posts/threads as it is too menial for admins to do so.
Please people check your history of forums. It would help many to understand this history to not be confused by improper use of terms by WotC or anyone else.
Go ask on other forums (non wizards/gleemax.com) and see what they tell you "editorial moderation" is and if WotC invented the term.
WotC did NOT invent that term or many of the other ones it uses, but quite often uses the established terms incorrectly.
Whether WotC first put the two words together is irrelevant to Zherog's main point: that "editorial moderation" -- as the term is used by WotC -- doesn't require the moderator (here, Webster) to have the ability to edit posts.
Just because the term may mean that in other forums, we are trying to explain to you that it doesn't mean that here.
We are using the colloquial definition of the word "editorial", not a definition that may or may not be specific to web-based forums. And that definition is:
[indent]"of or pertaining to the literary and artistic activities or contents of a publication, broadcasting organization, or the like, as distinguished from its business activities, advertisements"[/indent]
Don't try to change the terminology that already has been in use because you want to.
You are only making the problems of communication and people being able to understand each other worse when you do that.
------------------------------------------
Why did the GSL prevent redefining terms? So there would be common ground for people to understand what a term means.
Why can that not be used on these forums as well?
Anyone who has spent any amount of time on web forums on the internet realizes that each forum has its own internal set of rules and quirks that one must remember to be a proper member of that community.
The meaning of editorial moderation, and the split between CS and CM are some of the quirks of the WotC forums. Repeating "But other forums don't do it that way" over and over ad naseum ad infinitum doesn't accomplish anything and only wastes electrons.
Please get back to the topic at hand. Thanks.
I cannot agree with WotC's attempt to redefine everything just to put their name on it and cause confusion.
There is no need for WotC to try to redefine everything. What is needed is people that understand the proper use of the terminology.
Until then the GD or whatever is meant by General Board, will not be able to be "cleaned up" as no two people will understand what each other is saying.
The meaning of editorial moderation, and the split between CS and CM are some of the quirks of the WotC forums. Repeating "But other forums don't do it that way" over and over ad naseum ad infinitum doesn't accomplish anything and only wastes electrons.
Okay, I'm going to feel very, very dirty for this, but he's right. It's not just that it's a different way of doing things, it's that it's a bad way of doing things.
I think my history here shows that while I am a 3.H'er, I have nothing really against 4e.
Awhile I made a thread about join dates, asking what's the big deal.
I had received emails..like hundreds in my personal email about being a "sock puppet" before I made that thread. I made a complaint...and all I got was..."we are looking into it"
I still get emails about how I "Bash 4e"
I have a comment on the whole 4e people not being treated as bad as the 4e critics.
I think my history here shows that while I am a 3.H'er, I have nothing really against 4e.
Awhile I made a thread about join dates, asking what's the big deal.
I had received emails..like hundreds in my personal email about being a "sock puppet" before I made that thread. I made a complaint...and all I got was..."we are looking into it"
I still get emails about how I "Bash 4e"
That is a general problem that people don't even understand the forum software and that a date must go into the birthdate and join date.
Many complain that a birthdate of Nov 30 means automatically that you must be a sock puppet.
There needs to be education about the forums or that kind of thing halted ASAP, because the forums NEED a birthdate in date format and assigns one, most likely the date the forums were started. Which was probably Nov 30 of some year.
People jump to too many conclusion, and I hope it was NOT a mod that said they would look into it, as they should ALREADY know this about the forums.
A much as I despise vBulletin over the other choices, I even know this about them as it is standard in many that have age verification functions.
There needs to be a report feature enabled for the PMs as well so that rather than sending some screenshot through that other website for CS, the moderators can get an unaltered forwarded copy of a PM that may be in violation.
I know of a few people that have been harrassed via PM, but had no recourse except to ignore the other party.
That one person ignoring them, does not prevent the harasser from doing do to others because the system is not built for ease of use to report such PMs.
I have a comment on the whole 4e people not being treated as bad as the 4e critics.
I think my history here shows that while I am a 3.H'er, I have nothing really against 4e.
Awhile I made a thread about join dates, asking what's the big deal.
I had received emails..like hundreds in my personal email about being a "sock puppet" before I made that thread. I made a complaint...and all I got was..."we are looking into it"
I still get emails about how I "Bash 4e"
If I may. I just joined, but I think I can add some unbiased perspective to this entire concern over civility. It seems to me that the vast majority of posters here are honest, decent people just trying to voice their opinions and exchange ideas with one another. This goes for people like yourself, who may favor an older edition, and people like Valingaard who prefer 4E (At least it appears that you do, I appologize if I am putting words in your mouth). Unfortunately, there does appear to be a small group of posters (probably just 3-4 people actually) who are trolling the site to bash the new edition. This has generated something of a backlash among people who simply want to discuss the edition they are playing, and perhaps it has been misdirected at well-meaning people like Saul_Durian.
If I may. I just joined, but I think I can add some unbiased perspective to this entire concern over civility. It seems to me that the vast majority of posters here are honest, decent people just trying to voice their opinions and exchange ideas with one another. This goes for people like yourself, who may favor an older edition, and people like Valingaard who prefer 4E (At least it appears that you do, I appologize if I am putting words in your mouth). Unfortunately, there does appear to be a small group of posters (probably just 3-4 people actually) who are trolling the site to bash the new edition. This has generated something of a backlash among people who simply want to discuss the edition they are playing, and perhaps it has been misdirected at well-meaning people like Saul_Durian.
You have got it absolutely right. There a re few trolls who have basically made a bad name for all the reasonable 3rd ed posters (well most, i have encountered people i have no problem with at all with most of the people who post about problems they have with 4th ed)
Until then the GD or whatever is meant by General Board, will not be able to be "cleaned up" as no two people will understand what each other is saying.
I haven't noticed anybody else having problems figuring out the terminology.
If we want to clean up the General Discussion forum, we need to drop the pattycake moderation policies.
1st offense; Temp ban
2nd offense; Perma ban
Sockpuppet; Immediate IP ban
There goes 95% of the unnecessary bile in GD right there.
This needs to happen. Needs. No matter what the professed allegiance of the poster.
If people can't play by the rules, they don't need to play. Period.
Insults and childish bickering should be warned, maybe once - but if it continues, that poster needs to be removed.
If moderator bias is a concern, that isn't a problem with a banning system, that's a problem with moderation, and it should not weigh against implementing a real system of repercussions.
Thanks,
--- Greatfrito
If I may. I just joined, but I think I can add some unbiased perspective to this entire concern over civility. It seems to me that the vast majority of posters here are honest, decent people just trying to voice their opinions and exchange ideas with one another. This goes for people like yourself, who may favor an older edition, and people like Valingaard who prefer 4E (At least it appears that you do, I appologize if I am putting words in your mouth). Unfortunately, there does appear to be a small group of posters (probably just 3-4 people actually) who are trolling the site to bash the new edition. This has generated something of a backlash among people who simply want to discuss the edition they are playing, and perhaps it has been misdirected at well-meaning people like Saul_Durian.
I agree with this. Assuming the worst about a person from their join date is illogical. many sock puppets will have a new join date, but so will new people.
Insults and childish bickering should be warned, maybe once - but if it continues, that poster needs to be removed.
I guess I just don't comprehend the logic behind not banning trolls swiftly and with lasting reprecussions. It seems like the only people who would be objecting to that are the trolls themselves.
I guess I just don't comprehend the logic behind not banning trolls swiftly and with lasting reprecussions. It seems like the only people who would be objecting to that are the trolls themselves.
Also objecting would be the people who would like to see pro-4E posters get egg on their face. Since the days of 4E Concerns and Criticism, there have been people who aren't themselves trolls, but cheer the trolls on.
I don't think I fall into the troll category [edit]or even a "troll cheerer"[/edit], and I'm in favor of giving a second chance. People make mistakes; it's as simple as that. Maybe somebody is having a bad day, or they're new and don't quite understand the culture of this forum. That's the point of a warning system. Somebody makes a mistake, you tell them about it and give them a chance to correct their behavior.
The warning is the Temp Ban. The second chance is the period before the Perma Ban. I'm even fine with the Temp Ban getting a timed reset, so you can get one every few months or whatever.
Anything's got to be better than the "strike 300, oh what the hell take your base anyway" system we have now. If there are no consequences, there can be no enforcement. Period.
First Infraction: Warning
Second Infraction: Temp ban (one week? several days? meh - whatever)
Third Infraction: Account banned
First Infraction on New Account: Account banned
I'm in favor of three strikes. Especially if those three strikes occur over a long period of time.
I'm not in favor of IP bans except in extreme circumstances. They run the risk of catching good posters in their wide net, and they really aren't that difficult to get around.
The thing is, when I got banned it was for little things, generally certain phrases that amounted to bad language though there weren't any overtly offensive words that would have gotten ***s.
Permabanning should require a serious offense, and not just being banned twice in the course of a period of time.
I'd be in favor of this sort of system:
First Infraction: Warning
Second Infraction: Temp ban (one week? several days? meh - whatever)
Third Infraction: Account banned
First Infraction on New Account: Account banned
I'm in favor of three strikes. Especially if those three strikes occur over a long period of time.
I'm not in favor of IP bans except in extreme circumstances. They run the risk of catching good posters in their wide net, and they really aren't that difficult to get around.
I'd be less in favor of IP banning if there were a better response time on rebanning sockpuppets. It seems like if the community can identify them, the mods should be able to as well. Most of them are pretty obvious. Sockpuppetry of any kind is disruptive and it's almost universally done with malicious intent around here.
One account, one warning, one ban, one less troll.
Again, IP bans don't work, because most people have get "soft" IPs. They just re-login into their provider's network and have access again.
Then we need to improve the system for identifying and re-banning sockpuppets.
Like I said, it's fairly clear to the community at large when one of the trolls has fired up a new account. Unless the mods are vastly more oblivious than I thought, they've got to know as well.
I know it was a page or so ago, but I second that a clearer CoC would be helpful.
Personally I don't think the one we have now is full of legalese, but I would really like to see definitions of baiting and trolling.
The current line about trolling and baiting is:
Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example:
* Use hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
* Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
* Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
* Post or otherwise disclose any personal or private information of another person, or any confidential information pertaining to a business, without consent
The definition of trolling and baiting kind of depends on the nuances of how you interpret the word design. Is intent the important part? How does anyone prove intent? Is there a line where even if it is accidental it is against the CoC? Does willfull ignorance make a person innocent? ie "I couldn't be bothered to read anything before I posted for the first time so I didn't know that saying ...random overused 4e sucks comment here... with no other explanation would elicit a negative response from the community"
I'd be in favor of this sort of system:
First Infraction: Warning
Second Infraction: Temp ban (one week? several days? meh - whatever)
Third Infraction: Account banned
First Infraction on New Account: Account banned
I'm in favor of three strikes. Especially if those three strikes occur over a long period of time.
I'm not in favor of IP bans except in extreme circumstances. They run the risk of catching good posters in their wide net, and they really aren't that difficult to get around.
There's a not a lot of difference between your system and Bat's aside from maintaining the horrible 'you can always make a new account to troll with' loophole.
Second chances are great, but how many second chances are you willing to give? Some of our trolls are on their sixth second chance even after declaring how much fun they think it is to troll and how they intend to continue trolling.
As it stands right now, someone can come in here every day with a new account and link shock sites all day long and the only punishment they'll get is having to make a new account. Please ell me why that isn't worth instituting perms? Hell, you like three strikes, can't we at least perm them after account number three? A lot of good names are being wasted by bad rubbish and a rubbish policy of hugging when you should be spanking.
My system is indeed close to the current system. The difference comes once you've had one account banned. Currently, when you make a new account you get three (minimum) new chances; in my system, you have one.
There's a not a lot of difference between your system and Bat's aside from maintaining the horrible 'you can always make a new account to troll with' loophole.
Second chances are great, but how many second chances are you willing to give? Some of our trolls are on their sixth second chance even after declaring how much fun they think it is to troll and how they intend to continue trolling.
As it stands right now, someone can come in here every day with a new account and link shock sites all day long and the only punishment they'll get is having to make a new account. Please ell me why that isn't worth instituting perms? Hell, you like three strikes, can't we at least perm them after account number three? A lot of good names are being wasted by bad rubbish and a rubbish policy of hugging when you should be spanking.
Honestly I think people are over reacting. There are not that many sock puppets, and they seem to exist on both sides anyways. Trolls exist on both sides. It seems like what is truly being discussed is banning 4E critics. If you don't want people with negative opinions of the new system here, then make it part of the sign up process. Personally I think people are just upset because they have lost a couple of debates.
How do you propose to get rid of them, Vaal? You can't IP ban -- too many people share IP addresses (schools, libraries, people who work in the same company, some ISPs (such as AOL) rotate IPs among all members, etc).
That's local hosts and there is a very small chance a) of banning a lab computer consistently and continually used by a troll (VB boards track every IP you use and lets you ban the most used one) and b) that any other members consistently use the same machine.
The risk is inconsequential next to the reward of getting rid of all but the most desperate trolls.
My system is indeed close to the current system. The difference comes once you've had one account banned. Currently, when you make a new account you get three (minimum) new chances; in my system, you have one.
It's only slightly better. If we're not going to IP ban like we should, the act of making the new account should be bannable. We shouldn't be waiting around for them to be disruptive. IF we know that it's the guy that struck out thrice and is circumventing the ban, that should be enough.
I've done this a lot. I know trolls. I know how to manage them. And every step of the way, WotC has done the exact worst when it comes to that. From lax bans to backroom dealing when it comes to warnings and bans. When someone gets it, the whole community should know who, how and why so people who aren't meaning to be jerks know what's unacceptable.
I mean god, WotC doesn't even have email verification. I'm surprised and shocked the place isn't chock full of bots (which would also never be banned).
My system is indeed close to the current system. The difference comes once you've had one account banned. Currently, when you make a new account you get three (minimum) new chances; in my system, you have one.
And then you're back the next day. Or the same day, if you're feeling industrious.
That's not moderation, it's a merry-go-round.
Every bit of effort required to get around a banincreases the likelihood of the ban working, or, at least, causing the troll to moderate his behavior.
IP-banning doesn't need to be an impenetrable wall to be effective. Often a bramble works just as well.
And we haven't had an issue with innocents getting IP-banned (barring the ocassional person who claims to be the troll's older brother)
I think people are underestimating the power of the IP ban. On other boards I frequent -- boards known for attracting trolls (such as forums confronting Holocaust deniers) -- IP bans are remarkably effective. Yes, they can be gotten around, but most don't bother.
Every bit of effort required to get around a banincreases the likelihood of the ban working, or, at least, causing the troll to moderate his behavior.
IP-banning doesn't need to be an impenetrable wall to be effective. Often a bramble works just as well.
And we haven't had an issue with innocents getting IP-banned (barring the ocassional person who claims to be the troll's older brother)
Some don't understand the difference between dynamic and static IPs that cause problems with IP bans......
Congrats you banned a troll. However you happened to ban all other people from CalTech from being able to use WotC forums because of the shared IP....
As Vaal pointed out there are ways to detect dynamically allocated IPs as well and ban the most frequent IP. If someone uses a public server (school, etc.), then we'll just have to be careful about sockpuppets and ban them too.
In that time, any and all posts made by the account must be approved by the moderators. Violations of the CoC in those posts would illicit a warning, along with the post not being approved. Violations after a warning would result in immediate banning of the account.
It would have holes in it still (you could get around it by starting "sock puppet" accounts in advance), but at this point anything more is better than nothing.
EDIT: The above would only be an alternative to IP bans - the other structure (Warning/Temp Ban/Perma Ban/) would still need to be put in place.
I still advocate IP bans though.
Another alternative; hell-ban. make thier posts invisible to others.
Again, that's a shared host, not an IP, hellmute. I temp banned the the university of reno's library to stop a troll from here that followed me home, but to do that, I had to ban the host, not the IP. The IP is one computer. IP ranges are a group of computers that take the first available IP when they log on.
Another alternative; hell-ban. make thier posts invisible to others.
Ok lets say the WotC servers as an example.
The nameserver is a single IP, but their is an internal NAT or gateway behind that.
Say you had a forum that banned that gateway that leads to the outside that only IS a single IP.
You ban everyone behind that gateway form connecting through that IP.
I doubt WotC employees are using the same IP as the wizards/gleemax domain, but you get the idea.
Internally there may be 10.0.0.X IPs, or 192.168.x.x, etc, but there is a strong chance that many places without multimillion dollar budgets for independent IPs to every machine will have a residential gateway that the internal LAN connects through.
That is the reason IP bans are seen as a very last resort, because until EVERYONE has a single static IP there is no way to tell.
Even some ISPs have rotating or round-robin static IPs that change every few months so banning what appears to be a static IP could be renewed when the next switch occurs and IPs are reassigned from the nameservers or hubs for that ISP.
I can tell you how to ban China, Russia, and other countries from the forums, but when you get more finite you often have greater risk of messing stuff up.
Honestly I think people are over reacting. There are not that many sock puppets, and they seem to exist on both sides anyways. Trolls exist on both sides. It seems like what is truly being discussed is banning 4E critics. If you don't want people with negative opinions of the new system here, then make it part of the sign up process. Personally I think people are just upset because they have lost a couple of debates.
I don't see where anybody here has singled out one side or the other.
I don't see where anybody here has singled out one side or the other.
Exactly.
Both sides. All parties. Everyone needs to be brought under control, whether under their own self-control (which is what we hope for), or under moderated control.
I don't see where anybody here has singled out one side or the other.
I'm certainly not. I don't care what "side" one finds themselves on in all this.
Ban all trolls, ban all sock puppets, and develop a good system for keeping them from coming back. No more pattycake moderation or thousand strikes; obvious trolls are removed for good through whatever means. Those who employ sockpuppets should be banned immediately without hesitation and immediately rebanned should they surface again.
That's not a partisan stance in all this; unless you're calling trolls a legitimate "side" in the discussion.
I'm certainly not. I don't care what "side" one finds themselves on in all this.
Ban all trolls, ban all sock puppets, and develop a good system for keeping them from coming back. No more pattycake moderation or thousand strikes; obvious trolls are removed for good through whatever means. Those who employ sockpuppets should be banned immediately without hesitation and immediately rebanned should they surface again.
That's not a partisan stance in all this; unless you're calling trolls a legitimate "side" in the discussion.
Clearly no one would ever want to be caught defending a troll or even think that casual banning what one perceives to be trolls or sockpuppets is not a legitimate way of operating a forum.
Clearly no one would ever want to be caught defending a troll or even think that casual banning what one perceives to be trolls or sockpuppets is not a legitimate way of operating a forum.
I think you'd be surprised. We've got some examples of exactly that kind of thinking here in this very thread.
There are folks here actively campaigning against a moderation policy that works.
The "one" in question, however, would be Customer Service, and their view of who is a troll would be quite appropriate a standard. Furthermore, nobody has ever recommended "casual" banning. Most people are looking for at least one and up to three warnings before a temporary ban (i.e., suspension and probationary period) and only a permanent ban if a further infraction occurs during the probationary period.
Bill was being snide, and mischaracterizing your position as one in which that trolls should be banned "casually". He also implies that what "one perceives to be trolls" is an invalid standard.
Yeah, I caught that.
It doesn't make the fact that there are people actively campaigning against effective moderation any less vexing. Bill can mischaracterize my position all he wants, but there are people who think the confirmed, consistent trollers have just as much right to be here as the people who just want to discuss the game. Those people are wrong.
1) Are sockpuppets even against the CoC? I have seen one poster here who clearly has some sock puppets. But otherwise, the closest thing I have seen is people starting new accounts with similar avatars when they get banned.
2) This whole troll hysteria, really just seems like a tricky attenpt to get the 4E critics banned from the boards.
A couple of things:
1) Are sockpuppets even against the CoC? I have seen one poster here who clearly has some sock puppets. But otherwise, the closest thing I have seen is people starting new accounts with similar avatars when they get banned.
Yes, they are against the coc...
2) This whole troll hysteria, really just seems like a tricky attenpt to get the 4E critics banned from the boards.
In your opinion, not substantiated by fact. Seeing as we all know when people send PM's, trolling posts and then get banned, it's pretty clear what's going on. It isn't our fault that (most) people stupid enough to troll just so happen to be haters.
1) Are sockpuppets even against the CoC?
Yes, but only if the sockpuppet mentions his prior account. (That ssems like a weird rule, I agree.) If you can show CS a sockpuppet who admits his sockpuppetry, you should.
2) This whole troll hysteria, really just seems like a tricky attenpt to get the 4E critics banned from the boards.
How so, since all anybody is asking for it that trolling behavior be warned and then banned. 4E critics who are not trolls have nothing to fear and 4E boosters who are do.
Unless you're assuming all 4E critics are trolls? That would be an odd assumption to make
A couple of things:
1) Are sockpuppets even against the CoC? I have seen one poster here who clearly has some sock puppets. But otherwise, the closest thing I have seen is people starting new accounts with similar avatars when they get banned.
2) This whole troll hysteria, really just seems like a tricky attenpt to get the 4E critics banned from the boards.
Strangely enough, I don't think any of the discussion on dealing with trolls has anything to do with you. I will say that the person this talk is most in reference to has posted repeatedly on this thread, but I'll leave him/her nameless since we pretty much all know exactly who that is. You tend to take personally things that are said about other posters of whom you have philosophy in common with, and assume that what we say to those people we are also saying to you. This isn't always the case.
Feel free to state your opinion on things, just don't come crying when a lot of people disagree with you agressively. Its a sensitive time.
To be honest, if this place were to enact the moderation I believe it needs, I don't see you being banned. I think you'd be surprised at some of the faces that don't get banned.
A couple of things:
1) Are sockpuppets even against the CoC? I have seen one poster here who clearly has some sock puppets. But otherwise, the closest thing I have seen is people starting new accounts with similar avatars when they get banned.
I don't believe that sockpuppetry is banned. What *is* banned is starting a new account with a name that indicates that it is the same person as the previous account.
For example - I get banned. If I make a new account under the name mudbunny_part_II, it will (should) be banned as well.
Yes, they are against the coc....
I have only been able to identify one poster here with sock puppets. Like I said, everyone else is just starting new accounts after a ban. THat isn't against the CoC.
In your opinion, not substantiated by fact. Seeing as we all know when people send PM's, trolling posts and then get banned, it's pretty clear what's going on. It isn't our fault that people stupid enough to troll just so happen to be haters.
So you admit you want to target 4E critics? I didn't think you would be so refreshingly honest.
Neither is your opinion. But it is clear. Given who is posting here. Given what they are saying. And given the extremes they are willing to go to to get people to stop saying "bad things" about 4E.
So you admit you want to target 4E critics? I didn't think you would be so refreshingly honest.
Neither is your opinion. But it is clear. Given who is posting here. Given what they are saying. And given the extremes they are willing to go to to get people to stop saying "bad things" about 4E.
Riiiight, that's exactly what I said....
I've mostly seen "sockpuppet" to mean: "An alternate account for a forum member used in a negative way." Just as an example that doesn't actually exist... if I create an account with the name "Fireproof Troll" and use that account to attack people who disagree with my main account, or to stir up trouble by posting sensitive topics, or even just replying in threads that my main account has posted to as a means to say things like, "I think Zherog is correct." That's a sockpuppet.
Having alternate accounts is not a problem here. I have several, actually, that are used over on the roleplaying forums (and one or two that occasionally wander around and post elsewhere ;) ). However... warnings are - in theory - attached to an e-mail account, not to a screen name. Using the example above, if Fireproof Troll has two warnings and I go and do something with this account that warrants a warning, that's my third warning and both accounts will be banned.
Bill was being snide, and mischaracterizing your position as one in which that trolls should be banned "casually". He also implies that what "one perceives to be trolls" is an invalid standard.
The "one" in question, however, would be Customer Service, and their view of who is a troll would be quite appropriate a standard. Furthermore, nobody has ever recommended "casual" banning. Most people are looking for at least one and up to three warnings before a temporary ban (i.e., suspension and probationary period) and only a permanent ban if a further infraction occurs during the probationary period.
I merely responded to what I perceived his position to be. If that is not the case, let me know what it is and how it will be run.
I'm really more in favor of a rubric which says what actions are trolling. I feel that many people who attack perceived trolls in threads are themselves trolling. And any fair system should reprimand both (if they fit the definition).
If you Batshido, have a good fair plan on dealing with the situation, I'd love to see it.
I feel that many people who attack perceived trolls in threads are themselves trolling. And any fair system should reprimand both (if they fit the definition).
Absolutely. And the sooner the better.
If you Batshido, have a good fair plan on dealing with the situation, I'd love to see it.
We need a better definition of trolling and a stronger policy towards ending it.
The CoC as it stands is open to far too much interpretation, and the moderation policies being enforced are a joke. Define troll, ban those who fit the definition.
My personal definition of trolling is pretty much this; posting in a manner that is obviously inflammatory or in an attempt to pick a fight. It's fairly obvious who's here to talk and who's here to brawl, we don't need the brawlers.
I'm also very much in favor of a one poster - one screenname policy. The number of "trolls" around here is artificially inflated by the fact that they've all got a half-dozen alternate accounts with which to pick fights.
Basically, my stance boils down to this;
1st Offense; Warning, explanation (three strikes in this instance makes sense to me too, but I'm drawing a particularly hard line in this outline)
2nd Offense; Temp Ban
3rd Offense; Perma Ban
Future accounts; banned immediately upon discovery.
I'm also in favor of IP banning if it proves logistically possible, only after Perma Bans have been applied.
With a cool-down period to be determined after which the degree of enforcement drops down a notch; If you've been Temp Banned but don't get any warnings for a month or whatever you drop to 1st Offense level again, then down a second time after another period.
Anyone who is determined to be using multiple accounts to harass other posters or generally cause mayhem are Perma Banned immediately on all accounts, regardless of current enforcement status.
The cornerstone of this, though, is a solid, publically available definition of what constitutes trolling. People should know what they'll get banned for so that they can avoid it if they truly mean well.
It seems people are using "sockpuppet" differently. Some people seem to be using it to refer to accounts created after a banning, while others seem to use it more as just another account belonging to the same person.
I've mostly seen "sockpuppet" to mean: "An alternate account for a forum member used in a negative way." Just as an example that doesn't actually exist... if I create an account with the name "Fireproof Troll" and use that account to attack people who disagree with my main account, or to stir up trouble by posting sensitive topics, or even just replying in threads that my main account has posted to as a means to say things like, "I think Zherog is correct." That's a sockpuppet.
That is exactly one of the big problems around here, again, that the terms are being used differently because some people don't understand them.
Look up Grawp on Wikipedia for a good idea of sockpuppet activity.
Also most forums don't allow multiple accounts for a single user. Due to Gleemax and the odd things revolving it that would cause for merged accounts a user can have multiples here, which IF connected to a single email does resolve some of that problem as you mention.
Otherwise there is nothing forcing people to merge multiple accounts to give the guise of sockpuppetry to some who may not be.
Wotan I think has two accounts, and could be considered a sockpuppet under one definition that simply states posting on an account to appear as they are not the other person.
However in the thread where Wotan was accidentally logged into the wrong name, he/she corrected and identified that they were on the wrong username, which makes that less appear to be a sockpuppet. Had Wotan continued without ever switching, then it could have appeared that one of those accounts was a sockpuppet to impersonate Wotan. If one had been banned for sockpuppetry, this case would have been an improper banning since it was the same person with no malicious intent for having multiple accounts. At least in that thread....
So when having multiple accounts for a single user allowed it is more difficult to find/identify sockpuppets by the general public.
So when having multiple accounts for a single user allowed it is more difficult to find/identify sockpuppets by the general public.
But there is nothing wrong with multiple accounts or sock puppets. Honestly I thought you were one for some time. You can't just accuse people of being sock puppets or trolls because you disagree with them.
But there is nothing wrong with multiple accounts or sock puppets. Honestly I thought you were one for some time. You can't just accuse people of being sock puppets or trolls because you disagree with them.
But many places multiple accounts are not allowed, so it changes the norm for operating a forum when you have to consider is this person a sockpuppet, or are they just signed in under some alternate account?
If the accounts are not merged, it makes it more difficult to identify sockpuppets, which is WHY many places do NOT allow for multiple accounts.
;)
PS: Sockpuppets are looked at worse than trolls in nearly 100% of forums I have seen.
But many places multiple accounts are not allowed, so it changes the norm for operating a forum when you have to consider is this person a sockpuppet, or are they just signed in under some alternate account?
It the accounts are not merged, it makes it more difficult to identify sockpuppets, which is WHY many places do NOT allow for multiple accounts.
;)
PS: Sockpuppets are looked at worse than trolls in nearly 100% of forums I have seen.
I don't deny this. But I haven't really had an issue with there being too many sock puppets here. I also like the more laid back approach they have been taking. Allows people to vent, get banned, cool down and return. Lets face it. Trolls are not the only ones getting banned. People are getting passionate about some of the edition threads and sometimes they lose their temper. i would much rather that such people can return after they had a chance to calm down.
Due to Gleemax and the odd things revolving it that would cause for merged accounts a user can have multiples here, which IF connected to a single email does resolve some of that problem as you mention.
It has nothing to do with gleemax. Some of my extra accounts date back to 2003 or so -- long before Gleemax was anything other than the name of a Magic: the Gathering card.
It has nothing to do with gleemax. Some of my extra accounts date back to 2003 or so -- long before Gleemax was anything other than the name of a Magic: the Gathering card.
But it was Gleemax.com that allowed them to merge into a single account correct?
We need a better definition of trolling and a stronger policy towards ending it.
The CoC as it stands is open to far too much interpretation, and the moderation policies being enforced are a joke. Define troll, ban those who fit the definition.
My personal definition of trolling is pretty much this; posting in a manner that is obviously inflammatory or in an attempt to pick a fight. It's fairly obvious who's here to talk and who's here to brawl, we don't need the brawlers.
I'm also very much in favor of a one poster - one screenname policy. The number of "trolls" around here is artificially inflated by the fact that they've all got a half-dozen alternate accounts with which to pick fights.
Basically, my stance boils down to this;
1st Offense; Warning, explanation (three strikes in this instance makes sense to me too, but I'm drawing a particularly hard line in this outline)
2nd Offense; Temp Ban
3rd Offense; Perma Ban
Future accounts; banned immediately upon discovery.
I'm also in favor of IP banning if it proves logistically possible, only after Perma Bans have been applied.
With a cool-down period to be determined after which the degree of enforcement drops down a notch; If you've been Temp Banned but don't get any warnings for a month or whatever you drop to 1st Offense level again, then down a second time after another period.
Anyone who is determined to be using multiple accounts to harass other posters or generally cause mayhem are Perma Banned immediately on all accounts, regardless of current enforcement status.
The cornerstone of this, though, is a solid, publically available definition of what constitutes trolling. People should know what they'll get banned for so that they can avoid it if they truly mean well.
Thanks for posting Batshido. In general that sounds fine to me. Let's put some scenarios out there of possible responses.
Oh, not XNAME again, seriously, where are the moderators? this guy is such a troll!
Dude, what's your problem, QUIT TROLLING!
Let's put some scenarios out there of possible responses.
Those are going to be the hardest type of posts to develop a standardized moderation policy for, which I assume is why you put them forward.
Personally, I'd prefer that trolls got reported rather than replied to. The problem with that is the posting public has to develop a trust in the moderation that the trolls are actually going to be dealt with for that to work. If that doesn't happen, people are going to confront the individuals they feel are violating the CoC (and in so doing likely violate it themselves) in an attempt to deal with the problem themselves. Again, though, good, responsive moderation over a decent period of time would go a long way towards alleviating those worries.
As to potential sockpuppets, and "calling them out," I'd prefer the system be set up to do what I currently do about that sort of thing; posters who suspect sockpuppetry build a case based on posting history with links and such, which they then turn into the mods who take whatever action they deem necessary. Granted, under my system the action would be different (immediate perma ban), but the method for obtaining that action would be unchanged.
In general, though, if the discourse has dissolved into "shut up, Troll" something's gone horribly wrong. We need to correct the underlying factors there in order for that kind of response to phase itself out.
Thanks for posting Batshido. In general that sounds fine to me. Let's put some scenarios out there of possible responses.
People might say things like what you describe out of pure malice or intolerance of dissent. Or they might say them because they see someone who has had hundreds of posts deleted or edited for flagrant CoC violations coming back on a new account. We shouldn't kick people out of the community for getting frustrated at CS's failings. Calling someone a troll (etc) is against the rules, but it wouldn't happen as much if trolls weren't able to make new accounts all the time and never fact actual bans.
There certainly are overly-aggressive people who will start the oh-no-not-you-not-again troll-calling the moment they see a negative post from someone with a current-month join date. The problem right now is that sometimes those overly-aggressive people are right.
I mean how clueless are the operators of this place that this kind of shenanigans goes on? Is there a meaningful discussion anywhere on this board? Can i get a link plz? Because all this secret agent stuff is kind of ridculous. But i guess it goes back to common sense...ignore the people you don't wish to read posts from. Report their offensive posts/pm's and move on. Who wants to visit a forum you have to practically try to police/patrol yourself?
People might say things like what you describe out of pure malice or intolerance of dissent. Or they might say them because they see someone who has had hundreds of posts deleted or edited for flagrant CoC violations coming back on a new account. We shouldn't kick people out of the community for getting frustrated at CS's failings. Calling someone a troll (etc) is against the rules, but it wouldn't happen as much if trolls weren't able to make new accounts all the time and never fact actual bans.
There certainly are overly-aggressive people who will start the oh-no-not-you-not-again troll-calling the moment they see a negative post from someone with a current-month join date. The problem right now is that sometimes those overly-aggressive people are right.
This falls under the two wrongs don't make a right category. It simply isn't the place of posters to decide who is and who isn't a troll. Lots of people who are not trolls get stuck with that label by zealous posters, and that in itself is a serious problem (as well as a violation of the CoC). If you don't like what someone is posting, report it.
This falls under the two wrongs don't make a right category. It simply isn't the place of posters to decide who is and who isn't a troll. Lots of people who are not trolls get stuck with that label by zealous posters, and that in itself is a serious problem (as well as a violation of the CoC). If you don't like what someone is posting, report it.
I agree, making post after post and thread after thread complaining about supposed bullies and their bad habits is as bad as trolling, IMO. If there is a problem or you believe someone is a troll, then the best thing to do is report their posts that break the coc, gather proof of the 'supposed' trolls activities and send it to CS/CM or what have you.
Calling people out, either as trolls and supposed bullies is wrong in and of itself.
I agree, making post after post and thread after thread complaining about supposed bullies and their bad habits is as bad as trolling, IMO. If there is a problem or you believe someone is a troll, then the best thing to do is report their posts that break the coc, gather proof of the 'supposed' trolls activities and send it to CS/CM or what have you.
Calling people out, either as trolls and supposed bullies is wrong in and of itself.
Then I suggest both sides agree to no longer do this.
I'm not sure what you mean by sides here... we are all talking about cleaning up the boards. I wouldn't imagine people who don't wish to do this would be here...
Since several posters here complaining about the boards, have "outed" many other posters as trolls (on both sides), I think it is a fair suggestion. Either people are here to actually clean things up, or they just want to use it as another avenue of attack against their board enemies. I am happy to sign on to an agreement not to accuse anyone of being a troll, sock puppet, or troublemaker.
Non-troll Accusation Treaty
Article 1
Establishment of an Agreement to not Accuse Others of Being Trolls, Sock Puppets or Troublemakers
(1) The posters to which this Agreement applies will refrain from making accusations concerning the motivations or intent of the forum posters, and allow moderators determine the troll, sock puppet and troublemaker status of all its members.
(2) Publicly referring to any other poster as a troll, sock pupper or troublemaker shall constitute a violation of this treaty.
Hmm, I might have to re-read it, but I'm pretty sure no one has 'called someone out' in this thread. Discussed that there are trolls and it needs to be fixed, yes. Made a list or statement saying 'x, y & z are trolls'... no (as far as I know).
You misunderstand, or I wasn't clear enough. No statements of this nature have been made on this thread. But posters on this thread, have, on other threads, accused other posters of being sock puppets, trolls and/or trouble makers.
If you don't play the edition you don't get to talk about it
Another problem with the forums in general....
if one don't play the game/edition, and *only* complaints, argues and all, what's the point of posting?
Something like this:
Non-troll Accusation Treaty
What if the guy *is* a known troll, a non-secret? Nothing yet must be said?
This treaty have a taste of hidden motive - censorship. Restrain order.
It isn't your place to decide who is and who isn't a troll. Many of the people you have outed as a troll, I don't consider to be trolls at all. This is a matter for the mods.
It is voluntary and theoretical. There is no treaty at this point. If there ever is, don't sign it if you think it is censorship.
Gotcha. ;)
So people that are new to D&D and have never played or read any of the books, should NOT come to the forums looking for advice on it in any version?
Gotcha. ;)
What he said was people who have not read the books or played the game should not log on speaking ill of it, because quite often they have misinterpreted a rule etc, this leads to somebody correcting them, which leads to an argument, which leads to a flame war, which leads to accusations of bullying and trolling.
There is nothing wrong with somebody asking for advice.
Gotcha yourself ;)
Please make a rule against threads that are essentially someone's blog entry.
There is a difference between long-winded opinions that open a specific line of questions, and long-winded opinions that don't warrant any more discussion than "agree / disagree". There is no value to this type of post. It's someone's blog entry posted here to grab attention and spark the never-ending fights, usually between 4e fans and 3.5e fans.
It would be very nice to pin up a new punishable guideline to ward the (General) forums from these pitfall threads from now on. It's fine to solicit opinions, to discuss specific strengths and weaknesses of game systems or internal mechanics, etc. But it's downright tiring to read the 2,000th blog entry that's sheerly subjective and then OP abandonment to the wolves for tearing at each others' opinions.
So people that are new to D&D and have never played or read any of the books, should NOT come to the forums looking for advice on it in any version?
Gotcha. ;)
Overreact much?
This falls under the two wrongs don't make a right category. It simply isn't the place of posters to decide who is and who isn't a troll. Lots of people who are not trolls get stuck with that label by zealous posters, and that in itself is a serious problem (as well as a violation of the CoC). If you don't like what someone is posting, report it.
My point was that some people overreact because there is a real problem. Remove the problem and some of the overreacting will go away. There's no point in trying to solve a secondary issue first.
Keep in mind that calling someone a troll is a violation of the code of conduct. I believe that is falls under baiting and I've seen quite a few posts of this type moderated.
I think this should be stickied at the top of the general discussion forum.
I think this should be stickied at the top of the general discussion forum.
They should also sticky that PM'ing people with supposed alt names and a willingness to break the CoC on a daily vendetta against something that the person is unwilling to look at, read or try, as well as posting on the forums the same information, is not a smart move and makes it very hard for people to take them seriously.
Don't you think?
They should also sticky that PM'ing people with supposed alt names and a willingness to break the CoC on a daily vendetta against something that the person is unwilling to look at, read or try, as well as posting on the forums the same information, is not a smart move and makes it very hard for people to take them seriously.
Don't you think?
Nope. I think that if I were to post that information on the forums, I'd get banned for making a connection to a banned account over the forums. So if the mods allow someone else to do something of that nature, that makes it so that I don't have to. Not that I, in any way, believe those statements... officially that is.
Just gotta say that having WOTC turn a blind-eye to a non-official group of posters who seem to aggressively pursue/confront others on the boards here who might be confused by the rules or who disagree with them in some way in an organized manner is an invitation for conflict and recipe for disaster.
I think I'll take another few months away from here (again) and see if the powers that be come to their senses. There are, thankfully, other places where the noise-signal ratio is much better.
Maybe I'll try again after Christmas. Yeah. :D
Sincerely, good luck to each and every one of you.
At the time of the announcement of 4e and the sh!tstorm of nerdrage it unleashed, if the forums had been moderated properly, we'd have never seen a self-appointed militia fill the void by the only way available to them: pushing back.
I too found the idea of this group annoying in the beginning, but I realized that, in a Newton's 3rd law of motion kind of way, their existence made perfect sense. "Replacing" the timid moderation, they were an inevitable reaction to all the irrational drama, fearmongering, misinformation, and outright trolling and baiting that was the norm at the times.
It's not the existence of the vigilantes that shoud be questioned, but the reason why they exist in the first place.
Vigilantes should be discouraged if not banned
Agreed. And the best way to do that is to ban the trolls that cause people to become vigilantes.
There'd be no Batman if Bruce Wayne's parents hadn't been murdered
I think the 4vengers are a symptom, not a cause of the current situation.
"My god, the white blood cell count is high. Better get rid of the white blood cells and not the virulent cancer"
Moreover, despite the hilarious paranoia on the part of the anti's there's no organization among self claimed avengers. We don't orchestrate anything, we just individually point out the metric tons of misinformation and trolling around here. The extent of communication between any give Avengers is generally precisely what you see on these boards.
Here's the plot: If people are going to misinform people on a public board, they should expect other people to call them on it. And they should try to cry wolf just because a lot of those people think a meme started by one of the anti's was really really funny and sigged it.
Vigilantes in underoos. Awesome! Nobody is impressed. Vigilantes should be discouraged if not banned completely from any respectable forum.
So trolls (and baiters and thread-crappers) should only be ignored and the ripple effects they cause tolerated, but the people who react to their antics by pushing back should be banned?
That is what you're saying? With a straight face?
At least there is one poster who recognizes them for what they are. But honestly i seriously dobt if they have eliminated a single negative poster. Perhaps inspired several to redouble their efforts to disrupt the forums. Gee that was real helpful. Then they complain about the reaction they get every chance they get. Really awesome guys! Keep up the good work!
The thing is, there is no way to know how much effect, one way or the other, the 4vengers have had. And that was not my point anyway: the 4vengers are a reaction from the community to the atmosphere of lawlessness that prevailed (and still does) at the time.
I am not defending their existence, I'm explaining it.
Have the damn place effectively policed with the widely used, proven practices instead of this dysfunctional touchy-feely experimental bs, and the 4vengers either go away or mutate into something other than vigilantes.
It's THAT simple.
First off. there is definitely no "organized effort" as far as PM's etc to get all the avengers on one thread etc. That is ridiculous. I have only ever received one PM form any of the other Averngers, and it was on an unrelated subject we were talking about in the off-topic tavern..
Secondly. the vigilanteism has died down considerably, and i think this is because the amount of trolling and fearmongering has died down considerably too. leading up to and just after the release of 4th ed, the trolling and arguing was out of control and the mods did nothing about it.
Now i can only think of two posters i would describe as outright trolls, and 90% of the regular posters outright ignore them, and maybe 3 or 4 who like to walk the line a little bit. That is nothing compared to what was happening in May and June.
there is still the occasional flare up, but the pros, antis, everybody seem to be behaving them selves much better now, and when there is a flare up you can usually guarantee the same couple of posters are at the heart of it...
I hope I did not imply in any way a belief that the appearance of the 4vengers was a coordinated and concerted affair.
I only think it was an emerging phenomenon caused by existing conditions. In short, some of the posters that incurred their attention had it coming, rightfully so. Did some posters undeserving of the treatment get caught in it unfairly? Possible. But hey, that's what you get when no one's minding the store.
Just to clarify:
I hope I did not imply in any way a belief that the appearance of the 4vengers was a coordinated and concerted affair.
I only think it was an emerging phenomenon caused by existing conditions.
No Sebby, i wasn't talking about your comments. Other persons who have posted in this thread and regularly do so in other thread quite regularly make the accusation the the Avengers are some sort of militarist D&D fundamentalists who hunt down those who don;t agree with our views and hound them mercilessly until the go away or submit.... which is, as i said, just ridiculous.
Personally i enjoy talking to people who don't like 4th ed, and discussing the reasons why. As long as they can stay civil... which some just can't seem to do it... most however can.
Just to clarify:
I hope I did not imply in any way a belief that the appearance of the 4vengers was a coordinated and concerted affair.
I only think it was an emerging phenomenon caused by existing conditions. In short, some of the posters that incurred their attention had it coming, rightfully so. Did some posters undeserving of the treatment get caught in it unfairly? Possible. But hey, that's what you get when no one's minding the store.
Just to clarify...
The original formation of the avengers was actually coordinated. But it was done in public on these forums. The new groups were set up in this thread groups to get around the negative connotation* of the original avengers but just got lumped in anyways.
What people are discussing here is that the avengers aren't coordinating their appearance/discussion/reporting in a given thread.
*in the minds of many anti-posters
I'm not a religious person, but still, this sums up how I feel about you: may there be mercy upon your souls, such as they are.
Reading this thread and visiting this subforum lately has been an interesting experience for me. That there are certain posters - and you know you are - constantly posting in this thread and in this subforum, pretending to be upstanding forum denizens, when all I ever see from them is the least constructive posting habits possible, contributing literally nothing but misinformation and negativity, is really quite a disgusting sight.
I'm not a religious person, but still, this sums up how I feel about you: may there be mercy upon your souls, such as they are.
Yes, this perfectly captures the situation.
No Sebby, i wasn't talking about your comments. Other persons who have posted in this thread and regularly do so in other thread quite regularly make the accusation the the Avengers are some sort of militarist D&D fundamentalists who hunt down those who don;t agree with our views and hound them mercilessly until the go away or submit.... which is, as i said, just ridiculous.
Personally i enjoy talking to people who don't like 4th ed, and discussing the reasons why. As long as they can stay civil... which some just can't seem to do it... most however can.
I suggest you start an anti-4E account, and view things from the other side.
I suggest you start an anti-4E account, and view things from the other side. The avengers are aggressive, hostile, and intimidating. Period.
Hmm.. i can think of one or two that can definitely be described in that vein, maybe even a couple that walk the line a bit... but it is exactly the same on the anti-side too. Some of the anti and very polite and thoughtful posters, some aren't, some are just downright aggressive and rude.
So same same.. being aggressive intimidating or any of that is not acceptable no matter what side you are on. I do find it interesting that these threads do always seem to be twisted around to being anti-avenger threads, when, in my opinion, the avengers are no worse than many of the people who complain about them on here.
Agreed. And the best way to do that is to ban the trolls that cause people to become vigilantes.
There'd be no Batman if Bruce Wayne's parents hadn't been murdered
This.
Better moderation policies means less problem posters, both because they're being removed and because they aren't causing others to become problems themselves.
The touchy-feely moderation in this forum is of questionable usefulness in the best-behaved community. Add in nerd-rage, inflated senses of self-importance and a willingness to circumvent the CoC to harass other posters, and you need to start dropping the hammer in a real way or nothing is going to change.
You want to do away with the "Avengers?" Start banning trolls. People on either side of this thing can rail against vigilantism all they want, but until the underlying problem is removed it's not going away. It doesn't help that every thread in this karking forum gets twisted by those self-same trolls into a referendum on the "4vengers."
You can either ban the trolls or the forum population is going to keep trying to kill them with fire. Your call, moderation team.
This.
Better moderation policies means less problem posters, both because they're being removed and because they aren't causing others to become problems themselves.
The touchy-feely moderation in this forum is of questionable usefulness in the best-behaved community. Add in nerd-rage, inflated senses of self-importance and a willingness to circumvent the CoC to harass other posters, and you need to start dropping the hammer in a real way or nothing is going to change.
You want to do away with the "Avengers?" Start banning trolls. People on either side of this thing can rail against vigilantism all they want, but until the underlying problem is removed it's not going away. It doesn't help that every thread in this karking forum gets twisted by those self-same trolls into a referendum on the "4vengers."
You can either ban the trolls or the forum population is going to keep trying to kill them with fire. Your call, moderation team.
This is the worst kind of excuse for bad behavior. It looks to me like they have been banning many of the trolls around here. But the avenger criteria for troll is anyone they disagree with. Whether or not such people are on the forums, you still have no more right to violate the CoC than they do. Pointing to someone else for your own bad behavior, is just a way to pass the buck along. You have essentially said, you are going to violate the CoC in order to enforce it in your own vigilante fashion. Isn't this itself a form of trolling?
This is the worst kind of excuse for bad behavior. It looks to me like they have been banning many of the trolls around here. But the avenger criteria for troll is anyone they disagree with. Whether or not such people are on the forums, you still have no more right to violate the CoC than they do. Pointing to someone else for your own bad behavior, is just a way to pass the buck along. You have essentially said, you are going to violate the CoC in order to enforce it in your own vigilante fashion. Isn't this itself a form of trolling?
At times it does appear that your criteria for trolling is anybody who tells you they don't agree with you too. You came saying the avengers is this big bad group who beats everybody down.. well if you have a look at general at the moment, you would see very few avengers active in there, and you will also see very aggressive posting on each side, i would suggest you drop you fixation on the avengers and see it is way way more than just the avengers that post aggressively.
At times it does appear that your criteria for trolling is anybody who tells you they don't agree with you too. You came saying the avengers is this big bad group who beats everybody down.. well if you have a look at general at the moment, you would see very few avengers active in there, and you will also see very aggressive posting on each side, i would suggest you drop you fixation on the avengers and see it is way way more than just the avengers that post aggressively.
Not at all. I haven't accused anyone of being a troll up until this point. And in this instance I was being somewhat facetious. All of the most prominent avengers are here. Everyone from the Batman to the wolverine to the canary. I don't think it is a stretch to say that they are posting on this thread more than anyone else right now.
Isn't this itself a form of trolling?
Maybe I'm off-target, but this seemed apropos.
Not at all. I haven't accused anyone of being a troll up until this point. And in this instance I was being somewhat facetious. All of the most prominent avengers are here. Everyone from the Batman to the canary.
I was actually referring to the current arguments going on in the general discussion boards...
And so what if all the avengers have posted in here? We do have aright to have our say about what could be done as much as you.
I was actually referring to the current arguments going on in the general discussion boards...
And so what if all the avengers have posted in here? We do have aright to have our say about what could be done as much as you.
I have no problem with them posting here. But you were citing their lack of posting in your argument. And I was showing that they have in fact been posting in great numbers.
What is a problem is the attitude the avengers are advocating. One where it is okay to violate the CoC if it is against percieved trolls. The avengers are not mods, and must abide by the CoC like everyone else.
As to the general forum. I haven't been frequenting it very much lately. Mostly because I feel I don't want to deal with the assaults from the avengers. The few times I have tried to join in again, I have been shouted down by them. If things have changed, I would be happy to post there now.
Also, the 4e avengers thing started in a context quite removed from what people are referencing. The link is in my sig. Steely_Dan, Trailfoot, and a bunch of us were having a bonding moment in a thread. It has nothing to do with harassment. Talking trash about a broad group of people based on what their sigs say is pointless. I don't accuse the "Vancian Brotherhood" of being trolls and bullies, so I'd appreciate if no one else started tossing out blanket insults.
It doesn't matter how it started. Jonestown started out in a different context as well. But most people don't have its beginnings in mind when they reference it. What matters is that anytime someone makes a criticism, even one that is well thought out and reasonable, about 4E they are slammed by people with 4E X in their sig.
The Vancian Brotherhood is a joke. A reaction to the craziness of the avengers.
Also, the 4e avengers thing started in a context quite removed from what people are referencing. The link is in my sig. Steely_Dan, Trailfoot, and a bunch of us were having a bonding moment in a thread. It has nothing to do with harassment. Talking trash about a broad group of people based on what their sigs say is pointless. I don't accuse the "Vancian Brotherhood" of being trolls and bullies, so I'd appreciate if no one else started tossing out blanket insults.
This is exactly the point i am trying to make.. there are one or two people with avengers or x-men or something in their sig that are a little over zealous at times (well even way over zealous - but no worse than i have seen form other posters).. but as a whole it is the Avengers that are the problem?, no it is individual posters that are the problem.
How are the people with Vancian Brother Hood, or 4venger arch-nemesis in there signature any better or any worse, when people with that stuff in their sig post every bit as aggressively as any pro 4th ed poster has ever done at their worst?
It is way more than than one group of posters that is to blame. And i have to say Bats is right, if the mods had actually moderated back int he days of the CoC the aggressive pro 4th ed posting would never ever have got started.
It is much easier to put a fire out when it is a single flame.. before it becomes the inferno.
The Vancian Brotherhood is a joke. A reaction to the craziness of the avengers.
The avengers started as a joke too.. a reaction to the craziness of some of the trolls that were and still are getting around..
This is the worst kind of excuse for bad behavior. It looks to me like they have been banning many of the trolls around here. But the avenger criteria for troll is anyone they disagree with. Whether or not such people are on the forums, you still have no more right to violate the CoC than they do. Pointing to someone else for your own bad behavior, is just a way to pass the buck along. You have essentially said, you are going to violate the CoC in order to enforce it in your own vigilante fashion. Isn't this itself a form of trolling?
I don't think anybody is advocating violating the CoC. I could be wrong, but that isn't how I read what Bats said. If the issue right now was just people violating of the CoC I don't think there would be a problem, just lots of banned posters.
To me, the problem in the General forum is hostility and attitude that doesn't violate the CoC. I think that comes from a lot of places and a lot of posters and focusing on one group doesn't help. The pro-4e posters that I find the most out of line aren't avengers, so focusing on the avengers probably is less than helpful. :shrug:
Avengers by title =/= avengers by action.
So that little group calling themselves avengers are not exactly the [only] ones that are problematic. More to the point those that want to defend WotC against any sort of negative view of 4th with hostility or some such that breeds hostility from others....Those people that feel if you don't love and play 4th, you don't belong on the forums at all. Those kind of "avengers".
I think.....
Avengers by title =/= avengers by action.
By that reasoning there are "avengers" on both sides of this seemly great divide...
So that little group calling themselves avengers are not exactly the [only] ones that are problematic. More to the point those that want to defend WotC against any sort of negative view of 4th with hostility or some such that breeds hostility from others....Those people that feel if you don't love and play 4th, you don't belong on the forums at all. Those kind of "avengers".
once again.. it all comes back to moderation, if the mods had stopped the trolling before it got out of control, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
I maintain that simple re-organization will end a huge amount of the nonsense. Then it would require a little moderation to enforce the new structure (shifting threads etc) but it would be a million times better than what we have now.
Natrually if we had cracked down on anti 4e sentiment there would be complaints about censorship. But it should also be noted that we don't want to have people agree 100% as that would be a boring set of boards.
It's all in the delivery and the intention of the members that count though. Some think that if they complain about 4e enough, WotC will decide to stop production, and go back to 3e. That's NOT going to happen. Others don't plan on playing 4e. Okay, message received.
Then still others want to spread false information about 4e.
At issue as well is there are folks that only heard a rumor and want clarification. Or they don't understand a rule. Another thing is the timing of the complaint coming on the release of the game. If I were to start an "I hate THAC0" thread, it really wouldn't matter to people that play 4e, or even 3e. (It WILL matter to some folks though. But I'm looking at the majority of folks reading and posting on the boards here.)
You can't punish people who don't like something by the trollish actions of people from the first group. Correcting factual inaccuracies isn't baiting/trolling. At the asme time, you don't have to convert people that you will never play ANY edition of D&D with to your favorite edition.
Those people that feel if you don't love and play 4th, you don't belong on the forums at all.
Some would say if you don't love and play 4e, you should post about what you DO like on the previous editions forums. That's why they're still here. Instead there's a lot of "I don't like 4e." Great, but 4e IS here, and it's here to stay. I don't want to see the previous edition boards go away, but if members aren't going to use it to discuss pervious editions, if their intent is just to dump on 4e, someone somewhere will decide to remove the area.
Maybe I'm off-target, but this seemed apropos.
Definitely apt.
Some would say if you don't love and play 4e, you should post about what you DO like on the previous editions forums. That's why they're still here. Instead there's a lot of "I don't like 4e." Great, but 4e IS here, and it's here to stay. I don't want to see the previous edition boards go away, but if members aren't going to use it to discuss pervious editions, if their intent is just to dump on 4e, someone somewhere will decide to remove the area.
By "previous editions", I assume you mean the 3rd edition forums? I stopped going there when that was all there seemed to be. I have no interest in 3rd edition, so no need to go to a forum comprised mostly of it. Likewise others may feel the same.....
By "previous editions", I assume you mean the 3rd edition forums? I stopped going there when that was all there seemed to be. I have no interest in 3rd edition, so no need to go to a forum comprised mostly of it. Likewise others may feel the same.....
Well, since you don't like or play 4e, and you don't like/play 3e, which edition DO you play?
(I have all editions myself.
) And yes, the primary focus of the forums is 4e. A new player goes to the store and 4e is on the shelves.
By "previous editions", I assume you mean the 3rd edition forums? I stopped going there when that was all there seemed to be. I have no interest in 3rd edition, so no need to go to a forum comprised mostly of it. Likewise others may feel the same.....
It covers all previous editions, not just 3e. That would be why it's called "Previous Editions", not "3e Subforums"
A new player goes online, and EVERYTHING from EVERY edition is on the shelves. ;)
I think it would have been netter to leave the forums split as they were so you could have your entire 4th-centric forums, and the others could have been for 3rd and previous editions.
No sense in trying to act as the other editions didn't exist and scrape them off because you want to sell more product. Forums aren't a marketing device, but a place for the fans to get together and discuss. You just have to make sure the fans have enough room to not bump heads as it were. ;)
*Anything pre-3rd, and no Immortals making it only BECM rather than BECMI.
I play AD&D*, but that is moot if the threads always seem to be about 3rd.
*Anything pre-3rd, and no Immortals making it only BECM rather than BECMI.
Nice! You should go start some AD&D threads on the previous editions board. I know many of the members on the previous edition board would appreciate it.
Oh and I don't play that 2.5 player's options crap either.
Well, you want to talk about D&D, so I would imainge you could talk about your games. Post up your ideas/characters and such.
I started a thread a few minutes ago about favorite 1st edition book to show everyone (Not just you.
) that it can be done.I always thought it would be neat to have tags like that. As you can see, we do have smiley faces.
The thing is, it's not just a D&D website.
You'll love my thread, as it's labeld.
I always thought it would be neat to have tags like that. As you can see, we do have smiley faces.
The thing is, it's not just a D&D website.
Now there you have a GREAT idea!
Thread emotes for the various editions, and maybe for other areas that may need them
etc but for product lines to use as topic tags!Not at all. I haven't accused anyone of being a troll up until this point. And in this instance I was being somewhat facetious. All of the most prominent avengers are here. Everyone from the Batman to the wolverine to the canary. I don't think it is a stretch to say that they are posting on this thread more than anyone else right now.
Does it ever occur to you that the presence of of so many 'avengers' on a thread about cleaning up general might be because they're the ones who are sick and tired of the troll antics allowed to run wild and free there?
It's always easy to blame the moderators but-
I think the 'but' becomes a bit insulting when we're talking about the fact that the mods and the CoC keep allowing the same guys to get banned over and over and over again for the exact same thing each time and then act like thier hands are tied when those guys spend all their time lampshading who they are and what their real intention (trolling) is.
It's not a question of pro or anti, it's happened before on a smaller scale with identical trolls who all are clearly the same dude who got chance after chance to come start fights until they got too bored to continue. Do you remember a series of incidents with a poster who always used the words for male relatives to pick gender wars fights? I do. And the mods sat on their laurels and kept letting him back in too.
If you believe one of our current batch of chronic trolls, he's still here and till doing it. AND STILL TELLING PEOPLE WHO HE IS. And the mods don't seem to give an ounce of a damn.
But SpearSpike's criteria for Avenger .
I could care less where someone stands on any of the things that get discussed around here. Seriously, it's a discussion board, it's all about differing viewpoints.
People who want to have actual discussions aren't the ones who need banned. It's the folks (and I use that term loosely) with multiple accounts used for harassment or point-reinforcement that need to go, along with the ones who willfully flaunt the CoC and seek out people they disagree with to attack.
You're misrepresenting my views here on a pretty fundamental level. Please stop.
Does it ever occur to you that the presence of of so many 'avengers' on a thread about cleaning up general might be because they're the ones who are sick and tired of the troll antics allowed to run wild and free there?
As usual, Vaal's right on top of the issue here.
The "avengers" hang out in CB for two reasons;
1) Because it seems like every thread in this forum gets twisted into a referendum on their existence by people who have an axe to grind with them and,
2) BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN WANTING THIS PLACE FIXED FOR MONTHS.
There's no conspiracy here, it's pure cause and effect. Voicing personal paranoia only succeeds at making one look paranoid.
But isn't point one being either overly dramatic or overly paranoid? Every thread in this forum gets twisted into an anti-4e supporter thread? Really? So, the thread about the potential reorganization of the forum has been twisted? The "Forumwatch" thread? The one begging WotC to kill the Gleemax login? The one about the binding of the books (which doesn't belong in this forum)?
Do 4e supporters get beat up? Yeah, they do. And it sucks donkey balls - when anybody gets beat up on these forums. But maybe - just maybe - part of the problem is self-fulfilling.
But isn't point one being either overly dramatic or overly paranoid? Every thread in this forum gets twisted into an anti-4e supporter thread? Really? So, the thread about the potential reorganization of the forum has been twisted? The "Forumwatch" thread? The one begging WotC to kill the Gleemax login? The one about the binding of the books (which doesn't belong in this forum)?
Seems like. Seems. Not every thread, but enough of them that it behooves the people being disparaged to check and see who's doing it on any given day in any given thread.
If a thread goes more than 2 or so pages in this forum, it's likely because somebody saw fit to grind the Avengers axe in it at some point. That's not always the case, but it does seem to be a pretty strong pattern. And that's not counting the threads that are specifically started by the axe-grinders so that they have a soapbox for their grinding.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the forum re-org stuff and checking to see who's attempting group character assassination by proxy, I wouldn't even come to this board. The fact that I'm here at all speaks to the existence of the problem I outlined.
Reread this thread and you'll see it here. It's become part of the life cycle of a given 'hey mods, how's about getting off your duffs and dealing with these trolls, huh?' thread. Almost as much as the marked stony silence from CS.
Do 4e supporters get beat up? Yeah, they do. And it sucks donkey balls - when anybody gets beat up on these forums. But maybe - just maybe - part of the problem is self-fulfilling.
Blame the victim, Zherog? Really?
Whether it's "self-fulfilling" or not is irrelevant, because the trolls (of any stripe) don't confine their attacks to other trolls. (And even if they did, it wouldn't be a justification.) So the victims often don't actually deserve it. Often times, they're the innocent victims of a metaphorical drive-by shooting.
Someone with an agenda derails a thread. If that behavior is not modified then the behavior is rewarded. If someone does it persistently, then the entire board suffers. People who don't like the direction it is going then see three choices.
1) Leave because the board seems less hospitable
2) Endure the downward spiral stoically
3) At least direct the downward spiral in a direction that favors their position.
You will note that "Improve the tenor of the boards" is not an option. Why? Because forum members don't have that power. Only the mods have the power to remove the negativity. So the other users only' choices are to leave, watch things go to hell, or try to ensure that, if it's going to hell anyway, to at least make it the least objectionable hell to them.
So the inevitable result of this is that a portion of the users will take option 3 and this simple accelerates the downward spiral until either the forum collapses, the trolls get bored and leave, or the mods get more aggressive.
Please note that my analysis is not a critique of any position on 4th edition. It doesn't matter what the specific position of the trolls is. I'm talking about how people react to trolling, particularly when moderators are too timid in confronting it.
(By trolling, I mean anybody who engages in threadcrapping, derailing, spamming, or personal insults.)
All of us here on Community Business can talk about elevating the discussion (though more often than not, we just import the nastiness from the General Boards here). But it's futile because we can't do a damn thing about it. Even if everybody who posts here in CB were never to post in General again, the negativity and downward spiral will continue.
Only Customer Service can stop the madness and they can only do it by acting decisively to remove bad behavior from the board.
Blame the victim, Zherog? Really?
That wasn't the intention of that line, no. But I can certainly see - in hindsight - how it gives that impression. Let me elaborate, and I'll either clear up what I meant or dig my hole deeper. Hopefully it's the former, but maybe the latter will offer entertainment value to others. ;)
Maybe folks perceive a problem that isn't there in a particular thread. I'll use myself and the Castle of Fun as an example, because I don't want to alienate anybody else by using them in a hypothetical. Many years ago, the Castle of Fun was a very charged topic on this forum (though the forum was called the metaboard back then).
Today, the Castle of Fun is its own play-by-post forum, but originally it was a single thread in D&D General. And there was spill-over from that one thread to other threads, and from other threads to other forums. Lots of people disliked it (and understandably so). Some people ignored things; some people started threads on the metaboard calling for the Castle of Fun to be shut down. And those threads got a lot of posts, with a lot of people bashing the idea, the people who posted there, and the mods who allowed it to continue. It did in fact get to the point where any criticism of posting styles was seen by CoF regulars as an attack on them. They'd come in to defend the honor of the Castle, and then the thread would inevitably turn into a discussion about how the idea of the Castle of Fun was stupid, the people who posted there had nothing to contribute to the forums, and the mods who allowed that horrible spam to continue were too lax in their enforcement of the CoC.
Those latter threads likely wouldn't have had anything to do with the Castle of Fun had some of us not rode in our proverbial white (or high, depending on your POV) horses. But once we showed up, it became an issue about the CoF.
I see a lot of that same sort of stuff now, and that's what I meant by self-fulfilling. Sometimes, the problem in a specific thread on this forum doesn't exist until those of us who feel the need to defend the cause bring up the problem.
*
All that said, you're correct -- forum members have precious little that they can actually do to change the tenor of the forums. We can report posts, and we can carry discussions such as this and hope Customer Service listens. And that's about it.
Blame the victim, Zherog? Really?
I think the point is clear that it is a never ending cycle that started in the C&C forums and bled through.
I noticed a "doomsday" thread in those forums, and a "hallelujah" thread.
One an anti-4th, and the other a pro-4th.
What happened?
Anti people spilled over into the pro thread, and pro people likewise spilled over into the anti thread. It wasn't a cause and effect type of thing, but just something that happened naturally.
Probably wasn't the intent, and the discussion spiraled from comparing good things 4th gave over 3rd in the pro thread, but then people saw it as bashing 3rd (like WotC was doing anyway), and things went out of control from there.
Likewise the anti thread was going about its way and something was said and taken out of context and the "avengers" were created, and people not getting the joke and subtlety of this group went overboard and turned the anti thread into a war of editions.
Since this happened by different people about the same time, it is not really to blame one or the other.
Well after the forums were merged what happens is those hard feelings towards each other remained and are being carried over by some people.
Any thread that expresses negative opinion about 4th has a few people that appear to shoot down the idea of the thread to glorify 4th, or if a few certain posters try to make a civil thread those same people come to shoot down that person.
Likewise there are post that discus something many see as good about 4th and some anti's appear to say 4th is not that great, and disagree with the idea, and again war breaks out.
IF people just agreed to disagree and realize that not everyone loves/hates 4th then people can have a discussion, but when people start making accusatory remarks and such, the wars begin.
So if pro's don't go bothering threads that speak of 4th in some negative fashion as not to make it look like God's gift to gamers, then anti's will probably stop going into threads favoring 4th and say it is the deepest part of the cesspool of gaming.
If you don't agree or have something to add to a discussion then you don't have to post in it.
I read MANY threads and have nothing to disagree with or share so don't even post in them.
Reagents for example. Sounds like a novel way to discuss components of the past and single-use magic items. Something I am more interested in reading and have no real idea formulated to add anything to the discussion.
Armors on the other hand I feel something strongly about so voiced my opinions and ideas in it.
You don't have to post in every thread, nor do you have to read it.
Maybe the forums can be extended to have the ignorelist NOT display thread made by persons on your ignorelist, so you not only do NOT see their posts in other threads, but don't even see threads created by persons on your ignorelist?
It may cause a few duplicate threads on new things like excerpts and the moderation would have to understand why this happens and not merge threads, but it has worked in other places.
If you never see a thread created by someone you will most likely disagree with, then you will prevent from even getting into an arguement with them.
One more thing about that quote way up there...."Let ye without sin cast the first stone". I don't think ANYONE is completely innocent on these forums unless they have never posted yet.
I think the point is clear that it is a never ending cycle that started in the C&C forums and bled through.
No, actually. The "point" I was making is explained in my post after wrecan (rightfully) questioned my intent.
No, actually. The "point" I was making is explained in my post after wrecan (rightfully) questioned my intent.
Yes, and thus I made my own point about it. Sort of like the noob bashing cycle.
noob comes in and get harassed. noob becomes long term member of the forum and because they were harassed starts harassing people that are now noobs.
wash rinse repeat...a never ending cycle.
I think the point is clear that it is a never ending cycle that started in the C&C forums and bled through.
It's only never-ending as long as CS chooses not to end it.
I have no problem with them posting here. But you were citing their lack of posting in your argument. And I was showing that they have in fact been posting in great numbers.
What is a problem is the attitude the avengers are advocating. One where it is okay to violate the CoC if it is against percieved trolls. The avengers are not mods, and must abide by the CoC like everyone else.
As to the general forum. I haven't been frequenting it very much lately. Mostly because I feel I don't want to deal with the assaults from the avengers. The few times I have tried to join in again, I have been shouted down by them. If things have changed, I would be happy to post there now.
It's funny you should say that, considering I abandoned GD before you did, and a certain someone *cough*you*cough* was one of my reasons for leaving.
Don't take this as an attack, but honestly try looking in the mirror. If you really think you are doing no wrong, then please take a look at your own behavior, and try to imagine being a bystander (i.e. a 2e supporter, not a 3e or 4e supporter) finding themselves in your crosshairs for no good reason.
You like to throw around the term "4e avenger." Take a look at yourself, Spike. You're a 3e avenger. You're exactly what you describe 4e avengers of being, only for 3e instead.
Me? I'm a 2e avenger. Deal with it.
;)
It's one thing to say "I like / don't like X. Here are some reasons why."
It's another to say "I like / don't like X, because X / y is stupid."
The first is honest discussion, and invites honest discussion. The second is just a waste of space.
And I am not merely commenting on initial posts, but responses too. Far too many posters have devolved into the second version: "I like / don't like X, because X / Y is stupid." That kind of comment is only going to offend people, and get them riled up. We don't need it, and it shouldn't be tolerated.
People shouldn't get banned for a single instance of this, but if they develop a pattern of this type of posting, they should be removed.
It's only never-ending as long as CS chooses not to end it.
I would hope the users a bit more responsible to stop themselves. If you require CS to do it, it is time to close down the forums or get rid of moderation and let things work themselves out naturally between the users.
I would hope the users a bit more responsible to stop themselves. If you require CS to do it, it is time to close down the forums or get rid of moderation and let things work themselves out naturally between the users.
Why are we advocating the law of the jungle? I don't see how that would work online, since you can't actually kill anyone.
Why are we advocating the law of the jungle? I don't see how that would work online, since you can't actually kill anyone.
But you could argue until your face turns blue and then decide you would rather use that air to breathe and live than argue any longer. ;)
But you could argue until your face turns blue and then decide you would rather use that air to breathe and live than argue any longer. ;)
lol.. some people sure can hold their breath a long time! :P
lol.. some people sure can hold their breath a long time! :P
To turn blue in the face would mean you have to have blood, which means you would have to have a heart in the first place. ;)
If you really want to clean up Genital Discussion put these "debate about 4e threads" into the mega thread ALL OF THEM
The megathread MUST DIE! Unsticky, and never do something like that again!
Whoever thought of that idea should be taken out back and beaten with a wet noodle!
I would hope the users a bit more responsible to stop themselves.
I'll deal with the people as they exist. Some users are trolls and have no interest in moderating themselves. CS is required for those individuals.
If you require CS to do it, it is time to close down the forums or get rid of moderation
This makes no sense. CS' job (one of them) is moderating incivil forum members. They should do their job better.
The megathread MUST DIE! Unsticky, and never do something like that again!
Whoever thought of that idea should be taken out back and beaten with a wet noodle!
"This thread is so full of fail I'm not even going to bother.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread...1084312&page=2
look kids it's an identical thread!
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1083331
And another!
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1080839
They breed like roaches!
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1078784 "
To quote myself.
All of those should be buried shot and people be permabanned within. Only -one- useful thing came out of -all- of those threads combined and that wasn't even anything that wasn't preexisting within the rules to be done in the first place.
Putting those into the Mega Thread is being -generous-
"This thread is so full of fail I'm not even going to bother.
First, speaking like a "gangsta" or whatever makes no sense. "so full of fail"? What the hell does that mean?
Also all of those threads have a right to exist. They are not duplicates of the thread whose first post is now that of the megathread.
Again it boils down to either people have a right to create their own threads, or they do not and administration must create every thread at user request and you can only post in the proper thread.
There is no reason to merge things just because they are similar, otherwise you might as well have a megathread for classes, one for races, one for items, and just let each topic have ONE thread where everything is to be discussed in.
Sounds pretty dumb doesn't it?
Each user has a right to his own opinion and thusly through the forums permissions for users have a right to make new threads.
Merging threads only seems to state that one person has more of a right to start a thread than another. That person being the one who made the thread first since merging via this forums software comes in timestamp order and the oldest post will become the first post of the merged thread.
Merging threads is BAD.
No they don't Hellmute. Those threads are literally repeats of themselves and or spawnlings of already regurgitated opinions. None of those threads really discuss anything different from one another, they are all -the same exact topic-
That's quite a ways different than the situation you describe.
For once I agree with Hellmute -- Megathreads suck. We should completely, totally avoid them.
Look at mudbunny! Solice already created a thread for something in the DDI forum, and a few hours later mudbunny created a new thread for it when he came "on duty".
Multiple threads on the same subject happen. You don't have to read them all, you can read one and stick with it, or not read any of them. It doesn't affect you at all unless you actually read them.
So threads have similar topics. You think people don't come to the same ideas at same or different times?
Look at mudbunny! Solice already created a thread for something in the DDI forum, and a few hours later mudbunny created a new thread for it when he came "on duty".
Multiple threads on the same subject happen. You don't have to read them all, you can read one and stick with it, or not read any of them. It doesn't affect you at all unless you actually read them.
I've still got to sift through them to find -useful- topics.
Especially when it's used to drown out discussions that people want to have.
I'm definitely in favor of merging similar threads, especially ones that are active at the same time. I'm just very much against the megathread, dumping ground concept that was loved by a certain former employee.
The problem, however, is the way vBulletin merges threads based on timestamps that destroys continuity of the former individual threads.
I think this has been mentioned before.....I had a little diagram about it or something like
a
b
c
d
1
2
3
4
ending up something like the merged thread having the posts
a
b
1
2
c
3
d
4
and the discussion got confusing trying to read what was said as not all posts quoted who they were responding to.....
There's a difference between a few similar threads and the first two or three pages of the same thing.
Especially when it's used to drown out discussions that people want to have.
If they are about the exact thing, then just lock the threads with the least discussion, and refer them to another thread so as not to cause disruptive posts in the existing conversation.
Just include some disclaimer.
"This thread has been chosen randomly to be locked as there is another thread about it, and WotC would like to consolidate the ideas on this subject to a singular place, and not destroy the content of this thread by merging it and causing post discontinuity.
Please continue your discussions on this topic in [thread]this thread[/thread]."
If they are about the exact thing, then just lock the threads with the least discussion, and refer them to another thread so as not to cause disruptive posts in the existing conversation.
Just include some disclaimer.
"This thread has been chosen randomly to be locked as there is another thread about it, and WotC would like to consolidate the ideas on this subject to a singular place, and not destroy the content of this thread by merging it and causing post discontinuity.
Please continue your discussions on this topic in [thread]this thread[/thread]."
You see that's good in theory, but we know how lazy the moderators are around here.
The moderators are not lazy. I wish people would stop slamming them.
Fine the mods have a complete lack of willingness to use Ip bans when they should.
Ps.
They could just bring back the C&C board. And move every single one of these so called debate threads there. That way everyone wins. The trolls have their own lil sandbox, the whiners have one, and people that actually -like- the game don't have to deal with it. At all. Period... Win win to me.
Does it ever occur to you that the presence of of so many 'avengers' on a thread about cleaning up general might be because they're the ones who are sick and tired of the troll antics allowed to run wild and free there?
I don't think that is what is going on. I think they believe people who disagree with them are trolls and should be banned. As I said the presence of the avengers on the general forum is what has made it unbearable and what has led to flame wars. That is why I don't really frequent it any more. If they are concerned that people are violating the CoC with too much frequency, they should stop contributing with their own violations.
I don't think that is what is going on. I think they believe people who disagree with them are trolls and should be banned. As I said the presence of the avengers on the general forum is what has made it unbearable and what has led to flame wars. That is why I don't really frequent it any more. If they are concerned that people are violating the CoC with too much frequency, they should stop contributing with their own violations.
Anyone that has a sock puppet is a troll. Anyone with a Sock Puppet should be IP BANNED NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Anyone that brings up the same argument over and over again, in multiple threads to bait people into "debating" with him or her is probably a troll. Anyone that actively insults another poster without being provoked is a Troll. Anyone that comes in out of the blue, in a thread that has no debate about "4e good bad, ugly" and says "I hate 4e and you should too" or "4e is a sham" is a troll. Anyone that dives into a 3e thread in 3e's section and says "Your game sucks" is conversely also a troll.
First offense ban for twenty four hours,
second three days
third a month.
Fourth offense Ip Ban.
The moderators are not lazy. I wish people would stop slamming them.
Blame the horrible administrative structure. The people we need to be slamming (and mercilessly) is CS, because the mods are apparently pretty powerless here, unlike on well run forums where you have Admin and Moderator only, both of which can do what it takes to properly direct the forums.
Around here, all I heard from all four or five layers of administration we apparently have is how they don't have the power to do what needs to be done. And the guys that do have the power... aren't involved in any way whatsoever with the community.
Also, Micha, you may want to define sockpuppets as the back from the banned variety, as Z, for instance, calls his game alts sockpuppets and he doens't use them for the extensive trolling campaigns we're discussing (or any trolling at all).
Blame the horrible administrative structure. The people we need to be slamming (and mercilessly) is CS, because the mods are apparently pretty powerless here, unlike on well run forums where you have Admin and Moderator only, both of which can do what it takes to properly direct the forums.
Around here, all I heard from all four or five layers of administration we apparently have is how they don't have the power to do what needs to be done. And the guys that do have the power... aren't involved in any way whatsoever with the community.
No kidding. Trying to understand that thing is like watching Brazil, but without the laughs.
Troll hunters that suffer Tomato In The Mirror syndrome are also a problem. They add a new level of hostility to the boards, that wouldn't exist without them.
Because of these two factors new people often get accused of being sock puppets and trolls even they try to join the discussion.
One factor that got me to start this thread is someone accused me of thinking that anyone that didn't think 4th is perfect as less than human. I reported the post and it was moderated, but that poster is suspected of multiple bans and has a history of doing simliar things under that handle.
Blame the horrible administrative structure. The people we need to be slamming (and mercilessly) is CS, because the mods are apparently pretty powerless here, unlike on well run forums where you have Admin and Moderator only, both of which can do what it takes to properly direct the forums.
Around here, all I heard from all four or five layers of administration we apparently have is how they don't have the power to do what needs to be done. And the guys that do have the power... aren't involved in any way whatsoever with the community.
Also, Micha, you may want to define sockpuppets as the back from the banned variety, as Z, for instance, calls his game alts sockpuppets and he doens't use them for the extensive trolling campaigns we're discussing (or any trolling at all).
I'm sorry vaalingrade but I must completely disagree. The administration has been working hand in hand with the VCL's and have been doing a very good job of keeping the forums clean as of late. Just because some people use strong rhetoric when critiquing 4e and it's problems does not mean that they are doing anything wrong. If you think that they are, you may want to take a step back and realize that the statements presented are simply opinions. Sticks and stones may break your bones but words should never hurt you.
But- I don't want to turn the boards to a simple yes-man type thing. Sure, the primary thrust of the boards are pro 4e/WotC. But you can't exclude someone because there's something they don't like about D&D. That's just silly.
I don't like psionics, but that doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't like them. I don't hide the fact that I'm not big on them nor why I'm not a fan.
However, I don't go to someone's psionic thread to dump on them for liking it. Someday I might want to check out psionics, and I'll need those folks to help me understand it.
Other things I don't like- THAC0, Save or Die, creating/upgrading 3e monsters. But again, I don't trash threads of those that DO like them.
Should I focus my attention on thread crapping? Delete such posts?
As Editorial moderator here, I suppose I could ban all anti 4e discussions. That really would clean up the boards.
I agree that would be a bad idea.
Should I focus my attention on thread crapping? Delete such posts?
That would be nice.
A question comes to mind. Are you the only one that does editorial moderation? If so you could use some help, as one person cannot be online all the time.
And I'm actually on all the time anyway.
Seriously, there's not a lot that's in your power to deal with, Webster. I think you're doing a good job with what you're allowed to do, but actually cleaning up general is going to require someone capable of banning and closing the CoC 'troll til you get banned, come back, troll some more' loophole.
As it stands now, there's little incentive to actually be a good poster other than one's own moral compass. Something Trollv3_The_Smurf lacks entirely.
Should I focus my attention on thread crapping? Delete such posts?
Yes. If you can, you should keep track of whose posts get persistently deleted. Such posters should be given specific warnings and then bans.
If CS policy doesn't accommodate such actions, then the policy needs to be changed.
I have filed CS reports about this, months ago, when the trolling first got bad. I got a polite response from CS saying my concerns were received and will be considered but not to expect further response. So I don't.
But I don't think it would be appropriate to flood CS with emails for them to be more aggressive. That's just another form of trolling.
Anyone that has a sock puppet is a troll. Anyone with a Sock Puppet should be IP BANNED NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Anyone that brings up the same argument over and over again, in multiple threads to bait people into "debating" with him or her is probably a troll. Anyone that actively insults another poster without being provoked is a Troll. Anyone that comes in out of the blue, in a thread that has no debate about "4e good bad, ugly" and says "I hate 4e and you should too" or "4e is a sham" is a troll. Anyone that dives into a 3e thread in 3e's section and says "Your game sucks" is conversely also a troll.
First offense ban for twenty four hours,
second three days
third a month.
Fourth offense Ip Ban.
It isn't against the CoC to have multiple accounts.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the forum re-org stuff and checking to see who's attempting group character assassination by proxy, I wouldn't even come to this board. The fact that I'm here at all speaks to the existence of the problem I outlined.
I couldn't agree more. I've been an active member of this community for years, and I never felt the need to come to CB, for any reason.
Now, I do. There's a problem here.
Yes. If you can, you should keep track of whose posts get persistently deleted. Such posters should be given specific warnings and then bans.
If CS policy doesn't accommodate such actions, then the policy needs to be changed.
I couldn't agree more - if this is even possible, it is ideal. I know that it increases workload for mods, but doesn't it make all sorts of sense?
I would hope the users a bit more responsible to stop themselves. If you require CS to do it, it is time to close down the forums or get rid of moderation and let things work themselves out naturally between the users.
You would love that, wouldn't you?
I personally am a huge fan of this community; I am not here to destroy it brick by brick, like some are.
As Editorial moderator here, I suppose I could ban all anti 4e discussions. That really would clean up the boards.
But- I don't want to turn the boards to a simple yes-man type thing. Sure, the primary thrust of the boards are pro 4e/WotC. But you can't exclude someone because there's something they don't like about D&D. That's just silly.
I don't like psionics, but that doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't like them. I don't hide the fact that I'm not big on them nor why I'm not a fan.
However, I don't go to someone's psionic thread to dump on them for liking it. Someday I might want to check out psionics, and I'll need those folks to help me understand it.
Other things I don't like- THAC0, Save or Die, creating/upgrading 3e monsters. But again, I don't trash threads of those that DO like them.
Should I focus my attention on thread crapping? Delete such posts?
They just want an echo chamber. Sounds like this would make them happy.
They just want an echo chamber. Sounds like this would make them happy.
No, I do not want an echo chamber. I want to see constructive posting habits encouraged, and real discussion about the game itself to be the priority.
I have no problem with anti-posters. I have a problem with 4e bashers who misinform, troll, and turn a blind eye to logic. Heck, I have a problem with anyone who misinforms, trolls, and turns a blind eye to logic.
But the ones who are insistent and persistent in coming here and doing such things are by and large the same group of 4e bashers.
No, I do not want an echo chamber. I want to see constructive posting habits encouraged, and real discussion about the game itself to be the priority.
I have no problem with anti-posters. I have a problem with 4e bashers who misinform, troll, and turn a blind eye to logic.
The problem is anyone who criticizes 4E at all, is treated as a troll by the pro 4E posters. Many of the critical threads about 4E are just people giving their honest opinion. And they get flamed for it. Frankly I don't see a lot of misinformation about 4E on there. I see pro 4E posters over reacting to people who don't like specific elements of the game, and who take each and every statement far too literally. There is a hall monitor mentality among the pro 4ers that is highly grating. And it is the reason I rarely, if ever, post in the general forum any longer.
It isn't against the CoC to have multiple accounts.
I don't think Micha is advocating for everybody with multiple accounts to be insta-banned. I believe what he's suggesting is that people who use an alternate account to hide behind as they troll should be insta-banned.
The problem is anyone who criticizes 4E at all, is treated as a troll by the pro 4E posters.
This is incorrect. I am pro-4e, and I do not treat non-trolls as trolls.
I do, however, treat trolls as trolls. I will not willingly turn a blind eye to their trolldom.
Many of the critical threads about 4E are just people giving their honest opinion. And they get flamed for it.
I personally do not flame anyone who is giving an honest opinion about 4e. As a matter of fact, I could link you to multiple threads where I've had honest discussions with anti-4e posters about the game, without it devolving into a flamefest.
I can't speak for other posters, because there's no grand conspiracy of pro-4e posters hunting down anti-4e posters, like those of your ilk are wont to intimate.
Frankly I don't see a lot of misinformation about 4E on there.
Oh, I do.
I see pro 4E posters over reacting to people who don't like specific elements of the game
I don't personally do that. Most of the 4vengers don't either AFAICT. There are some problem posters on the pro side as well, yes, but I reprimand anyone who goes overboard in either direction.
, and who take each and every statement far too literally.
How is one to take a statement made on a digital message board any way but literally? You have the chance to edit your post before you post it, and there is no tone to help determine meaning or intent behind a statement.
A statement is a statement. This goes beyond edition, and is something I've had arguments with Fabius Maximus about before.
There is a hall monitor mentality among the pro 4ers that is highly grating.
There is an intentionally non-constructive mentality among certain anti-4ers that is highly grating.
And it is the reason I rarely, if ever, post in the general forum any longer.
Hallelujah.
This is incorrect. I am pro-4e, and I do not treat non-trolls as trolls.
I do, however, treat trolls as trolls. I will not willingly turn a blind eye to their trolldom.
Does that mean you report them? Or something else?
This is incorrect. I am pro-4e, and I do not treat non-trolls as trolls.
I do, however, treat trolls as trolls. I will not willingly turn a blind eye to their trolldom.
.
How do you treat trolls. Because the most you should be doing is reporting potential trolls, not antagonizing or flaming them. Firstly, because you could be wrong. The person you think is a troll might not be one. Secondly, it is the job of the mods to handle trolls and respond to reports about them. The basic problem here is that too many posters are going over the mods, violating the CoC, and accusing posters of being trolls.
How is one to take a statement made on a digital message board any way but literally? You have the chance to edit your post before you post it, and there is no tone to help determine meaning or intent behind a statement.
A statement is a statement. This goes beyond edition, and is something I've had arguments with Fabius Maximus about before.
.
I will clarify what I mean. People often, both online and in real life, express opinions without qualifying them as such. This isn't usually a problem, because most people can recognize that the statement "Vanilla Ice Cream is too sweet", means "I find vanilla ice cream to be too sweet" and not that it is objectively too sweet. Many of the flame wars revolving around 4E result from people taking such opinion statements too literally and reading them as statements of fact. I.E. "4E doesn't have enough options". This is a statement of opinion. It has to be. Because there isn't entirely a matter of opinion whether it has too many, too few, or just enough options. But lots of 4E posters will respond to such opinion statements with flame and demands for proof that there are not enough options. This is an unwinnable argument on both sides, because the pro 4ers can always keep saying that there are plenty of options (no matter what the numbers are) and the anti 4ers can always say there are not enough (no matter what the numbers are). The reason is because it is a matter of subjective opinion. This is what I mean by taking statements too literally.
The problem is anyone who criticizes 4E at all, is treated as a troll by the pro 4E posters.
I consider myself pro-4e and do not consider people who prefer other editions to be trolls. I can also link you to discussion I have had with people who weren't 4e fans that were very civil and enjoyable(for me, IMO).
I will clarify what I mean. People often, both online and in real life, express opinions without qualifying them as such. This isn't usually a problem, because most people can recognize that the statement "Vanilla Ice Cream is too sweet", means "I find vanilla ice cream to be too sweet" and not that it is objectively too sweet. Many of the flame wars revolving around 4E result from people taking such opinion statements too literally and reading them as statements of fact. I.E. "4E doesn't have enough options". This is a statement of opinion. It has to be. Because there isn't entirely a matter of opinion whether it has too many, too few, or just enough options. But lots of 4E posters will respond to such opinion statements with flame and demands for proof that there are not enough options. This is an unwinnable argument on both sides, because the pro 4ers can always keep saying that there are plenty of options (no matter what the numbers are) and the anti 4ers can always say there are not enough (no matter what the numbers are). The reason is because it is a matter of subjective opinion. This is what I mean by taking statements too literally.
What I have seen more often than "4e doesn't have enough options" are statements like "4e has fewer options than 3e". The first statement is clearly an opinion. However, the second statement involves numbers and therefore wouldn't normally be considered an opinion.
Due to the subject matter of these forums there are a lot of people discussing non-opinion matters. Clearly the person asking "can someone direct me to the page in the PHB where the rules for "x" are?" is not asking about an opinion. Because of this one can't expect everyone on these forums to assume that everything stated is opinion. A lot of people are coming here for definitive answers, not opinions. I have found it very helpful to specify what is an opinion and what is not.
Oh and yes, getting rid of some of the thread-crapping would help a lot.
The problem is anyone who criticizes 4E at all, is treated as a troll by the pro 4E posters.
Then Webster will delete the poor treatment as well. Webster's proposal was not specific to any point-of-view, so let's not assume Webster is going to act in a slanted manner.
My recommendation that Webster keep a list of those whose posts need deleting and to then warn them and then recommend they be banned was also not specific to any point of view. If anti-4E people can't moderate themselves they should be moderated. If pro-4E people can't moderate themselves they should be moderated.
The problem, as always, is behavior, not belief.
Does that mean you report them? Or something else?
Though I know it wasn't directed at me, I, personally, report the hell out of things, including commentary on why, exactly, I'm reporting a post, and any other information that may be pertinent (Such as "you have deleted or edited posts by this poster X times already today that I have seen").
What's been a little discouraging, in the past, has been hearing other posters talk about how they don't like to report posts, because it's like "tattling" - I say screw that, if it's the only tool we're effectively given, I am going to use it.
The problem, as always, is behavior, not belief.
This is the key issue.
Though I know it wasn't directed at me, I, personally, report the hell out of things, including commentary on why, exactly, I'm reporting a post, and any other information that may be pertinent (Such as "you have deleted or edited posts by this poster X times already today that I have seen").
That, in my opinion, is exactly the sort of detail that should go into a report. The more information you give to a moderator, the better.
What's been a little discouraging, in the past, has been hearing other posters talk about how they don't like to report posts, because it's like "tattling" - I say screw that, if it's the only tool we're effectively given, I am going to use it.
Yeah, I've never understood that mentality either. *shrug*
Does that mean you report them? Or something else?
Admittedly, I could be more vigilant in reporting - I don't report as much as I probably should. I feel that a) reporting posts all the time may make me look like a complainer, which I am not and b) if it's that egregious, someone else will report it anyway.
But the main reason why I don't report as often as I should is that if I identify someone as a bonafide persistent troll, I place them on my Ignore List, thus I don't see their posts directly, only from other people quoting them. This makes my forumgoing much more personally enjoyable, since I don't waste nearly as much time as I used to reading posts that are completely unconstructive.
I have never used my Ignore List up until the past few months on these boards, and I've been a member here for years. I have had very heated discussions with members on the boards here - OneWinged4ngel is an example of one that I repeatedly butted heads with - but I never, never thought about putting them on Ignore, because while the discussions were heated, it was a constructive exchange.
That, in my opinion, is exactly the sort of detail that should go into a report. The more information you give to a moderator, the better.
Yeah, I've never understood that mentality either. *shrug*
Heh, part of the reason I started with the detailed warnings was because of some of your comments on this forum when 4th was coming out (and, coincidently, when I was coming back to DnD) - not that your comments needed to be warned, but you kept mentioning detailed commentary for reports, so I said "Shoot, if that might even potentially help the forums, it's worth the extra 1-3 minutes."
The basic problem here is that too many posters are going over the mods, violating the CoC, and accusing posters of being trolls.
I have never accused any specific posters of being trolls.
Heh, part of the reason I started with the detailed warnings was because of some of your comments on this forum when 4th was coming out (and, coincidently, when I was coming back to DnD) - not that your comments needed to be warned, but you kept mentioning detailed commentary for reports, so I said "Shoot, if that might even potentially help the forums, it's worth the extra 1-3 minutes."
Finally, somebody listens to my advice. If more people were to do this, the world would be a better place. :angelhide
Not that every pro 4e person acts mean to anti 4e posters. But the view on here now seems that if someone has a bad view of 4e they must be a greenish person. Whether you are one of the ones that do it or not is not the point. The point is posters that do have problems with 4e can't hardly get the help and understanding they need without fear of some pro 4e posters and anti 4e posters flaming the thread/s.
If you think that someone is being greenish wouldn't it be better to PM the poster first on the problems you see in their posting, nicely in a helpful way, then decide from the respose whether they should be reported or if they just got carried away with the argument. Never judge a book by its cover so to spoke.
I always thought it was do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Not that every pro 4e person acts mean to anti 4e posters. But the view on here now seems that if someone has a bad view of 4e they must be a greenish person. Whether you are one of the ones that do it or not is not the point. The point is posters that do have problems with 4e can't hardly get the help and understanding they need without fear of some pro 4e posters and anti 4e posters flaming the thread/s.
If you think that someone is being greenish wouldn't it be better to PM the poster first on the problems you see in their posting, nicely in a helpful way, then decide from the respose whether they should be reported or if they just got carried away with the argument. Never judge a book by its cover so to spoke.
I'm a little bit confused. Why would people think that posters who don't like 4e are new to D&D?
It seems to me that the vast majority of people who don't like 4e are coming from a previous edition rather than being green to the game. I'm not sure I've seen even one post saying something along the lines of "I just went out and bought D&D and didn't enjoy it and I'm sure that it is the edition and I'm going to go find 3.5 and try that now and I'm sure I will love it."To be honest I have seen the opposite. I have seen new people come on and get flamed for asking basic questions or being really enthusiastic about 4e.
Am I completely missing something about your statement?
Note: I have found that the ones that just don't like the new system is them bad types from 3.5 that used the rules to gain unfair bonuses over other players. The new rules seems to be trying to word it so as to take this away from the edition.
Note: I have found that the ones that just don't like the new system is them bad types from 3.5 that used the rules to gain unfair bonuses over other players. The new rules seems to be trying to word it so as to take this away from the edition.
This kind of unfair (and untrue) broad categorization is a problem in itself. Try not to paint with such broad strokes. Not everyone is the same and lumping them all together gets people angry.
I always thought it was do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Indeed.
The point is posters that do have problems with 4e can't hardly get the help and understanding they need without fear of some pro 4e posters and anti 4e posters flaming the thread/s.
The multiple threads I've seen recently that didn't devolve into flamefests disproves this theory. Those threads can occur, but the general atmosphere needs to be cleaned up before the ratio of flamefests to true discussions returns to a more favorable one.
The trolls do nothing but feed the flames.
Never judge a book by its cover so to spoke.
I don't. I've read the book cover to cover as it were by this point, due to the incredible persistence in some posters' trolling habits.
Note: I have found that the ones that just don't like the new system is them bad types from 3.5 that used the rules to gain unfair bonuses over other players. The new rules seems to be trying to word it so as to take this away from the edition.
Are you serious? This is not only a flippant generalization, but completely and utterly false to boot.
This means the people that just don't like the system and don't really want to get a better understanding of the new system. They just read the stuff about it on what you can and can't do and decide that it is junk. I was not trying to be general I thought that it wa sunderstood to be so, sorry.
Why not have a cool down lock on threads that get flamed? Post that it is a cool down lock and that the thread will be reopen after so much time has passed by. This might help to keep the wrong people from the thread/s and get the thread back on track, if caught early enough.
"just don't like the new system "
This means the people that just don't like the system and don't really want to get a better understanding of the new system.
There's a difference between those, the two do not go hand in hand. There are people that genuinely do not like 4e.
What I do often see are those who are misinformed about 4e or do not understand certain aspects of how 4e works. I attempt to educate such people in those situations.
They just read the stuff about it on what you can and can't do and decide that it is junk.
Indeed, there are plenty of people that read the books and decide that they don't like it without trying it. I was one of those people. Then, I tried the system, and I very much like it. I behoove anyone who has the same experience to at least try the game and keep an open mind about it without denouncing it out of turn.
Indeed.
The multiple threads I've seen recently that didn't devolve into flamefests disproves this theory. Those threads can occur, but the general atmosphere needs to be cleaned up before the ratio of flamefests to true discussions returns to a more favorable one.
The trolls do nothing but feed the flames.
I don't. I've read the book cover to cover as it were by this point, due to the incredible persistence in some posters' trolling habits.
Are you serious? This is not only a flippant generalization, but completely and utterly false to boot.
I was talking about someones post not the book. And you really can't tell if a system works well or not with out playing it.
As to the types I was trying to be nice and was talking about the bad types of power gamers and opts that use the rules to bring problems to most groups they play in. Not to people in general. Their thoughts on 4e is that since they can't use the same tricks they used in 3.5 that it is not good (edited). You have to try it first, at least 2-4 games. Then if you say you don't like 4e then I would say it is ok. Most just read the books and see all the changes and say this blows air. To me that is alittle single minded. I have made tons of world for games. Some I thought this is never going to work and then it worked great and I have had some that were great worlds and never worked out. You just never know till you try it.
There's a difference between those, the two do not go hand in hand. There are people that genuinely do not like 4e.
What I do often see are those who are misinformed about 4e or do not understand certain aspects of how 4e works. I attempt to educate such people in those situations.
Indeed, there are plenty of people that read the books and decide that they don't like it without trying it. I was one of those people. Then, I tried the system, and I very much like it. I behoove anyone who has the same experience to at least try the game and keep an open mind about it without denouncing it out of turn.
Those are the types that get hurt the most. People who go from thread to thread looking for the troublemakers assume that these types are those and attack them just because of the misinfo they my have posted from someone else. If they do go hunting the greenish people they need toi be more careful. If they thank someone is just posting for greenish reasons report it to the right people so the thread can be looked at and watched. Flaming only feeds the beast so to speak.
I have no problem with them posting here. But you were citing their lack of posting in your argument. And I was showing that they have in fact been posting in great numbers.
What is a problem is the attitude the avengers are advocating. One where it is okay to violate the CoC if it is against percieved trolls. The avengers are not mods, and must abide by the CoC like everyone else.
As to the general forum. I haven't been frequenting it very much lately. Mostly because I feel I don't want to deal with the assaults from the avengers. The few times I have tried to join in again, I have been shouted down by them. If things have changed, I would be happy to post there now.
It's funny you should say that, considering I abandoned GD before you did, and a certain someone *cough*you*cough* was one of my reasons for leaving.
Don't take this as an attack, but honestly try looking in the mirror. If you really think you are doing no wrong, then please take a look at your own behavior, and try to imagine being a bystander (i.e. a 2e supporter, not a 3e or 4e supporter) finding themselves in your crosshairs for no good reason.
You like to throw around the term "4e avenger." Take a look at yourself, Spike. You're a 3e avenger. You're exactly what you describe 4e avengers of being, only for 3e instead.
Me? I'm a 2e avenger. Deal with it.
;)
I remember you flaming me my very first venture into the General Discussion forum, Spike, and I didn't even say anything pro-4e. Heck, I even made it clear I wasn't stepping into the "edition wars" and you trampled all over me.
You sure do make a lot of accusatory statements toward 4e avengers, totally disregarding the fact that you are a 3e avenger yourself.
I have to wonder if you're honestly ignorant, or purposefully deceptive.
I suppose you'll accuse me of being a 4e avenger simply for disagreeing with you, but then I suppose that's to be expected from a 3e avenger such as yourself.
Oh and Spike-- I read all your criticisms of "the avengers" as including yourself, since you are an avenger.
Maybe you should take a step back, reread your "avengers" criticisms and try including yourself in that group as well, because you're certainly a part of it from my view.
Phew. Had to get that off my chest.
They just want an echo chamber. Sounds like this would make them happy.
qft.
The pro 4e for the most part simply cannot take criticism of "their" edition. I use the word their because they have taken an extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to it. It is so serious that you can immediately gain vast amounts of credibility by saying that it's the best edition ever while the contrary will get your post reported. There are a few token exceptions that occur rarely, but for the most part that's the way it goes down.
qft.
The pro 4e for the most part simply cannot take criticism of "their" edition. I use the word their because they have taken an extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to it.
You are claiming that other people have an "extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to [4e]"??
You are claiming that other people have an "extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to [4e]"??
Yes? And you being a VCL are acting immaturely? Not surprising really, but it says a lot to anyone who doesn't know you.
qft.
The pro 4e for the most part simply cannot take criticism of "their" edition. I use the word their because they have taken an extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to it. It is so serious that you can immediately gain vast amounts of credibility by saying that it's the best edition ever while the contrary will get your post reported. There are a few token exceptions that occur rarely, but for the most part that's the way it goes down.
Ah, so you're an avenger, too, then. Which edition are you an avenger for?
You see, I did jokingly say I was a 2e avenger in a previous post, but I'm actually not an avenger for any edition. I'm not an avenger at all. I think the vast majority of D&D players, including the majority of those who enjoy 4e, are not avengers.
The avengers are the folks like yourself, who have no interest in honest discussion but want nothing other than to fight, dragging innocents like myself who want nothing to do with your "wars" along.
So you've made it clear you're an avenger. For which edition are you an avenger for? Which edition do you avenge? I'm just curious, since you're an avenger and all.
Yes? And you being a VCL are acting immaturely? Not surprising really, but it says a lot to anyone who doesn't know you.
If you feel my post is inapropriate, you can post a complaint here.
What you said, originally, was that all the people that "just don't like the new system" were ex 3.5 powergamers. And it was also implied that they were of the munchkin variety as you said they powergamed to "gain unfair advantage". This is a blanket statement that is patently false. That's why I replied the way I did.
The key to the statement is just don't like the new system which is refering to the ones that just don't like it for the reasons I stated. Because of them not getting "unfair bonuses over other players". I'm sorry you don't agree with me. But some of the views that were developed in 3.5 are now some of the same reasons a large portion of anti 4e people don't play it. There are some people that have real reasons for not playing. Sadly we will most likely not here about them.
If you feel my post is inapropriate, you can post a complaint here.
Oh, it's not a violation of the CoC, and I need not waste my time complaining formally about it. However, it is certainly necessary to call you out on it so that you might improve your behavior towards others in the future through peer pressure. Because laughing at someone who is being serious is not a mature thing to do, in almost any circumstance.
Ah, so you're an avenger, too, then. Which edition are you an avenger for?
You see, I did jokingly say I was a 2e avenger in a previous post, but I'm actually not an avenger for any edition. I'm not an avenger at all. I think the vast majority of D&D players, including the majority of those who enjoy 4e, are not avengers.
The avengers are the folks like yourself, who have no interest in honest discussion but want nothing other than to fight, dragging innocents like myself who want nothing to do with your "wars" along.
So you've made it clear you're an avenger. For which edition are you an avenger for? Which edition do you avenge? I'm just curious, since you're an avenger and all.
:D I think a few of the 4vengers will object quite strongly to being lumped together with (names withheld) under the same label...
I was talking about someones post not the book.
So was I. I was taking your analogy and running with it. Poster = "book".
Oh, it's not a violation of the CoC, and I need not waste my time complaining formally about it. However, it is certainly necessary to call you out on it so that you might improve your behavior towards others in the future through peer pressure. Because laughing at someone who is being serious is not a mature thing to do, in almost any circumstance.
It's not a link to report my post.
It is a link to the Volunteer Community Lead Program Open Discussion forum, where, if you feel that, while not against the CoC, my comment is innapropriate, you can let it be known and Solice, who is in charge of the VCL program, will read it.
[/derail]
Those are the types that get hurt the most. People who go from thread to thread looking for the troublemakers assume that these types are those and attack them just because of the misinfo they my have posted from someone else. If they do go hunting the greenish people they need toi be more careful. If they thank someone is just posting for greenish reasons report it to the right people so the thread can be looked at and watched. Flaming only feeds the beast so to speak.
Let me just make this perfectly clear: I do not go trollhunting. The trolls come to my threads and start the trouble themselves. I wish wholeheartedly that they did not, but since they do, this is the situation I am in.
Here we go again. I thought the boards were for helping people who play D&D. If both sides would keep to that it would be easier to find the greenish people. The simple fact is both sides are hurting more people then they are helping anyone. :raincloud
I'm not hurting anyone. I won't stand by and allow misinformation, outright lies, blind hateful bashing, or other forms of unconstructive posts go unanswered.
Note that many of these types of posts do not technically violate CoC, and so are unreportable. We have somewhat clever trolls here, admittedly.
Let me just make this perfectly clear: I do not go trollhunting. The trolls come to my threads and start the trouble themselves. I wish wholeheartedly that they did not, but since they do, this is the situation I am in.
They come hoping a person will respond to them. Responding to then even fighting with then just makes them more happy. They have fun causing these arguements. Fighting with them is just helping them cause problems. To me Troll hunting is the same as trolling it self. I see no differences in the two acts.
They come hoping a person will respond to then. Responding to then even fighting with then just makes them more happy. They have fun causing these arguements. Fighting with them is just helping them cause problems. To me Troll hunting is the same as trolling it self. I see no differences in the two acts.
Let me repeat: I do not go trollhunting. I put trolls on my Ignore List so I do not see their posts directly.
It is only, let me repeat, only when other posters quote them that I ever see the troll's posts. Thus, the only time I ever respond to one of their lies or illogical bash attempts is when someone else has already been caught in their clutches. I won't let innocent posters be attacked by these trolls without any defense in the form of logic and truth.
I'm sorry if I sound a bit overdramatic here. I wish that the state of the boards were not so. I'll repeat again that I've been here for years, and I've never seen anything like this before. It's unacceptable.
I'm not hurting anyone. I won't stand by and allow misinformation, outright lies, blind hateful bashing, or other forms of unconstructive posts go unanswered.
Note that many of these types of posts do not technically violate CoC, and so are unreportable. We have somewhat clever trolls here, admittedly.
Do not disrupt chat, forums, blog comments or other communication channels.
You can tell someone that a thread needs watched with out reporting it. If you think someone has crossed the line whether it is against CoC or not. The person needs to be watched or at least the thread. I don't know if they can do that but they should be able to. Arguing with them is just causing the same problem they were there to cause. You could just PM the OP or the person they gave the info to telling them that it is wrong and correcting the info without flaming.
Note: I'm refering to people not you also the post before about Here we go again was made about the fighting above not to our disagreement.
I'll repeat again that I've been here for years, and I've never seen anything like this before. It's unacceptable.
Psionics. The numerous "Psionics R Broken" posts and threads were of about the same quality, though perhaps more constrained.
You could just PM the OP or the person they gave the info to telling them that it is wrong and correcting the info without flaming.
And what about the dozens of people that are reading the misinformation but didn't post, and may be themselves subsequently misinformed?
Note: I'm refering to people not you also the post before about Here we go again was made about the fighting above not to our disagreement.
Ah, okay.
The key to the statement is just don't like the new system which is refering to the ones that just don't like it for the reasons I stated. Because of them not getting "unfair bonuses over other players". I'm sorry you don't agree with me. But some of the views that were developed in 3.5 are now some of the same reasons a large portion of anti 4e people don't play it. There are some people that have real reasons for not playing. Sadly we will most likely not here about them.
It's not that I don't agree with the idea that some munchkins don't like 4e cuz of it's balance, it's that I don't agree with your presentation. Like it or not, you made it appear as though you were lumping all people that do not like 4e into the same group. And I'm not the only guy that saw this. I see (now) that you were not. All I'm sayin' is watch how you say things. The comment you thought to be so innocent and obvious was, in fact, inflammatory and did not explain your position in a clear fashion. What I said was not solely to indict your statement, either. It's a great example of how easily we can poke at people without even intending to. In short, it's not always the message that's the problem. It's how it is delivered. In this case, you erred in your presentation by assuming your thoughts were clearly conveyed by your text when they were not. We've all (most likely) done this at one time or another. So we all need to be careful.
Psionics. The numerous "Psionics R Broken" posts and threads were of about the same quality, though perhaps more constrained.
You're right in that those threads were of about the same quality (though I think not as pernicious), but generally there was not a deliberate agenda of misinformation sowing and blind bashing against Psionics, and it wasn't on a forum-wide day-in and day-out basis. The "Psionics R Broken" folks were merely misinformed posters, misinformed about a subsystem that not everyone even used or considered using, and AFAICT over the years the majority of regular posters were pretty well informed about Psionics by the pro-Psionics people so that those posts dwindled, no?
Let me repeat: I do not go trollhunting. I put trolls on my Ignore List so I do not see their posts directly.
It is only, let me repeat, only when other posters quote them that I ever see the troll's posts. Thus, the only time I ever respond to one of their lies or illogical bash attempts is when someone else has already been caught in their clutches. I won't let innocent posters be attacked by these trolls without any defense in the form of logic and truth.
I'm sorry if I sound a bit overdramatic here. I wish that the state of the boards were not so. I'll repeat again that I've been here for years, and I've never seen anything like this before. It's unacceptable.
Personal attacks and disruptive chat is against CoC and can be reported. Simply post that it has been reported and that the activity should stop then that the info given was wrong, that should have the same effect. Then PM the person that was attacked giving them the right info and that the person should be ignored.
All I'm sayin' is watch how you say things. The comment you thought to be so innocent and obvious was, in fact, inflammatory and did not explain your position in a clear fashion.
Agreed. Please try to be more clear in the future, everyone, myself included. I endeavor to be as clear as possible, but we are all fallible, none of us are perfect.
Personal attacks and disruptive chat is against CoC and can be reported. Simply post that it has been reported and that the activity should stop then that the info given was wrong, that should have the same effect. Then PM the person that was attacked giving them the right info and that the person should be ignored.
Posting that you reported a post(er) is considered baiting and, thus, a violation of the CoC that is also reportable.
It's kind of like having laws against harassment and stalking, only all of them just have a penalty of a night in jail and disguise so you can stalk more effectively next time.
I have reported the some of the activity in this thread and hope this will help return the thread to normal.
Then you Post the info you consider wrong and PM the poster that got attacked that the info given was wrong and they should be carefull what they read from greenish type people.
I have been wrong before though.
You can post that you reported a post/thread as long as you don't post which post/poster it was i assumed would be OK. Post the post you did report would be baiting. It would be more like this.
Then you Post the info you consider wrong and PM the poster that got attacked that the info given was wrong and they should be carefull what they read from greenish type people.
I have been wrong before though.
Ahh. Hadn't thought of it that way. You may be right. Or wrong. I honestly have no idea. I was responding as though you meant to tell the person you reported that you did so. I don't see anything wrong with this method. But I'm of no importance here.
qft.
The pro 4e for the most part simply cannot take criticism of "their" edition. I use the word their because they have taken an extreme and unhealthy emotional attachment to it. It is so serious that you can immediately gain vast amounts of credibility by saying that it's the best edition ever while the contrary will get your post reported. There are a few token exceptions that occur rarely, but for the most part that's the way it goes down.
Is this a rational approach to a discussion that avoids attacking posters?
No. First of all, it doesn't avoid attacking posters at all; it blatantly makes a point to attack posters. Not even specific individuals, but 4e players on the whole. You've not just slapped the pro-4e posters on these boards but all 4e players across the world.
Why? You make the unevidenced claim that 4e players have an unhealthy emotional attachment to 4th edition. You have not provided any studies that prove this, nor have you proven that you personally have the credentials to perform such psychological evaluations. No, it's simply an attack. If it were a rational attempt at discussion you'd have proven your credentials to make psychological evaluations as such and/or posted links to studies which show your claim to be true.
You've done neither. So your "argument" is not rational as you claim, and actually falls prey to the following logical fallacies:
- anecdotal evidence.
- hasty generalization.
- poisoning the well.
- straw man.
- ad hominem.
- irrelevant conclusion.
And this is just what immediately jumps out at me. And what was the point in your post other than to disparage people who happen to enjoy playing 4e? I can't seem to find one, so your claim that you just want rational arguments and don't want to attack individuals doesn't seem to hold water. In fact it comes off as an excuse to disparage those who play an edition that you happen not to like and then turn around and play "victim" when you're called out on your irrelevant ad hominems.
Now, I'm sure you'll accuse me of being a 4e avenger for disagreeing with you, because that seems to be the M.O. with all of you avengers (yes, you are an "avenger"): accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being an avenger for the "other" edition.
You're right on one thing, "clayface," you do do a lot of damage. You do a lot of damage shooting yourself in the foot.
:D I think a few of the 4vengers will object quite strongly to being lumped together with (names withheld) under the same label...
I see your point, but I'm really just using the word "avenger" the way anti-avengers are using it, which isn't the same way the Avengers (with a capital A) are using it.
There seem to be two different definitions of "avenger" floating around, and I'm using the trolls' definition of avenger to show them that they fall under their own definition of the term-- just for a different edition.
I don't think all the capital-A Avengers are lower-case "a" avengers, but I do think that the vast majority of those who use the term "avenger" to disparage pro-4e posters (and ironically, not just to disparage those who call themselves Avengers but pro-4e posters as a whole) are themselves "avengers."
It is funny that we are talking about this why it is happening on this thread.
Nah, it's just the new trend. Trolls got tired of posting in General so they jump into threads here in order to disrupt discussions meant to help the entire community by dealing with them. It's fun for them and also an attempt at self-preservation. It certainly is sad that this behavior is par for the course nowdays, though.
I see your point, but I'm really just using the word "avenger" the way anti-avengers are using it, which isn't the same way the Avengers (with a capital A) are using it.
There seem to be two different definitions of "avenger" floating around, and I'm using the trolls' definition of avenger to show them that they fall under their own definition of the term-- just for a different edition.
I don't think all the capital-A Avengers are lower-case "a" avengers, but I do think that the vast majority of those who use the term "avenger" to disparage pro-4e posters (and ironically, not just to disparage those who call themselves Avengers but pro-4e posters as a whole) are themselves "avengers."
Eh, I knew. I was just kidding. No need to justify yourself
.The problem is anyone who criticizes 4E at all, is treated as a troll by the pro 4E posters.
From what I've seen, it's not "anyone who criticizes 4th Edition," it's "anyone who criticizes 4th Edition in a manner that comes across as insulting to the people who disagree."
Many of the critical threads about 4E are just people giving their honest opinion.
Again, there is a difference between an "honest opinion" of "I don't like this game," and an "honest opinion" of "This is stupid, because X Y and Z are stupid." One of them is perfectly acceptable. The other, no matter what it is directed at should not be acceptable.
At best, it's disruptive. At worst it's obviously intended to spark controversy.
There is a hall monitor mentality among the pro 4ers that is highly grating. And it is the reason I rarely, if ever, post in the general forum any longer.
I think this is an issue - it's the "poor reactions" problem. Better moderation and more people actually reporting posts could solve it.
It is funny that we are talking about this why it is happening on this thread.
We aren't "fighting." And this certainly doesn't have anything to do with the edition wars directly.
Clink made the claim that he's here for rational debate. Well, I've been in plenty of actual rational debates, and my rational point of contention in our debate is that his claim is inaccurate.
I assure everyone that if Clink honestly desires a rational debate, he's inadvertently (and perhaps unknowingly) picked a great opponent.
It is funny that we are talking about this why it is happening on this thread.
Then why aren't I laughing?
Then why aren't I laughing?
I didn't even see that I miss spelled that till your post. I meant "while"
not "why". Sorry people I fixed it.
Eh, I knew. I was just kidding. No need to justify yourself
Even so, best that there's no confusion with anyone, not just yourself.
From what I've seen, it's not "anyone who criticizes 4th Edition," it's "anyone who criticizes 4th Edition in a manner that comes across as insulting to the people who disagree."
The real irony with Spike is that, in his case, it's "anyone who doesn't criticize 4th edition." That's exactly what happened to me my first time in General Discussion; I didn't show any pro-4e sentiment or any anti-4e sentiment, and because I wasn't anti-4e, SpearSpike jumped all over me.
I still don't get it.
People are allowed to debate. Throwing comments back and forth that have almost nothing to do with the subject and more to do with not liking the way they debate is not dabate. (most of the time Off topic) I will not post back to people who continue posting that way. Sorry.
But is this what you're accusing Clink and I of doing? Because I don't think it is.
And if you are accusing us of this, doesn't that mean you are debating that you don't like the way we debate, and thereby contradicting your own statement?
It's fine to disagree with us or what we're doing but if you honestly think that we're being out of line or inappropriate, could you just report our posts? I'm not trying to come off as "mean" or "harsh" (honestly), but it's just that I think you'd be better served that way instead of publically telling me that my debate tactics are "wrong," unless you're actually willing to debate me, which you don't seem to want to do.
I always thought it was do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Not that every pro 4e person acts mean to anti 4e posters. But the view on here now seems that if someone has a bad view of 4e they must be a greenish person. Whether you are one of the ones that do it or not is not the point. The point is posters that do have problems with 4e can't hardly get the help and understanding they need without fear of some pro 4e posters and anti 4e posters flaming the thread/s.
If you think that someone is being greenish wouldn't it be better to PM the poster first on the problems you see in their posting, nicely in a helpful way, then decide from the respose whether they should be reported or if they just got carried away with the argument. Never judge a book by its cover so to spoke.
My post was about all posters that have REAL problems with 4e. I didn't post anything on just new people. If you don't mind bold the lines that you read the new posters from and I'll try to fix it. thanks.
You are saying pro-4e people assume that anyone who doesn't like 4e is green. green=new Unless you mean physically ill and about to throw up, but that makes even less sense. Those are the only two ways I have every heard about green people, either sick or new at something.
No, I think he means green = troll, Kistra.
AAAHHH, I get it now. "Greenish person" as in "troll." HAHAHAHA. I honestly thought he meant "newbie" as well!
Should have added "that lives under a bridge." :P ;)
You are saying pro-4e people assume that anyone who doesn't like 4e is green. green=new Unless you mean physically ill and about to throw up, but that makes even less sense. Those are the only two ways I have every heard about green people, either sick or new at something.
Green means a trolls color. Not the green people as new. I need to put that on my sig.
Green means a trolls color. Not the green people as new. I need to put that on my sig.
Your post makes a lot more sense now.
I still disagree, people who post disliking 4e without hitting on the common "troll points" (WOW, videogames and bad spelling all in the same post) seem to do just fine. IMO
The real irony with Spike is that, in his case, it's "anyone who doesn't criticize 4th edition." That's exactly what happened to me my first time in General Discussion; I didn't show any pro-4e sentiment or any anti-4e sentiment, and because I wasn't anti-4e, SpearSpike jumped all over me.
.
Could you post a link so I can know what post you are referring to. As far as I remember I haven't jumped on anyone for not being anti 4e. I have jumped on people who have attacked 4E critics, attacked me, or made hostile posts. I don't care if people are not against 4E. What gets me mad is people telling the critics they should be quiet.
The people we need to be slamming (and mercilessly) is CS
Just a reminder Webster is a second account that is a VCL, for an existing WizO, aka member of CS.
Could you post a link so I can know what post you are referring to. As far as I remember I haven't jumped on anyone for not being anti 4e. I have jumped on people who have attacked 4E critics, attacked me, or made hostile posts. I don't care if people are not against 4E. What gets me mad is people telling the critics they should be quiet.
Okay, I'll look for it. We should really continue this conversation via PMs and I'll do just that when I can provide a link.
My real point is that you should observe your own behavior before you accuse others of baiting, flaming, etc. But as I said we'll continue this via PM.
Then Webster will delete the poor treatment as well.
No he/she will close a thread and call the creator a troll after people have come in to derail the thread, rather than clean it up, then create a thread to gain praise for getting rid of of a thread that does not show WotC/4th in the best light possible.
Evidence: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1084615
Okay, I'll look for it. We should really continue this conversation via PMs and I'll do just that when I can provide a link.
My real point is that you should observe your own behavior before you accuse others of baiting, flaming, etc. But as I said we'll continue this via PM.
I have admitted that my behavior in the past has been poor. I just wanted to clarify what I would normally have reacted to. Simply being not anti 4e shouldn't have elicited that kind of response from me unless 1) I misunderstood your position B) something else lead up to my reaction.
Note: I have found that the ones that just don't like the new system is them bad types from 3.5 that used the rules to gain unfair bonuses over other players. The new rules seems to be trying to word it so as to take this away from the edition.
Sorry, never played 3rd, and I "just don't like the new system". Also, I don't like powergamers, or rules lawyers.
Generalizations are things that all should be careful with.
Which do you play?
Me?No he/she will close a thread and call the creator a troll after people have come in to derail the thread, rather than clean it up, then create a thread to gain praise for getting rid of of a thread that does not show WotC/4th in the best light possible.
Evidence: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1084615
So, given the evidence you provided... could you quote me someplace in that thread where Webbie (who is a he, by the way) called anybody a troll? I failed my Search check and couldn't find it.
So, given the evidence you provided... could you quote me someplace in that thread where Webbie (who is a he, by the way) called anybody a troll? I failed my Search check and couldn't find it.
That thread was the thread for the purpose of baiting as made in the other thread.
Doesn't matter as Hutt strikes again. No point even looking in either thread as any relevant content will have been removed before I could even post the links.
Serious question hellmute - Do you know what baiting is??
Definition I have been given around here is "elicit a negative response", which as I stated anywhere would amount to just about anything posted by any one has that potential.
Doesn't matter as Hutt strikes again. No point even looking in either thread as any relevant content will have been removed before I could even post the links.
Your paranoia is amusing...
1bait
Pronunciation: \ˈbāt\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse beita; akin to Old English bǣtan to bait, bītan to bite — more at bite
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1 a: to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks b: tease
2 a: to harass (as a chained animal) with dogs usually for sport b: to attack by biting and tearing
3 a: to furnish with bait b: entice, lure
4: to give food and drink to (an animal) especially on the road
intransitive verb
archaic : to stop for food and rest when traveling
— bait·er noun
synonyms bait, badger, heckle, hector, chivy, hound mean to harass by efforts to break down. bait implies wanton cruelty or delight in persecuting a helpless victim . badger implies pestering so as to drive a person to confusion or frenzy . heckle implies persistent annoying or belligerent interruptions of a speaker . hector carries an implication of bullying and domineering . chivy suggests persecution by teasing or nagging . hound implies unrelenting pursuit and harassing .
I believe, on here, it is 1.
Definition I have been given around here is "elicit a negative response", which as I stated anywhere would amount to just about anything posted by any one has that potential.
You only have it partially right. Baiting, when used in the context of an internet forum, goes beyond "eliciting a negative response". A quick Google search brings up the following definition from Wikipedia
Baiting
[indent]On Internet forums, baiting is sometimes used in attempts to empty forums or reduce a forum's usage. This type of baiting is usually done to make the atmosphere of a forum appear unpleasant or to make forum owners, moderators and long-time users look foolish. A person using this kind of baiting may post comments to elicit rude responses from prominent members of a forum, thus making the responding member or members appear as trolls or flamers to bystanders. As a result, forum users in general may become disgusted and leave the forum.[/indent]
You could have saved it. When it was posted.
I am not saving every post I make because some WizO has a personal vendetta against me to slander me or otherwise twist my words into becoming some violation of the CoC for an excsue to ban me.
Your paranoia is amusing...
That's... not how I'd describe it.
I'd go with obnoxious.
But that's just me.
The way you hear some people talk, there's a Wizo assigned to each person with... shall we say a history? And that Wizo apparently only makes edits and deletions to make that persona's life difficult.
The way my posts are edited seems to only be done by WizO_the_Hutt.
Coincedence?
Check my last month of so post yourself to find out for yourself.
I am not saving every post I make because some WizO has a personal vendetta against me to slander me or otherwise twist my words into becoming some violation of the CoC for an excsue to ban me.
I was refering to the WizO post that was offensive. You can also take a snap of the post and then send the post it self to CS. Or I'm told.
[indent]All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.[/indent]
More likely is that your posting times happen to overlap with WizO_the_Hutt's work schedule, thus, the posts that you make that violate the CoC and end up being reported end up in his inbasket.
The way you hear some people talk, there's a Wizo assigned to each person with... shall we say a history? And that Wizo apparently only makes edits and deletions to make that persona's life difficult.
Heh, I wish.
Note:You might want to just call the person "The WizO". Or some other general terms. Call and talking about the Person is counted I believe as personal attacks. Just FYI.
Maybe someone else has a problem with you and is reporting you when he is on watch. If someone was out to get you it would more likely be greenish person getting kicks off getting you in trouble. I have seen this a few times. they pick a fight until you go over board then report you when you do. Or search for your posts under search or something.
Note:You might want to just call the person "The WizO". Or some other general terms. Call and talking about the Person is counted I believe as personal attacks. Just FYI.
"The person" has been identified by the very posts I try to reference, as I do not further edit them, and the vBulletin edit line is intact for all to see, so no reason to try to hide the name when it is clear in the boards themselves during my posts, and also when one tries to search my posts, they will see it anyway.
I don't doubt there are users that follow me and some other people around trying to start something, but moderation sees fit not to prevent that group from starting things, and allows them to continue even after posts have been reported, such as Yawgmoth here made a "warning" but did not edit or remove any posts.
While in other threads you would see posts removed from those on the other side of the fence.
There IS a double standard around here.
Yawgmoth, mostly, just gives warnings to an entire thread rather than destroy its content unless it is vehemently bad stuff. Don't know if that is because there are several levels of WizO's that must follow different rules for doing things, or just some WizO's choose to handle things differently as there is NO set course of action for things, which allows some WizO's to act in a strange and possibly detrimental behavior that borders on a COI where personal bias gets in the way of moderation duties....maybe some WizO's just have good faith approach to users while others take every action under the bad faith approach?
We will never know either way, and only be left with speculation.
Only CS seem to know what the CoC means, and how to interpret it and what course of action to take on a WizO by WizO basis.
Ergo the forums have no RAW, but only a RAI to put it into game terms lots of people seem to like.
Only CS seem to know what the CoC means, and how to interpret it
Given that I've been here for seven years and have been in plenty of disagreements without ever getting a warning, I think it's safe to say that I understand the CoC well enough to follow it and be a productive member of the community.
There IS a double standard around here.
Yes, yes there is.
Polite posters (or just not offensive posters) have their posts left alone.
Posters who break the CoC have their posts modified or deleted.
Yawgmoth, mostly, just gives warnings to an entire thread rather than destroy its content unless it is vehemently bad stuff.
You'll excuse me for this one, but... Yawgmoth usually comes across as lazy to me - or maybe just ineffective.
or just some WizO's choose to handle things differently as there is NO set course of action for things
This seems to be a major problem. Some Wizo's moderate, and some just dish out blanket warnings that don't seem to do any good.
Yes, yes there is.
Polite posters (or just not offensive posters) have their posts left alone.
Posters who break the CoC have their posts modified or deleted.
You'll excuse me for this one, but... Yawgmoth usually comes across as lazy to me - or maybe just ineffective.
This seems to be a major problem. Some Wizo's moderate, and some just dish out blanket warnings that don't seem to do any good.
Please look up the term "double standard".
When you have some idea of what it means, then come back and we can discuss what we think is different about our individual definitions, or understandings of them.
What you described is NOT a double standard, but a binary response.
Please look up the term "double standard".
When you have some idea of what it means, then come back and we can discuss what we think is different about our individual definitions, or understandings of them.
What you described is NOT a double standard, but a binary response.
Look, your post is an example of what we should be avoiding on the forums - it's an example of the exact tone I have been discussing. The kind of condescending / insulting tone that should have no place on these forums.
And as for "double standard", here's what I get from Wiki:
A double standard refers to one class of entities being treated differently from another class of entities, and implies an unfair or unjustified differentiation.
You seem to be saying "Some posters are unfairly being treated differently than other posters." I was pointing out that there is a reason for this - one group of posters is not violating the CoC.
This business has been most unpleasant. I am affraid to post in many of the forums here, because I fear being attacked by people on both sides. It is like being caught in the middle of a partisan slogging contest.
That's basically the trolls' aim: to kill the forum atmosphere, and thereby the forums themselves. I like posting here. I am a constructive member of the forums, and have been for years. I am not in any kind of mood to let anyone intentionally damage the forum atmosphere here. Hell no. I'll do whatever I have to do to make these forums as constructive and enjoyable a place to post in as I can, but I also am not going to let misinformation sowing, posting of twisted half-truths, baiting, and blind bashing go unopposed. I wish I could just wave a magic wand and fix this, but I live in the real world, and there is no easy solution. We have to work together, community and board admins, to make this place the type of community that it used to be.
Definition I have been given around here is "elicit a negative response", which as I stated anywhere would amount to just about anything posted by any one has that potential.
I think you've got something here. What if you post something about 4e that says you don't like it, but you aren't posting anything negative about a person in general. If that gets reported and removed, is it right? I mean, you have a right to your views, and it is on topic as it's a general discussion about 4e. I do recall reading about a post from a moderator that said you can have your opinions as long as you don't insult posters. So if I said that 4e sucks and got moderated for it I think that there would be a problem.
EDIT: In fact... someone said it here and a mod said it was okay here.
The reason I ask is because I responded to the post he had on page 12 (as you can see when you scroll down the page) and yet my own post wasn't removed. I just want to know what the reasoning was so that I can learn what is and isn't acceptable for a post, myself. It's particularly confusing considering the post that was deleted, and I don't want to cross any lines on these forums.
Should I have started a new thread for this? Sorry, I'm not terribly certain how to do this or who to ask. And this really is an honest question, not some kind of "mod flamebait." Promise!
I think you've got something here. What if you post something about 4e that says you don't like it, but you aren't posting anything negative about a person in general. If that gets reported and removed, is it right? I mean, you have a right to your views, and it is on topic as it's a general discussion about 4e. I do recall reading about a post from a moderator that said you can have your opinions as long as you don't insult posters. So if I said that 4e sucks and got moderated for it I think that there would be a problem.
It's not quite as simple as that. You also have to look at the context of the post.
If the thread is discussing what people like about 4E with respect to how it encourages RP, and someone posts "4E deliberately removes any sense of RP in a game and is simply a computer game on paper", that is considered threadcrapping, and is considered disrupting the forums.
That's basically the trolls' aim: to kill the forum atmosphere, and thereby the forums themselves. I like posting here. I am a constructive member of the forums, and have been for years. I am not in any kind of mood to let anyone intentionally damage the forum atmosphere here. Hell no. I'll do whatever I have to do to make these forums as constructive and enjoyable a place to post in as I can, but I also am not going to let misinformation sowing, posting of twisted half-truths, baiting, and blind bashing go unopposed. I wish I could just wave a magic wand and fix this, but I live in the real world, and there is no easy solution. We have to work together, community and board admins, to make this place the type of community that it used to be.
But by reacting so aggressively you are contributing to the heated atmosphere. Just understand many of us in the middle get caught in the cross fire between both sides.
Which is why CS should actually be stepping in and doing something about the instigators.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. What I see is instigators on both sides. Sometimes it appears there is more heat coming from the anti 4th edition people, sometimes more is coming from the pro 4th edition people. Both sides justify their own negative behavior by pointing to the other, and saying if the mods stepped in they wouldn't be reacting this way. For those of us who really are in the middle, and don't care what edition other people are playing, it is difficult to have a polite conversation without one of the two sides slamming down on you like a bag of bricks. At this point, I have no sympathy for either side, and believe that both groups of posters are acting like children. It is possible for people to disagree and be pleasant with one another. Yet neither side is willing to let any percieved slight or disagreement slide without a full and beligerant rebuttal. This is unfortunate, because we are all gamers, and we all come here to talk about our favorite hobby. My rant is complete, but let me just pass on this one final suggestion: Always post in a manner that is respectful of the other side, and doesn't make assumptions about their intent. We all have opinions. We can disagree. But when disagreements arise, recognize the other posters' right to have an opinion that is different from your own. And don't feel the need to embarrass someone just because their opinion is a product of misunderstanding or a different interpretation of the the rules than you have. This is a place for us to come together, enjoy one another's differences, and celebrate our game. Let us not behave as though we are brutes.
Lastly to Vaalingrade. While I used your post as a springboard to vent my frustration, I just want you to know that I have always found your replies well thought out and respectful. Keep up the good work.
For those of us who really are in the middle, and don't care what edition other people are playing
Do you think I care what edition other people are playing? What, do you think I come here to push some pro-4e agenda on people? No, not at all. I still play 3e, as a matter of fact. I answered the same lies and half-truths about 3e when this was a 3e board. But never, never in the years I have been here have I seen a deliberate campaign taken up by certain people, twisting the CoC and using whatever dirty, underhanded tricks and lies they can in an attempt to reduce the palatability of these forums.
I'll say it again: I don't come here to trollhunt. The trolls come to me and ruin threads that I am interested in.
Always post in a manner that is respectful of the other side, and doesn't make assumptions about their intent. We all have opinions. We can disagree. But when disagreements arise, recognize the other posters' right to have an opinion that is different from your own. And don't feel the need to embarrass someone just because their opinion is a product of misunderstanding or a different interpretation of the the rules than you have. This is a place for us to come together, enjoy one another's differences, and celebrate our game. Let us not behave as though we are brutes.
I have no respect for trolls. I do not, I repeat do not, assume that anyone with an anti-4e opinion is a troll. The 4e basher trolls are simply a small subset of the anti-4e poster in general.
Do you think I care what edition other people are playing? What, do you think I come here to push some pro-4e agenda on people? No, not at all. I still play 3e, as a matter of fact. I answered the same lies and half-truths about 3e when this was a 3e board. But never, never in the years I have been here have I seen a deliberate campaign taken up by certain people, twisting the CoC and using whatever dirty, underhanded tricks and lies they can in an attempt to reduce the palatability of these forums..
Again, I see this happening on both sides, and my criticism is not limited to the pro 4th edition people. All I am saying is that both sides should control their own behavior and point to the other as an excuse for being rude or disrepesctful.
I'll say it again: I don't come here to trollhunt. The trolls come to me and ruin threads that I am interested in..
This is the kind of attitude on both sides that is making the forums unpleasant. Regardless of what is occurring, you should treat all posters respectfully, and anyone who violates the CoC, you can report. But don't take it upon yourself to attack perceived trolls. I have been accused of being a troll and a sock puppet by other posters here, and I find it highly insulting. Especially since the poster I was accused of being a sock puppet of is guilty of blatant CoC violations and routinely posts images of scantily clad women. This is because people make assumptions that just are not true. In your zeal to get rid of trolls, many polite and respectful posters get cought in the cross fire. By the same token, people on the anti 4th edition side attack us because they think are calls to moderation are arguments against 3rd edition somehow. This has all gotten really out of hand. Both sides should step back and evaluate their own behavior.
I have no respect for trolls. I do not, I repeat do not, assume that anyone with an anti-4e opinion is a troll. The 4e basher trolls are simply a small subset of the anti-4e poster in general.
You do not have to have respect for trolls, but you must post respectfully even when dealing with them. In some instances you could be mistaking normal posters for trolls. Even if you are dealing with a troll, you are not entitled to violate the CoC just because they happen to be one.
Again, I see this happening on both sides, and my criticism is not limited to the pro 4th edition people. All I am saying is that both sides should control their own behavior and point to the other as an excuse for being rude or disrepesctful.
The only place that I have been rude or disrespectful to the trolls is here in the CB forum, and even here, I have not called out any specific poster as a troll. Normally, I just correct whatever lies and half-truths they are attempting to disseminate.
This is the kind of attitude on both sides that is making the forums unpleasant. Regardless of what is occurring, you should treat all posters respectfully, and anyone who violates the CoC, you can report. But don't take it upon yourself to attack perceived trolls.
I don't attack perceived trolls. I attack their ideas, which is what we are supposed to be doing.
I have been accused of being a troll and a sock puppet by other posters here, and I find it highly insulting.
I personally have never accused you of anything like that.
Especially since the poster I was accused of being a sock puppet of is guilty of blatant CoC violations and routinely posts images of scantily clad women.
Link?
This is because people make assumptions that just are not true.
Such as?
In your zeal to get rid of trolls, many polite and respectful posters get cought in the cross fire.
In the trolls zeal to troll, innocent posters get caught up with misinformation and negativity. It's lose-lose on both sides. The only solution is to get rid of the trolls.
By the same token, people on the anti 4th edition side attack us because they think are calls to moderation are arguments against 3rd edition somehow.
I'm sorry that you suffer such attacks,
This has all gotten really out of hand.
Agreed.
Both sides should step back and evaluate their own behavior.
I can't step back. I come here to post about D&D. I'm not going to leave the boards just because some trolls want to ruin my forums.
You do not have to have respect for trolls
Damn straight I don't.
, but you must post respectfully even when dealing with them.
I do. I am as polite as I can be when dealing with the trolls in the other forums. This is my first time airing my views so vehemently.
In some instances you could be mistaking normal posters for trolls.
No, I am very careful not to do that. Also, since I do not bait or troll the trolls in return, but merely correct their lies, even if I did mistake a normal poster for a troll, it wouldn't change my posting habits one bit. It would merely change my mental image of that poster, which at a later date when they dispelled my incorrect notion that they were a troll, would change to considering them not a troll.
Even if you are dealing with a troll, you are not entitled to violate the CoC just because they happen to be one.
I do not violate the CoC to deal with trolls. I think I have been warned perhaps once in all the years I've been here, for posting a picture that I didn't realize was inappropriate.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. What I see is instigators on both sides. Sometimes it appears there is more heat coming from the anti 4th edition people, sometimes more is coming from the pro 4th edition people. Both sides justify their own negative behavior by pointing to the other, and saying if the mods stepped in they wouldn't be reacting this way. For those of us who really are in the middle, and don't care what edition other people are playing, it is difficult to have a polite conversation without one of the two sides slamming down on you like a bag of bricks. At this point, I have no sympathy for either side, and believe that both groups of posters are acting like children. It is possible for people to disagree and be pleasant with one another. Yet neither side is willing to let any perceived slight or disagreement slide without a full and belligerent rebuttal. This is unfortunate, because we are all gamers, and we all come here to talk about our favorite hobby. My rant is complete, but let me just pass on this one final suggestion: Always post in a manner that is respectful of the other side, and doesn't make assumptions about their intent. We all have opinions. We can disagree. But when disagreements arise, recognize the other posters' right to have an opinion that is different from your own. And don't feel the need to embarrass someone just because their opinion is a product of misunderstanding or a different interpretation of the the rules than you have. This is a place for us to come together, enjoy one another's differences, and celebrate our game. Let us not behave as though we are brutes.
Lastly to Vaalingrade. While I used your post as a springboard to vent my frustration, I just want you to know that I have always found your replies well thought out and respectful. Keep up the good work.
I actually think the mods are doing a good job as it is though.
This is the kind of attitude on both sides that is making the forums unpleasant. Regardless of what is occurring, you should treat all posters respectfully, and anyone who violates the CoC, you can report. But don't take it upon yourself to attack perceived trolls. I have been accused of being a troll and a sock puppet by other posters here, and I find it highly insulting. Especially since the poster I was accused of being a sock puppet of is guilty of blatant CoC violations and routinely posts images of scantily clad women. This is because people make assumptions that just are not true. In your zeal to get rid of trolls, many polite and respectful posters get cought in the cross fire. By the same token, people on the anti 4th edition side attack us because they think are calls to moderation are arguments against 3rd edition somehow. This has all gotten really out of hand. Both sides should step back and evaluate their own behavior.
He can't link to the accusations, they were all deleted. I did see them, I did not make any of the accusations.
I find it highly ironic that you are complaining about being called a sockpuppet though. The reason that you got accused of being a sockpuppet is because on the second day of your account existing you accused me of being a sock puppet of batshido and that was something that the poster you were accused of being a sock-puppet for did on a daily basis.
He can't link to the accusations, they were all deleted. I did see them, I did not make any of the accusations.
I find it highly ironic that you are complaining about being called a sockpuppet though. The reason that you got accused of being a sockpuppet is because on the second day of your account existing you accused me of being a sock puppet of batshido and that was something that the poster you were accused of being a sock-puppet for did on a daily basis.
You will have to forgive me if I read some of that posters' threads the first day of my account and found his arguments compelling...at first. I was convinced by his posts on the subject, and the fact that we agreed on a key issue in the off topic forum gave me reason to think we were on the same wave length. Looking at the sigs of the people in question caused me to assume he was correct that you were sock puppets. Something I shouldn't have assumed. I was ambarrassed, and proved wrong after I interacted with you and Batshido on the off topic abortion debate. It was obvious to me that your posting styles were different, and your sincerity genuine. But this shows the danger of the attitude that plagues the forum. I unkowingly stepped into a war zone, and because of perceived similiarities between me and another poster, I was assumed to be a sock puppet. I think a fair number of people still think me one. My repuation has been soured because of this, and made me consider opening a different account.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. What I see is instigators on both sides.
And CS should be dealing with it.
In the end, this entire situation comes back to CS for being completely inept at the running of the forum. If they actually used policies that identified and communicated problems when they happened (instead of the cloak and dagger crap they do where they issue a vague public warn and then send a PM) and then instituted actual system of consequences (instead of letting smurfs come back instantly and talk about how great it is to be allowed to smurf after a ban), back when C&C was on fire we wouldn't have this going on now.
People know they can get away with it. They can cross the line a dozen times because there is no real line as long as you don't care what your SN is. And just like the Wild West, even the good guys resort to shooting instead of talking. Because the lawman keeps showing himself to be yella.
What I see is instigators on both sides.
And my response is... "So what?" Bad behavior should not be tolerated regardless of what the position in question is. The effort to create equivocation seems pointless to me. It doesn't matter if 99% of one side behaves badly and only 1 person on the other behaves badly or vice versa. Bad behavior should be punished.
And my response is... "So what?" Bad behavior should not be tolerated regardless of what the position in question is. The effort to create equivocation seems pointless to me. It doesn't matter if 99% of one side behaves badly and only 1 person on the other behaves badly or vice versa. Bad behavior should be punished.
I happen to agree with you. What I am objecting to is people behaving badly because they say the other side is. As someone who has been caught in the cross fire I believe both sides are at fault. And everyone should be in control of their own behavior and stop blaming the other side. We all learned this basic principle when we were children: two wrongs do not make a right.
People know they can get away with it. They can cross the line a dozen times because there is no real line as long as you don't care what your SN is. And just like the Wild West, even the good guys resort to shooting instead of talking. Because the lawman keeps showing himself to be yella.
I agree with all you say. But I think once people start shooting, they are no longer good guys. This is the problem I see. People still blaming one side, when both are clearly at fault. The CoC must be enforced. And people must take responsibility for their own actions. Stop using other people as an excuse to misbehave.
What I am objecting to is people behaving badly because they say the other side is.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that they're getting drawn into behaving badly because the mods allow it. THey let their emotions get the better of them.
That's human. They should get modded, but they don't. When you live in anarchy, you tend to act like an anarchist.
That's a reason, not an excuse and not a justification.
And everyone should be in control of their own behavior
Behavior moderation doesn't work that way. When we were children learning two wrongs don't make a right, we got the message because there was an authority figure who enforced the rules, be it a teacher or parent/guardian.
When bad behavior is rewarded, bad behavior will increase. There is only one cure for bad behavior: active moderation. That's simply not something that the members can do themselves.
Yes, we should all follow the CoC voluntarily. But even if everybody on the Community Business Board never acted poorly, the boards would still be a mess because we're a tiny portion of the community, which are made up of human beings, not angels.
No solution can be found for this problem that requires every member to voluntarily comply with the CoC. That's not realistic.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that they're getting drawn into behaving badly because the mods allow it. THey let their emotions get the better of them.
That's human. They should get modded, but they don't. When you live in anarchy, you tend to act like an anarchist.
That's a reason, not an excuse and not a justification.
Behavior moderation doesn't work that way. When we were children learning two wrongs don't make a right, we got the message because there was an authority figure who enforced the rules, be it a teacher or parent/guardian.
When bad behavior is rewarded, bad behavior will increase. There is only one cure for bad behavior: active moderation. That's simply not something that the members can do themselves.
Yes, we should all follow the CoC voluntarily. But even if everybody on the Community Business Board never acted poorly, the boards would still be a mess because we're a tiny portion of the community, which are made up of human beings, not angels.
No solution can be found for this problem that requires every member to voluntarily comply with the CoC. That's not realistic.
We are all still in control of our own actions. Even if some people are acting crazy here, and I agree they should be modded, we can ignore them or respond politely and report them. Just because there is a lack of authority on the boards, that doesn't entititle us to treat other posters badly.
What I am saying is, once you engage in behavior that violates the CoC, you lose your right to comlplain, because you are now part of the problem.
I happen to agree with you. What I am objecting to is people behaving badly because they say the other side is. As someone who has been caught in the cross fire I believe both sides are at fault. And everyone should be in control of their own behavior and stop blaming the other side. We all learned this basic principle when we were children: two wrongs do not make a right.
The problem here is that some of the stuff that is done is not necessarily bad behavior (hence it doesn't get you banned), but people still take offense at it. See, if you express your opinion and someone doesn't like it, as long as it's on topic there really shouldn't be an issue, but others may still find a reason to take offense at it. So I say, let the mods determine what is and isn't offensive because they are usually more objective about these things.
What I am saying is, once you engage in behavior that violates the CoC, you lose your right to comlplain, because you are now part of the problem.
I disagree with that. Just because you might err and act badly does not mean you are barred from asking that the CoC be enforced more strictly. I don't even understand how such a position could ever make sense. Shouldn't we want people to ask for the CoC to be enforced, even it means it is enforced against themselves?
I disagree with that. Just because you might err and act badly does not mean you are barred from asking that the CoC be enforced more strictly. I don't even understand how such a position could ever make sense. Shouldn't we want people to ask for the CoC to be enforced, even it means it is enforced against themselves?
My point is this. If you erring and behaving badly is hurting the posters who are making every effort we can not to violate the CoC. I have not picked sides on this issue because I like both editions. But I have been attacked by both sides because of my neutrality and my call for both camps to take it easy. I honestly feel that those of us who have remained in control, should have our voices heard by the mods before those who have lashed out and attacked other posters (on both sides).
The problem here is that some of the stuff that is done is not necessarily bad behavior (hence it doesn't get you banned), but people still take offense at it. See, if you express your opinion and someone doesn't like it, as long as it's on topic there really shouldn't be an issue, but others may still find a reason to take offense at it. So I say, let the mods determine what is and isn't offensive because they are usually more objective about these things.
In this instance I agree. Many people on both sides of the debate are too quick to accuse the other of doing wrong. But if you are going to respond to someone's post, you need to be polite, and not belittle the person or their ideas in the process. I just see too much of that on both sides. Remember people, we are talking about a game, not politics or religion here. It shouldn't be that hard for a multiplicity of perspectives, or schools of thought, to exist in harmony here. All I see is both sides accusing the other of being wrong with cruel intent.
We are all still in control of our own actions. Even if some people are acting crazy here, and I agree they should be modded, we can ignore them or respond politely and report them. Just because there is a lack of authority on the boards, that doesn't entititle us to treat other posters badly.
What I am saying is, once you engage in behavior that violates the CoC, you lose your right to comlplain, because you are now part of the problem.
I honestly feel that those of us who have remained in control, should have our voices heard by the mods before those who have lashed out and attacked other posters (on both sides).
By this logic you lost your right to complain (at least before other people) on the second day you had an account. People occasionally make mistakes, that is part of life.
Are you really implying that no one who has ever made a mistake has good intentions? Or can have good suggestions for how to fix problems?
I honestly feel that those of us who have remained in control, should have our voices heard by the mods before those who have lashed out and attacked other posters (on both sides).
I think everybody's voices should be heard equally. The mods will take people's "ulterior motives" into account if their proposal would allow them to act badly while punishing others. But saying "My voice should count more because I've obeyed the rules better" (which is what your proposal urges) is fallacious.
Nobody's previous behavior prevents them from making suggestions to Customer Service. Even banned users can send suggestions to Customer Service form the main website.
I honestly feel that those of us who have remained in control, should have our voices heard by the mods before those who have lashed out and attacked other posters (on both sides).
But all you've used that voice to do, that I've seen is assign blame and speak of ideal conditions. I happen to think we're beyond the point here where ideals are any help. Action is needed. Administrative action.
Trolls are aggravating. That's the point of trolls; they're wrong headed children who work very, very hard to inspire negative reactions. And if our local trolls weren't good at it, this thread wouldn't exist. Saying you shouldn't react to it is like saying things shouldn't fall down. Sure, they can manage not to fall down, but the nature of gravity (much like the nature of trolls) tends to make it happen. You're not going to magically stop negative reactions to trolls.
But you can stop trolls. And that's what should be happening but isn't. One the WotC boards, trolls get hugs and a billion chances to continue.
It would save time if both sides would just PM the fights to each other.
While we're making unrealistic wishes, why not just wish that everybody behave? It has about as much chance of happening as everybody using PMs.
Just an excuse and nothing more.
Yes, it's an excuse. So what? Now we're discussing the consequences of the initial trolling.
Either way the solution's the same: punish bad behavior.
While we're making unrealistic wishes, why not just wish that everybody behave? It has about as much chance of happening as everybody using PMs.
Yes, it's an excuse. So what? Now we're discussing the consequences of the initial trolling.
Either way the solution's the same: punish bad behavior.
But you see, bad behavior depends on how the other person views it. If they are going out of their way to be offended, there isn't much you can do. However, if you make sure not to insult them as people and rather debate their argument or present your own opinions (not of them), there should be no problem.
But you see, bad behavior depends on how the other person views it.
No, it depends on baiting and inflammatory language, which CS is being too lenient on by posting general warnings, allowing the language to remain in the thread and not punishing persistent violators.
I'm not talking about posts that get reported and CS does nothing. I'm talking abotu posts where CS warns but doesn't delete, where people can repeatedly engage in the warned behavior and do not get warned, suspended or banned.
So the violation is already presumed in the recmmendation, and the reporting person's perception is not pertinent as CS has already agreed that a violation occurred.
The problem is the consequences of bad behavior, not the definition of bad behavior.
By this logic you lost your right to complain (at least before other people) on the second day you had an account. People occasionally make mistakes, that is part of life.
Are you really implying that no one who has ever made a mistake has good intentions? Or can have good suggestions for how to fix problems?
This isn't what I meant. I meant people on both sides who routinely engage in offensive behavior, no matter what the reason, are in violation of the CoC, and we shouldn't take them seriously when they complain. Their reports should be taken seriously by the mods. But those who are in the habit of attacking other posters, and those who lurk around here with a combative mindset, really don't have much credibility in my opinion. I just want to be left alone from either side. I do not think it is right that I should be attacked because there is an ongoing conflict on the forum. People should be respectful, polite and unoffensive at all times. Even if they think they are being attacked.
This isn't what I meant. I meant people on both sides who routinely engage in offensive behavior, no matter what the reason, are in violation of the CoC, and we shouldn't take them seriously when they complain. Their reports should be taken seriously by the mods. But those who are in the habit of attacking other posters, and those who lurk around here with a combative mindset, really don't have much credibility in my opinion. I just want to be left alone from either side. I do not think it is right that I should be attacked because there is an ongoing conflict on the forum. People should be respectful, polite and unoffensive at all times. Even if they think they are being attacked.
You do realize that other people ignoring/mods not deleting offensive posts was what got you attacked in the first place.
If all personal attacks had been deleted previously you wouldn't have been able to read a certain posters theories and attack me because of them.
You do realize that other people ignoring/mods not deleting offensive posts was what got you attacked in the first place.
If all personal attacks had been deleted previously you wouldn't have been able to read a certain posters theories and attack me because of them.
That would be passing the buck. I am responsible for how I reacted to the posters posts. It was my fault for being gullible and stupidly repeating what the poster had said. I accept that I should not have accused anyone of anything. And I should have received a warning or temp ban for my actions. But the posters who attacked me are in control of their own actions, and should not have assumed anything about me before they proceeded to attack. We cannot continue to blame other posters for making us do things. We choose what we do. No one here makes anyone do anything.
That would be passing the buck.
It's not passing the buck to expect CS to do their jobs and keep fire form spreading by removing the sparks.
It's not passing the buck to expect CS to do their jobs and keep fire form spreading by removing the sparks.
That isn't. But suggesting that other posters cause us to misbehave is. This is what Kirsta suggested when she said that the misunderstanding about me were caused by someone elses posts. I was the one who decided to act on them. It was my choice. I don't dispute that the mods should be cracking down on people. But don't use lack of authority as an excuse to misbehave. We are still in control of our own actions.
But suggesting that other posters cause us to misbehave is.
Only if they use it as an excuse rather than an explanation. You are looking for offense when none should be taken.
But don't use lack of authority as an excuse to misbehave.
Nobody's doing that. You're putting a gloss on other people's posts that is unneeded.
That isn't. But suggesting that other posters cause us to misbehave is. This is what Kirsta suggested when she said that the misunderstanding about me were caused by someone elses posts. I was the one who decided to act on them. It was my choice. I don't dispute that the mods should be cracking down on people. But don't use lack of authority as an excuse to misbehave. We are still in control of our own actions.
I did not say that anything was caused by another person's posts.
You are arguing that everything can be solved by people being more polite. I was pointing out that a different style of moderation could have prevented stuff.
I did not say that anything was caused by another person's posts.
You are arguing that everything can be solved by people being more polite. I was pointing out that a different style of moderation could have prevented stuff.
I don't think the problems can be solved by asking everyone to be polite. Moderators should step up and enforce the CoC. I just think that people reacting by being rude only contributes to the problem.
Only if they use it as an excuse rather than an explanation. You are looking for offense when none should be taken.
Nobody's doing that. You're putting a gloss on other people's posts that is unneeded.
I think people don't realize what they sound like because things have grown so volatile. I am simply trying to encourage people to follow the CoC, be polite, and not make excuses for their posting behavior. This doesn't mean that I am accusing all of the posters here of doing any of these things. But some are, and in the general forum, many others are. The most common excuse I see for such behavior (by both pro and anti 4th edition people) is "Hey they are making me do it". I will move on from here, as all I wanted to do was give my own feedback, not get entangled in a fight. It seems no matter where you post these days, you can't avoid getting into a lengthy argument.
This doesn't mean that I am accusing all of the posters here of doing any of these things. But some are, and in the general forum, many others are.
You specifically accused Kistra of doing it in post 441 and she wasn't doing it and she's now told you she wasn't doing it. Kistra didn't sound like she was trying to excuse behavior, only explain it. So when accusing people of "sounding like" they're trying to excuse bad behavior, you might want to consider that it may be a tin ear, not tin fingers. (Man, that's a mangled metaphor, but I think you understand what I mean.)
The most common excuse I see for such behavior (by both pro and anti 4th edition people) is "Hey they are making me do it".
I've never seen anybody use that as an excuse. Only an explanation.
You specifically accused Kistra of doing it and she wasn't doing it and she's now told you she wasn't doing it. Kistra didn't sound like she was trying to excuse behavior, only explain it. So when accusing people of "sounding like" they're trying to excuse bad behavior, you might want to consider that it may be a tin ear, not tin fingers. (Man, that's a mangled metaphor, but I think you understand what I mean.).
I've never seen anybody use that as an excuse. Only an explanation.
I am not trying to accuse anyone of doing anything. Nor am I picking sides in this silly debate. You want my position. Both sides are wrong and all parties involved should be banned for making this a very uncomfortable place to post.
But you need to realize how it sounds. And it has been used by some as an excuse. Many have even stated they would violate the CoC in the face of trolls.
Good day. Enjoy your online debate.
While we're making unrealistic wishes, why not just wish that everybody behave? It has about as much chance of happening as everybody using PMs.
Yes, it's an excuse. So what? Now we're discussing the consequences of the initial trolling.
Either way the solution's the same: punish bad behavior.
:lightbulbNo, it depends on baiting and inflammatory language, which CS is being too lenient on by posting general warnings, allowing the language to remain in the thread and not punishing persistent violators.
I'm not talking about posts that get reported and CS does nothing. I'm talking abotu posts where CS warns but doesn't delete, where people can repeatedly engage in the warned behavior and do not get warned, suspended or banned.
So the violation is already presumed in the recmmendation, and the reporting person's perception is not pertinent as CS has already agreed that a violation occurred.
The problem is the consequences of bad behavior, not the definition of bad behavior.
I saw an example of this just yesterday, Poster A accused Poster be of having the reading comprehension skills of a 10 year old (their words) so i reported it. The offensive post was not moderated of deleted (this was pretty much all the post said).. instead we got a "please keep you posts respectful warning".. that is pathetic.
I should have been deleted. It was allowed to stay with a wizo making a half assed attempt at a warning that was completely ignored.. like they always are.
2 problems
1:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)
2:
Wish is not in 4e.
Step2: Roleplay till you are able to gain ring of three wishes.
Step3: Wish that the wish and all items there in will be in 4E. And word it just right so the DM can't miss it up.
Step4:Roll a PC in 4e.
Step5: Roleplay till the character can get ring of three wish.
Step6: Wish for peace on the Wizards Community site. (luckly they will have fix the wish wording problem in the transfer to 4e. ;) So don't worry.)
Step1: Roll a PC in 3.5.
Step2: Roleplay till you are able to gain ring of three wishes.
Step3: Wish that the wish and all items there in will be in 4E. And word it just right so the DM can't miss it up.
Step4:Roll a PC in 4e.
Step5: Roleplay till the character can get ring of three wish.
Step6: Wish for peace on the Wizards Community site. (luckly they will have fix the wish wording problem in the transfer to 4e. ;) So don't worry.)
but... but... DM fiat... :evillaugh
(The DM can just say no to your wishes, thats another reason why it's dangerous, it can be a waste of 5k xp and that's dangerous)
Let's say that for no reason you can fathom, a poster, let's call him big_troll decided he was going to dedicate himself to being a pain in the ass for you on these boards.
He spends hours a day and countless posts harassing you. he stalks you in the PMs and essentially 90% of his posts are either specifically made to annoy or attack you and the other 5 are made to tell everyone how much he loves trolling you.
And this goes on for months. When you report him, you're LUCKY to see those posts get edited or deleted. Once in a lbue moon, he'll get one of those invisible temp bans where it's indistinguishable from him just not being around for a couple of days.
But wait! There's medium_smurf. He comes along and posts exactly the way big_troll does and takes up the mantle of harassment. Oh, wait, that's just big_troll using another account while his main's temped! He even tells you that himself. He references the fact constantly.
Still, you report and report and report and finally, after his fith or sixth temp, the big_troll account is gone... But medium_smurf is still making it a point to harass and annoy you. And watch out, because when he gets temped, small_mup is RIGHT THERE to continue in his stead.
And so it goes for months more. From small_mup to tiny_sock_puppet, to non_sequitor, to randomleterz, this guy is allowed to troll the crap out of you and harass you day after day while CS sits on thier thumbs and refuses to perm big_troll and any itterations thereof.
My question to you, sir is: how long until you, who has been entirely failed by the system, react to the guy who is making a concerted effort to ruin your forum experience? Or is the solution to pretend he doesn't exist? Or, just let the jerk win and leave?
Nicho, indulge me, if you will:
Let's say that for no reason you can fathom, a poster, let's call him big_troll decided he was going to dedicate himself to being a pain in the ass for you on these boards.
He spends hours a day and countless posts harassing you. he stalks you in the PMs and essentially 90% of his posts are either specifically made to annoy or attack you and the other 5 are made to tell everyone how much he loves trolling you.
And this goes on for months. When you report him, you're LUCKY to see those posts get edited or deleted. Once in a lbue moon, he'll get one of those invisible temp bans where it's indistinguishable from him just not being around for a couple of days.
But wait! There's medium_smurf. He comes along and posts exactly the way big_troll does and takes up the mantle of harassment. Oh, wait, that's just big_troll using another account while his main's temped! He even tells you that himself. He references the fact constantly.
Still, you report and report and report and finally, after his fith or sixth temp, the big_troll account is gone... But medium_smurf is still making it a point to harass and annoy you. And watch out, because when he gets temped, small_mup is RIGHT THERE to continue in his stead.
And so it goes for months more. From small_mup to tiny_sock_puppet, to non_sequitor, to randomleterz, this guy is allowed to troll the crap out of you and harass you day after day while CS sits on thier thumbs and refuses to perm big_troll and any itterations thereof.
My question to you, sir is: how long until you, who has been entirely failed by the system, react to the guy who is making a concerted effort to ruin your forum experience? Or is the solution to pretend he doesn't exist? Or, just let the jerk win and leave?
I'm really sorry about this, but for some inexplicable reason the quoted statements made me
Nicho, indulge me, if you will:
Let's say that for no reason you can fathom, a poster, let's call him big_troll decided he was going to dedicate himself to being a pain in the ass for you on these boards.
He spends hours a day and countless posts harassing you. he stalks you in the PMs and essentially 90% of his posts are either specifically made to annoy or attack you and the other 5 are made to tell everyone how much he loves trolling you.
And this goes on for months. When you report him, you're LUCKY to see those posts get edited or deleted. Once in a lbue moon, he'll get one of those invisible temp bans where it's indistinguishable from him just not being around for a couple of days.
But wait! There's medium_smurf. He comes along and posts exactly the way big_troll does and takes up the mantle of harassment. Oh, wait, that's just big_troll using another account while his main's temped! He even tells you that himself. He references the fact constantly.
Still, you report and report and report and finally, after his fith or sixth temp, the big_troll account is gone... But medium_smurf is still making it a point to harass and annoy you. And watch out, because when he gets temped, small_mup is RIGHT THERE to continue in his stead.
And so it goes for months more. From small_mup to tiny_sock_puppet, to non_sequitor, to randomleterz, this guy is allowed to troll the crap out of you and harass you day after day while CS sits on thier thumbs and refuses to perm big_troll and any itterations thereof.
My question to you, sir is: how long until you, who has been entirely failed by the system, react to the guy who is making a concerted effort to ruin your forum experience? Or is the solution to pretend he doesn't exist? Or, just let the jerk win and leave?
You still have options that don't include violating the CoC. Put the user on ignore. Place any of his sock puppets on ignore. Stop accepting PMs from that poster. Reacting is the worst thing you can do. I would completely ignore the poster. If it didn't stop I would actually contact my local police department and inform the poster I was doing so. Messing with people on forums is one thing. Stalking a poster and harrassing them, is unnacceptable.
Honestly. This is seems like a really unusual experience. If it is happening to you, then I would go through customer service and take screenshots of his PMs. If you are not exagerating anything, and if this is in fact happening to you, then I believe customer service and the mods will help. I have found a combination of going to customer service and PMing the mods is most helpful. I would suggest you contact your police department. Most departments are better equiped these days to deal with internet harrassment. At the very least they should be able to contact wizards and inform them of the problem. Just make sure to focus on the poster actually making the harrassing PMs. It is very easy to confuse posters for sockpuppets here when they are in fact not sock puppets.
This is seems like a really unusual experience. If it is happening to you, then I would go through customer service and take screenshots of his PMs.
This takes weeks. I've had more people than I care to count send me farewell PMs because it's easier to leave and go to EnWorld than go through the rigamarole required to ban trolls on this site.
If you are not exagerating anything, and if this is in fact happening to you, then I believe customer service and the mods will help.
You believe incorrectly. That's the whole point of this thread! CS has not been doing what rational, reasonable people might expect CS to do and as a consequence the General Board has become a pig sty.
I hardly post there any more because it's simply not worth the effort. Putting people on ignore makes the threads unintelligible because the people who don't have them on ignore allow the thread derail anyway.
I love D&D. I love these forums. I hate what I see happening to the forums.
I have found a combination of going to customer service and PMing the mods is most helpful.
In this forum, or in general on other forums?
I would suggest you contact your police department. Most departments are better equiped these days to deal with internet harrassment.
I very strongly recommend you not do this. It's not illegal to annoy people through PMs and the police have actual criminals to catch. Don't cry wolf because when you do need the police you don't want them to think you're an hysterical nerd who thinks what happens on the internet is a crime.fn. This is a customer service issue, not a criminal issue.
fnThis doesn't include actual crimes like solicitation and identity theft.
but... but... DM fiat... :evillaugh
(The DM can just say no to your wishes, thats another reason why it's dangerous, it can be a waste of 5k xp and that's dangerous)
There is XP cost in 4E for spells still?
:whatsthis
:lightbulb DM yourself and make sure the players are all trying to do what you are. Then the wish is sure to work both times.
I love D&D. I love these forums. I hate what I see happening to the forums.
I love D&D. I love these forums (certain parts of them at least). I hate what I see happening to D&D.
You see the problem now don't you?
There is XP cost in 4E for spells still?
:whatsthis
DM yourself and make sure the players are all trying to do what you are. Then the wish is sure to work both times.
But the word of god (WotC) said you need to reflavor because 4e cannot convert from 3.5 :evillaugh. So the best you can do is reflavor and get the general feel but not actual effect of a wish :evillaugh!!!
This takes weeks. I've had more people than I care to count send me farewell PMs because it's easier to leave and go to EnWorld than go through the rigamarole required to ban trolls on this site..
This is a sad state of affairs. I have had good responses both times I used customer service though.
You believe incorrectly. That's the whole point of this thread! CS has not been doing what rational, reasonable people might expect CS to do and as a consequence the General Board has become a pig sty...
As I said, I have had good experience with customer service. If they are not responding to your complaints you can always go a step further and make a phone call asking to speak with their supervisors.
I hardly post there any more because it's simply not worth the effort. Putting people on ignore makes the threads unintelligible because the people who don't have them on ignore allow the thread derail anyway....
I haven't had much sifting through the posts. But it is infuriating to be attacked by people. And I agree that attacks shouldn't be tolerated.
I love D&D. I love these forums. I hate what I see happening to the forums.
I dislike what is going on on these forums as well. But to me it looks like two sides are at war and not willing to give up an inch. Hopefully the mods will reign down on people soon.
In this forum, or in general on other forums?[?QUOTE]
In all the forums.I very strongly recommend you not do this. It's not illegal to annoy people through PMs and the police have actual criminals to catch. Don't cry wolf because when you do need the police you don't want them to think you're an hysterical nerd who thinks what happens on the internet is a crime.fn. This is a customer service issue, not a criminal issue.
fnThis doesn't include actual crimes like solicitation and identity theft.
Actually harrasment by email, or on internet forums is illegal. If the poster is in fact harrasing him, he can freely contact his department. If they have more important things to do, they will simply ignore his complaint. Police departments prioritize like any other organization, but they don't take it out on you, if you call with a concern they consider frivilous. Maybe I am misunderstanding the situation as the poster described it. But it sounded like harrassment to me.
As I said, I have had good experience with customer service. If they are not responding to your complaints you can always go a step further and make a phone call asking to speak with their supervisors.
Nichomachean, I've taken my complaints as far as they can go. I've gotten the "Thank you for contacting us. We'll consider your complaint." from as high up as CS is willing to let me go. If I were to do any more, then I would be harassing them!
So it's really up to them. I've made my concerns known.
Please note I'm not talking about any specific individual. I'm talking about a policy change that is needed when dealing with people derailing threads (no matter what position they hold).
I too was harassed by someone. Someone who threatened to file a false police report against me. It took me a few weeks, but the person was banned, and when his sockpuppet showed up, it took me a few weeks and that got banned too. It took a lot of work. More than it should. But that's neither here nor there now.
Now it's about getting CS to change its policy on how it treats people who violate the CoC.
Hopefully the mods will reign down on people soon.
14 months and counting. Maybe tomorrow it will happen, though.
Actually harrasment by email, or on internet forums is illegal.
Actually, it's not. I know this because I looked into it. It's illegal to threaten someone with bodily harm if the threat is credible. (I.e., they know where you are.) It's not illegal to spam someone with a lot of annoying emails.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the situation as the poster described it. But it sounded like harrassment to me.
Not criminal harassment. Not all harassment is criminal.
Honestly. This is seems like a really unusual experience. If it is happening to you, then I would go through customer service and take screenshots of his PMs. If you are not exagerating anything, and if this is in fact happening to you, then I believe customer service and the mods will help. I have found a combination of going to customer service and PMing the mods is most helpful. I would suggest you contact your police department. Most departments are better equiped these days to deal with internet harrassment. At the very least they should be able to contact wizards and inform them of the problem. Just make sure to focus on the poster actually making the harrassing PMs. It is very easy to confuse posters for sockpuppets here when they are in fact not sock puppets.
There is a poster on these boards who is very very well known for the sock puppet accounts.. even putting in his signature who it is etc.. and no, CS seems to have done absolutely nothing about it.
I do not know about PM's etc form the poster mentioned above, i am aware of another poster sending PM's to a person i consider a friend on here, not only admitting to being a sock puppet of a deleted account, but being proud of it and taunting him with the fact that nothing will be done about it
Nichomachean, I've taken my complaints as far as they can go. I've gotten the "Thank you for contacting us. We'll consider your complaint." from as high up as CS is willing to let me go. If I were to do any more, then I would be harassing them!
So it's really up to them. I've made my concerns known.
Please note I'm not talking about any specific individual. I'm talking about a policy change that is needed when dealing with people derailing threads (no matter what position they hold).
I too was harassed by someone. Someone who threatened to file a false police report against me. It took me a few weeks, but the person was banned, and when his sockpuppet showed up, it took me a few weeks and that got banned too. It took a lot of work. More than it should. But that's neither here nor there now.
Now it's about getting CS to change its policy on how it treats people who violate the CoC.
14 months and counting. Maybe tomorrow it will happen, though.
Actually, it's not. I know this because I looked into it. It's illegal to threaten someone with bodily harm if the threat is credible. (I.e., they know where you are.) It's not illegal to spam someone with a lot of annoying emails.
Not criminal harassment. Not all harassment is criminal.
I think I misunderstood what Valingaarde meant. I thought the poster was going beyond being annoying.
In your case though the poster was breaking the law because he voiced his intent to file a false police report against you. This would be of interest to the police. And if CS isn't reacting to this poster by IP banning him, then I would threaten them with a lawsuit myself. This goes way beyong annoying. If it took them that long to respond to the situation, they should be ashamed.
There is a poster on these boards who is very very well known for the sock puppet accounts.. even putting in his signature who it is etc.. and no, CS seems to have done absolutely nothing about it.
I do not know about PM's etc form the poster mentioned above, i am aware of another poster sending PM's to a person i consider a friend on here, not only admitting to being a sock puppet of a deleted account, but being proud of it and taunting him with the fact that nothing will be done about it
Did the person take a screenshot. CS asks that you screenshot in these cases.
Trolls should take note:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/04/trolls-take-note-teacher-arrested-for-leaving-offensive-anonymous-comment-on-blog/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/04/blog.arrest.ap/index.html
And if CS isn't reacting to this poster by IP banning him, then I would threaten them with a lawsuit myself.
I'm not going to threaten to sue Wizrds of the Coast. First of all, I like Wizards and have no desire to sue them. America is litigious enough.
Second, I've suffered no damages, so any lawsuit would be dismissed.
Third, they did act. It just took some time.
If it took them that long to respond to the situation, they should be ashamed.
I think you're beginning to understand the issues.
I love D&D. I love these forums (certain parts of them at least). I hate what I see happening to D&D.
You see the problem now don't you?
That is no excuse for anybody to use for threadcapping etc (not that i am saying you do.....)
If you don;t like D&D 4th ed it is possible to discuss it like a grown up.. look at Stormou (i am not sure how he spells his name.. so apologies) he has issues with the new system, but he is a responsible adult, and posts as such. I have never seen him kicking and screaming like a child because his favorite toy has been taken away.
Did the person take a screenshot. CS asks that you screenshot in these cases.
The problem is that it's very vague when a sockpuppet can be banned under the CoC. Essentially, they can only be banned if they admit to being a sockpuppet of a specific user. And it's not clear if that admission has to be in a public forum rather than a PM.
So amending the CoC to clearly ban sockpuppetry is yet another thing that CS has to remedy.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/04/trolls-take-note-teacher-arrested-for-leaving-offensive-anonymous-comment-on-blog/
The person in question threatened to commit a crime against people whose identieis were known. That is illegal. That's also a pretty easy crime to avoid.
Please don't recommend that people bother the cops for anything less than a specific and direct threat against a non-anonymous person.
Did the person take a screenshot. CS asks that you screenshot in these cases.
Trolls should take note:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/04/trolls-take-note-teacher-arrested-for-leaving-offensive-anonymous-comment-on-blog/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/04/blog.arrest.ap/index.html
The person i am referring to has given up on relying on CS to do anything.. infact he has pretty much stopped coming to these boards all together, simply because CS seemly refuses to do anything about these people. And it is a real shame we miss out on his posts, because he is about as knowledgeable about the game as anybody i have ever know, and he always has some great ideas to implement into games...
I'm not going to threaten to sue Wizrds of the Coast. First of all, I like Wizards and have no desire to sue them. America is litigious enough.
Second, I've suffered no damages, so any lawsuit would be dismissed.
Third, they did act. It just took some time..
Lawsuits are what keep companies in line in the states. If someone is threatening to file a false police report against you, and CS takes a long time to ban the poster, I would say you have grounds for a suit.
Mental anguish.
Lawsuits are what keep companies in line in the states.
Nichomachean, there is no lawsuit here. I should know. I'm a lawyer. Please stop giving out legal advice on the forums.
Mental anguish.
My annoyance at getting this clown banned (I was never concerned about his threats to file a false police report against me since he didn't know my actual identity) is not mental anguish in any court of law outside of prime time television.
It's clear that Nicho's intentions here are less than honorable, so I suggest everyone follow my lead and place him on ignore.
Excuse me? What have I done to suggest this? Please don't ask people to ignore me, when all I have done is respond to their concerns.
But the word of god (WotC) said you need to reflavor because 4e cannot convert from 3.5 :evillaugh. So the best you can do is reflavor and get the general feel but not actual effect of a wish :evillaugh!!!
WotC said that people wanting to make 4e products couldn't. 4e is about letting the DM play the way they want and have fun as a group more then using RAW. I as DM can convert anything I want over to 4e. I already started a thread on that subject. I take request, and tell how I think any thing should be converted. Funny thing is since I started it I lost my 3.5 PHB. Maybe Wizards stole it!
Nichomachean, there is no lawsuit here. I should know. I'm a lawyer. Please stop giving out legal advice on the forums.
My annoyance at getting this clown banned (I was never concerned about his threats to file a false police report against me since he didn't know my actual identity) is not mental anguish in any court of law outside of prime time television.
You will have to forgive me. Prime time TV is where I get most of my information about law unfortunately.
The problem is that it's very vague when a sockpuppet can be banned under the CoC. Essentially, they can only be banned if they admit to being a sockpuppet of a specific user. And it's not clear if that admission has to be in a public forum rather than a PM.
So amending the CoC to clearly ban sockpuppetry is yet another thing that CS has to remedy.
The person in question threatened to commit a crime against people whose identieis were known. That is illegal. That's also a pretty easy crime to avoid.
Please don't recommend that people bother the cops for anything less than a specific and direct threat against a non-anonymous person.
Also, one of the problem posters mentioned in my post above, when he realized one of his accounts was about to be banned (because he referred to myself and several other poster with a string of profanity laced name calling) he made a public posting to say he also had sockpuppet accounts by several names.. one or two were his, the rest where just a sad attempt to get some people he didn't like banned... Fortunately it didn't work.. but the poster was back the next day to start over again.
You will have to forgive me. Prime time TV is where I get most of my information about law unfortunately.
Which is why you shouldn't give people legal advice nor accept it over the internet.
The problem is simple yet also unlikely. Customer Service has to make a decision to more strictly enforce the Code of Conduct and to amend the CoC to close loopholes on sockpuppetry and off-topic posts.
I don't know why CS is unwilling to take such actions. But they appear unwilling to do so. Until it happens, the forums will not improve and I really don't think there is much that anybody else can do about it but keep reporting posts and hoping that things get better.
Honestly. This is seems like a really unusual experience. If it is happening to you, then I would go through customer service and take screenshots of his PMs. If you are not exagerating anything, and if this is in fact happening to you, then I believe customer service and the mods will help.
It's not unusual. Back in the day, this guy took great, great pride in telling people on the forums that he was going to harass them via email or PM. And after that, I've heard at least three accounts from people that he followed through and continues to follow through in his smurf accounts.
I actually got what I figure was the most helpful response CS is allowed to give: They told me my screen shots were very helpful and a few hours later, he had a new smurf out and running. And he's still here. Yukking it up. Because CS is being useless and the CoC has a passage in it that effectively lets people troll and break the rules as much as they want as long as they don't care about taking a new name.
:hoppingmaCS has rules they have to follow to. Changes would most likely have to come from higher up. They are most likely in the same boat as us. Hands are tied.
Also, one of the problem posters mentioned in my post above, when he realized one of his accounts was about to be banned (because he referred to myself and several other poster with a string of profanity laced name calling) he made a public posting to say he also had sockpuppet accounts by several names.. one or two were his, the rest where just a sad attempt to get some people he didn't like banned... Fortunately it didn't work.. but the poster was back the next day to start over again.
Now that guy you could theoretically call the cops on because I remember he threatened to beat at least two people (including myself) to death.
Now that guy you could theoretically call the cops on because I remember he threatened to beat at least two people (including myself) to death.
That should get forwarded to CS. Sceenshot if it's not a public post.
Now that guy you could theoretically call the cops on because I remember he threatened to beat at least two people (including myself) to death.
There should definitely be no room for this kind of thing on the boards, the poster SHOULD have been banned after his first tirade of calling people names.. but for him to do it on multiple occasions and even go as far a threatening physical harm? that is ridiculous.. and this is the same poster who has sent PM to the friend i was referring to earlier to say he was back the day after being banned.. to me, the name calling should have been enough for a permanent ban, but it had to occur multiple times before anything happened..
I remember he threatened to beat at least two people (including myself) to death.
That's a little extreme.
That should get forwarded to CS. Sceenshot if it's not a public post.
It was public. Same thread Outlaw was talking about. It got scrubbed and he wasn't even temped until he posted another, far less troublesome thread.
Edit: VBulletin has a memory mods can see of edit histories. The mods can certainly see those posts even if they deleted them unless these boards are significantly modified.
Honestly. This is seems like a really unusual experience. If it is happening to you, then I would go through customer service and take screenshots of his PMs. If you are not exagerating anything, and if this is in fact happening to you, then I believe customer service and the mods will help. I have found a combination of going to customer service and PMing the mods is most helpful.
Did the person take a screenshot. CS asks that you screenshot in these cases.
This situation is unfortunately not uncommon. Two people I consider close friends have both been in similar situations. In one case the harassment bordered on criminal, in the other it did not. Both people sent screenshots to mods and to CS. A single account of each of the offending posters got banned despite the fact that some of the PMs that were sent to CS gave detailed information about sock puppet accounts.
This situation is unfortunately not uncommon. Two people I consider close friends have both been in similar situations. In one case the harassment bordered on criminal, in the other it did not. Both people sent screenshots to mods and to CS. A single account of each of the offending posters got banned despite the fact that some of the PMs that were sent to CS gave detailed information about sock puppet accounts.
Have any of the mods explained where wizards stands on the issue, and who they believe is largely to blame?
Now that guy you could theoretically call the cops on because I remember he threatened to beat at least two people (including myself) to death.
It was at least three, because I know two people other than you that he threatened.
Have any of the mods explained where wizards stands on the issue, and who they believe is largely to blame?
A mod did tell one of the involved parties that there was a technical issue with IP banning one of the offending people.
No information was ever given about the other one. However, it appears that he was given his first temp ban after that session. (and since has had several more) Apparently his sock-puppets are on other emails because he can use them while banned on his primary.
A mod did tell one of the involved parties that there was a technical issue with IP banning one of the offending people.
No information was ever given about the other one. However, it appears that he was given his first temp ban after that session. (and since has had several more) Apparently his sock-puppets are on other emails because he can use them while banned on his primary.
Do they IP ban at all?
Do they IP ban at all?
I have never heard of it happening... I think part of the problem is it isn't that hard to get around an IP ban, but it might be a big enough pain in the butt to prevent a poster form doing it again.
Do they IP ban at all?
I have never heard of it happening... I think part of the problem is it isn't that hard to get around an IP ban, but it might be a big enough pain in the butt to prevent a poster form doing it again.
Based on what the wizo said, they at least looked into IP banning a particular poster.
Have any of the mods explained where wizards stands on the issue, and who they believe is largely to blame?
Well, they're not going to rat out on their boss to us plebs, that's for sure.
Unfortunetely, the current management structure makes any sort of necessary change extremely difficult, if not impossible.
CM and the VCLs can only beg for a policy change from CS, CS holds all the rights and is not likely to relinquish any. And anyway, the one who takes the real decisions seems to be well insulated from all the fuss by all those layers of bureaucracy, not to mention that he likely never visits the place.
Add to this that the VCLs don't seem to unanimously agree that there is a real problem and that some of those who do don't agree on what is to be done about it.
Individual users could beg CS for a policy change, but one by one, disorganized and without the full, unanimous backing of CM, that's not going to happen.
So, Nichomachean, yeah, I'll do my part to not become a problem too. But I will not lump in the same bin those who snap back because they were provoked and those twisted jerks who are doing the provoking just for their sick amusement.
This isn't what I meant. I meant people on both sides who routinely engage in offensive behavior, no matter what the reason, are in violation of the CoC, and we shouldn't take them seriously when they complain.
Actually this is poisoning the well as the decision isn't based on the truth of the argument, but the arguer. I can see giving the argument more scrutiny, but not an out of hand dismissal.
I personally try my best to avoid such behavior myself and have never received a warning, let alone a temp or permanent ban. *Knocks on wood.*
[snip] I do not think it is right that I should be attacked because there is an ongoing conflict on the forum.
You right, it is wrong to do so. From the info in this tread you have done so before, but as stated above that has nothing to do with the truth of this statement.
People should be respectful, polite and unoffensive at all times. Even if they think they are being attacked.
Well I try to at least be non-offensive, but sometimes it is hard. I personally have been on the end of a couple flames. Rather than replying in an emotional manner I reported them. In the most extreme case I did answer a question that the same person had on another thread, but I did my best to act as if they didn't flame me.
The Honorable Nitwit. Honorable Nitwits absolutely love to speak
about honor. This breed invokes the concepts of honor, integrity,
humility, and other traits straight from the Boy Scout Oath more often
than a Klingon warrior on anti-depressants. Honorable nitwits are
convinced that everyone around them suffers from a lack of honor – an
idea they thoroughly fail to understand in attempting to use its lack
to smear others.
The YerATroll. YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote
a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous
amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites
on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and
hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at
everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be
granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve.
YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting,
all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in
trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most
ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a
childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and
pretensions of being "above it all."
Since we're talking about trolls, I found the troll descriptions from this site a bit interesting. Some excerpts:
Just so you know, the guy who made this list, Phil Elmore the Martialist, is a right wing nutjob who is best known for writing self defense books like "The Homeless Threat" and "Street Sword Self Defense". He is truly paranoid, and labels anyone who disagrees with him as a troll. This isn't an exageration. Go to his website at: http://www.paxbaculum.com/forums/You can start an account there and see how quickly you get banned. The web site is full of racists and self described modern day warriors.
Poisoning the Well fallacy, alive and well. Just because a dude is a scum bag doens't make the sky pink when he says it's blue.
I never said it did. But the fact that he is a paranoid nutjob, should make us be cautious when accepting his definition of trolling and his categorization of troll-like behavior. Really I am just concerned about giving someone like him any platform. He is a dangerous man, with dangerous ideas.
The types of trolls and thier tactics (of which the ones listed are very, very common) aren't something whoever this guys is just came up with. You can figure them out by just watching a give forum for a couple days.
/nod
And although this guy claims to be the one that originally came up with this, considering everything else about him that may not be true. He could just be taking the credit for someone else's work. You'd be surprised (or not) at how common that is on the internet.
Anyway, without further ado, another troll-type I find amusing:
The Bitter Troll. Bitter Trolls are a curious
cross-species. They can be trolls of any breed in their larval
stages, but become Bitters after their previous activities are seen for
what they were. What sets these trolls apart from other
classifications is their behavior after they have been spotted and
labeled as trolls. Angry, frustrated, and resentful about being
"outed," the Bitter Troll will wage a campaign of indignant complaints
intended to focus attention away from the troll and on whomever is
responsible for identifying the creature. Often, a troll mutates
into a Bitter just prior to becoming a Vulgar.
I don't think Micha is advocating for everybody with multiple accounts to be insta-banned. I believe what he's suggesting is that people who use an alternate account to hide behind as they troll should be insta-banned.
Exactment.
Well, one of the usual suspects has now openly admitted to being a troll in the general board.
Link?
(I admit this is largely my human instinct to witness a giant wreck.)
Link?
The last Time I posted something like that in this thread I got moderated.
However, that particular poster has also vowed to devote more time to the board because of the responses that they got.
Have you reported it yet?
I did as soon as I saw it.
As for me, my Punkthumper 6000 is out so if something needs editorial moderation, I'm good to go.
;)
I did as soon as I saw it.
Actually, if you're referring to my post in the general discussion about the video, I didn't "admit to being a troll" anywhere. Hence it has not been moderated. I'm very disappointed in you for reading things into it that simply aren't there. Also, just because I say I'm going to try and spend more time on the forums does not mean you have to take it so negatively and turn it into something bad.
Actually, if you're referring to my post in the general discussion about the video, I didn't "admit to being a troll" anywhere. Hence it has not been moderated. I'm very disappointed in you for reading things into it that simply aren't there. Also, just because I say I'm going to try and spend more time on the forums does not mean you have to take it so negatively and turn it into something bad.
Your continued existence here is a blatant failure of the current incarnation of the CoC;
Also, yes I've had a few accounts, but no I've not lost count. I'll prove it:
PsionX (permanently banned)->PsionX_1 (permanently banned)->Leshracnuker (permanently banned)->Mortred (permanently banned)->Clinkzdps (temporarily banned 12 times)->Gondarcarry (currently unbanned, permanently banned)->Juggyslash (currently unbanned, temporarily banned 6 times).
5 PermaBans and two accounts that alternate between banned and not. If The moderation isn't going to actually do something in this case, it really does fall to the individual members of the forum to call you what you are; a troll.
Your continued existence here is a blatant failure of the current incarnation of the CoC;
5 PermaBans and two accounts that alternate between banned and not. If The moderation isn't going to actually do something in this case, it really does fall to the individual members of the forum to call you what you are; a troll.
It really is totally ridiculous isn't it? Clink regularly makes comments alluding to sockpuppet accounts and in the example above he goes as far as to brag about it.. yet nothing at all comes of it.
It really is totally ridiculous isn't it? Clink regularly makes comments alluding to sockpuppet accounts and in the example above he goes as far as to brag about it.. yet nothing at all comes of it.
It is. It's completely ridiculous.
What's even more ridiculous is that by the time I get to work, my post will have been deleted because calling a troll a troll is against the CoC, while apparently being a troll isn't.
It is. It's completely ridiculous.
What's even more ridiculous is that by the time I get to work, my post will have been deleted because calling a troll a troll is against the CoC, while apparently being a troll isn't.
yep.. i find that kind of funny about this forum.. it is the whole don't call them out, but we won't do anything about them even if your report them mentality of the powers that be, that let the trolls run rampart, and the reason that reasonable poster get annoyed to the point that they have to break the CoC themselves, or they just leave all together.
It is almost like CS are supporting Trolling through inaction.
yep.. i find that kind of funny about this forum.. it is the whole don't call them out, but we won't do anything about them even if your report them mentality of the powers that be, that let the trolls run rampart, and the reason that reasonable poster get annoyed to the point that they have to break the CoC themselves, or they just leave all together.
It is almost like CS are supporting Trolling through inaction.
Guys, the best way to deal with clinky and his sockpuppet army is to put them all on your iggy list and go about your lives as if he didnt exist. He craves attention and doesnt feel whole without it. Dont give him what he wants. Go on with our lives and leave him to starve.
And we ask that you clinky do the same for us. Put us on your ignore list . In fact I demand it.
It really is totally ridiculous isn't it? Clink regularly makes comments alluding to sockpuppet accounts and in the example above he goes as far as to brag about it.. yet nothing at all comes of it.
I find it interesting that the same 5-6 posters are here obsession about the forums and a single troll (whose posts usually are delted in minutes anyways).
It seems the appropriate venue for such a discussion.
I find it interesting that the same 5-6 posters are here obsession about the forums and a single troll (whose posts usually are delted in minutes anyways).
And yet we're all different people. You see the difference between a community having an opinion vs a sock puppet. Is you can actually get a consensus of what a community would rather have occur vs the "needs" of one person that automatically mindlessly, and even copy and paste agrees with the OP.
Ontop of that we are all infact different people. We're tired of the -crap- that goes on, in this forum and is -allowed- to by a moderation community that is about as attentive and caring as a dead beat drunken father is to his children.
I don't understand. What do you find interesting about a handful of people in the Community Business forum discussing how the community should handle a troll?
It seems the appropriate venue for such a discussion.
It is just always the same group, who are also the forums "in crowd". I don't know if you noticed but they tend to intimidate and gang up on people everywhere here.
I find it interesting that the same 5-6 posters are here obsession about the forums and a single troll (whose posts usually are delted in minutes anyways).
it isn't a single roll.. i can think of at least two separate trolls I believe should have been IP banned long ago.. they have constantly reappeared, made little to no effort to amend their ways. (if they posted their thoughts in a responsible method it would be different, but one offending party doesn't even post thoughts on the game, instead the think is is good idea to post highly offensive images)
Can i ask why you would even be interested in why 5 or 6 different posters would be fed up with one or two trolls?
Can i ask why you would even be interested in why 5 or 6 different posters would be fed up with one or two trolls?
I just think it is hypocritical to act high and might here, but then on the forums to act like bullies. I assure you, if the mods took a silent poll of all the posters and asked what makes them the most uncomfortable on this board. You would hear more complaints about the Avengers than you would about the "trolls".
It is just always the same group, who are also the forums "in crowd". I don't know if you noticed but they tend to intimidate and gang up on people everywhere here.
Oh we haven't heard this rhetoric before.. at least we actually discuss the game instead of acting like a child, throwing a tantrum and calling people profanity laced names, threatening physical harm and posting grotesque or inappropriate images..
That is one of the reasons this thread was even started. Some trolls I can handle, they don't really go out of their way to offend, just to annoy. But when somebody decides to post images of aborted fetus's, as a father it makes me angrier than i thought possible for a silly little internet forum, and i for one want something done about the clown that thinks it is a good idea, because clearly he doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to know right from wrong and does not deserve the right to post on these kind of boards.
I just think it is hypocritical to act high and might here, but then on the forums to act like bullies. I assure you, if the mods took a silent poll of all the posters and asked what makes them the most uncomfortable on this board. You would hear more complaints about the Avengers than you would about the "trolls".
Actually I'm pretty sure the in general aggressors. Namely a handful of trolls would lose that bet. I get Pms from people that don't even post on the boards publicly saluting us and our stances. I've only gotten negative pms from one person once who IIRC has been banned for threats of physical violence against posters as well as posting up dead baby fetus pictures on the boards. Who posts almost exactly like you I might add.
Actually I'm pretty sure the in general aggressors. Namely a handful of trolls would lose that bet. I get Pms from people that don't even post on the boards publicly saluting us and our stances. I've only gotten negative pms from one person once who IIRC has been banned for threats of physical violence against posters as well as posting up dead baby fetus pictures on the boards. Who posts almost exactly like you I might add.
I get PMs too. From people who are sick of being bullied by the avengers (who also have a habit of sending people nasty PMs).
It is just always the same group, who are also the forums "in crowd".
How are they the "in crowd" if they are only five or six people? Was there a populatiry poll sent out that I don't know about?
I don't understand what you're saying. It seems you are trying to accuse the participants in this thread of doing something inappropriate, but you aren't coming out and saying what you think they're doing.
If you think a group of posters is acting inappropriately, please start a thread about it. be specific about the behavior (not the individuals) and offer suggestions on how CM or CS can work on it.
Don't make vague accusations that people unable to read your mind won't understand. It certainly doesn't encourage people to agree with you.
I don't know if you noticed but they tend to intimidate and gang up on people everywhere here.
I have not noticed any intimidation going on. Are they threatening people with illegal activity? I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
I get PMs too. From people who are sick of being bullied by the avengers (who also have a habit of sending people nasty PMs).
Any nasty PMs should be saved in screenshot and sent to Customer Service. Clearly, you haven't received such a thing, but you should tel lthose people to do so. However, keep in mind, that on the internet people have a tendency to lie, which is why evidence will be necessary.
Any nasty PMs should be saved in screenshot and sent to Customer Service. Clearly, you haven't received such a thing, but you should tel lthose people to do so. However, keep in mind, that on the internet people have a tendency to lie, which is why evidence will be necessary.
Wait, why is it clear I haven't received such things. There are two Avengers who have sent very angry and scathing posts to me and other posters.
Also, i have never sent anybody a PM about anything other than being complimentary about a post, and i don't know of any other avengers that have. I would also i too have received complimentary PMs about going head to head with certain trolls.
And how would you know if they were sending them or not? Trust me, there are a couple of avengers sending really bad PMs to people.
Wait, why is it clear I haven't received such things. There are two Avengers who have sent very angry and scathing posts to me and other posters.
Which two would that be?
Which two would that be?
Unlike you, I wont call people out on a public forum like that, but they have both already posted on this thread very recently.
Unlike you, I wont call people out on a public forum like that, but they have both already posted on this thread very recently.
Why dance around it so hard? Just call it like it is, if two people are bothering you in my opinion you have a right to declare who they are in a public forum especially as it is the easiest way to get it to the attention of their peers within the "Avengers" Maybe we can help with the situation.
We are actually discussing good behavior with the guy who posted the abortion thing? He also sounds eerily familiar(draw your own conclusions from that). I think we need to stop listening to this guy trying to make himself out as the victim. He has absolutely zero credibility in that regard.
yep, you are right.. i am out of here for tonight.. hopefully the mods will wake up to this crap soon.
We are actually discussing good behavior with the guy who posted the abortion thing? He also sounds eerily familiar(draw your own conclusions from that). I think we need to stop listening to this guy trying to make himself out as the victim. He has absolutely zero credibility in that regard.
I don't honestly think that anybody's buying the victim act at this point.
Why dance around it so hard? Just call it like it is, if two people are bothering you in my opinion you have a right to declare who they are in a public forum especially as it is the easiest way to get it to the attention of their peers within the "Avengers" Maybe we can help with the situation.
Agreed. This is kind of a "pix or it didn't happen" situation. Put up or shut up.
Why dance around it so hard? Just call it like it is, if two people are bothering you in my opinion you have a right to declare who they are in a public forum especially as it is the easiest way to get it to the attention of their peers within the "Avengers" Maybe we can help with the situation.
Because discussing PMs is a violation of the CoC. And the posters know who they are. As I said, they posted VERY recently here. Since they seem to think they are above the CoC and common decency, I don't suspect the avengers will do much to help the situation. When I am gone they will just turn on the people who don't like 4E and devour them.
I don't honestly think that anybody's buying the victim act at this point.
And yet people are still talking to him as if there was a point to doing so.
Agreed. This is kind of a "pix or it didn't happen" situation. Put up or shut up.
Interesting that you are making such claims about PMs yourself without pixing. And your complaints are rather explicit, while also being rather untrue.
Interesting that you are making such claims about PMs yourself without pixing. And your complaints are rather explicit, while also being rather untrue.
Whenever I make a claim about PMs, it's after I've sent screencaps to the people who deal with that stuff. If you haven't taken that step at this point, I'd suggest you do so. I also provide it for any forumgoer who requests it, usually in the form of a forwarded PM. They can make the call at that point whether or not I'm on the level.
If you're unwilling to provide names and text, we're left to assume that you're just grinding your axe some more. How many screennames do you feel are needed to do that effectively, exactly?
Because discussing PMs is a violation of the CoC. And the posters know who they are. As I said, they posted VERY recently here. Since they seem to think they are above the CoC and common decency, I don't suspect the avengers will do much to help the situation. When I am gone they will just turn on the people who don't like 4E and devour them.
Strong bolded words from someone who joined August 08. Ever stop to think it was just you and your behavior that provokes this? Most of all, how do you equate the behavior of your supposed "opressors" to your own? The answer to that question will go a long way into illustrating how seriously you should be taken.
Whenever I make a claim about PMs, it's after I've sent screencaps to the people who deal with that stuff. If you haven't taken that step at this point, I'd suggest you do so. I also provide it for any forumgoer who requests it, usually in the form of a forwarded PM. They can make the call at that point whether or not I'm on the level.
If you're unwilling to provide names and text, we're left to assume that you're just grinding your axe some more. How many screennames do you feel are needed to do that effectively, exactly?
As I said, it is a violation of the CoC to discuss private messages in the forums. I won't name names. But I can say Batshido and Kirsta were not the ones who did it. Two other avengers were the ones who did.
Strong bolded words from someone who joined August 08. Ever stop to think it was just you and your behavior that provokes this? Most of all, how do you equate the behavior of your supposed "opressors" to your own? The answer to that question will go a long way into illustrating how seriously you should be taken.
Not at all. Because I know from observation and experience that the only behavior needed to incur the Avenger wrath is to express a critique of 4E, or praise for 3E. Simple as that.
Not at all. Because I know from observation and experience that the only behavior needed to incur the Avenger wrath is to express a critique of 4E, or praise for 3E. Simple as that.
Your being ridiculous here. People come in to General Discussion every day who don't like 4E and they don't get treated like people treat you. They behave a whole lot better than you do, and they get treated with more respect. In addition, you dodge my question. I am asking you directly whether you consider "Avenger" behavior to be on the same level as your own. To put things in perspective, I'll give an example of your end:
It followed an identical pattern this time;
He started a thread to pick a fight with one alt, jumped in with the other. It got locked, so he started a second with the SpearSpike account in Off Topic (it was the same picture that was in the GD thread), then jumped into another thread in the same forum and shot a quick threat of violence my way, which has since been deleted/hidden. Then, since he was still unbanned, he moved the party to GD.
I would assume that if he weren't currently banned we'd be hearing about how he's being ganged up on here.
I'd love to link you to his past antics, but they're all hidden from the public at this point. Do a search on his posting history, he has a blowup under one of his accounts about once every three weeks. Each time, the pattern seems to be;
- Use sockpuppet to support argument,
- Escalate to using sockpuppet to harass posters in disagreement,
- Post thread with one account to start fights, jump in with other alts to take own side,
- Post wholly objectionable material, get thread locked,
- Start threatening violence (sometimes overtly lethal violence) against people who are viewed as having wronged said poster,
- Get banned, start new account to replace old one in stable.
It's a pretty clear pattern, and I'd guess most of GD and Off Topic could tell you this guy's alt history if you asked.
Do you consider "Avenger" behavior to be equivalent to this?
Your being ridiculous here. People come in to General Discussion every day who don't like 4E and they don't get treated like people treat you. They behave a whole lot better than you do, and they get treated with more respect. In addition, you dodge my question. I am asking you directly whether you consider "Avenger" behavior to be on the same level as your own. To put things in perspective, I'll give an example of your end:
Do you consider "Avenger" behavior to be equivalent to this?
First off, that poster was seriously exagerating things (If he had a sense of humor he would see that). Second, yes. I do consider it to be even worse than that behavior.
First off, that poster was seriously exagerating things (If he had a sense of humor he would see that). Second, yes. I do consider it to be even worse than that behavior.
I think we can safely stop taking you seriously at this point. Feel free to behave badly, barely get punished for it, and pretend you're being mistreated all you want from here on out. Forum administration obviously isn't going to do anything about you. Feel free to talk endlessly about the lack of respect you get as you have clearly illustrated that you deserve none.
I think we can safely stop taking you seriously at this point. Feel free to behave badly, barely get punished for it, and pretend you're being mistreated all you want from here on out. Forum administration obviously isn't going to do anything about you. Feel free to talk endlessly about the lack of respect you get as you have clearly illustrated that you deserve none.
Actually I was talking endlessly about the lack of respect avengers give to other posters who are critical of 4E. You don't think this is the case, look at Cpt Micha, your own, and Outlaw's posting history.
Actually I was talking endlessly about the lack of respect avengers give to other posters who are critical of 4E. You don't think this is the case, look at Cpt Micha, your own, and Outlaw's posting history.
There are a few people who go a little overboard discussing the merits of various editions. I'll admit that. On the whole, the "Avengers" generally treat individual critics of 4E with as much respect as they deserve. Some people are polite, behave themselves, and largely get treated with respect. Some people act like trolls, and get treated like trolls.
What I have a problem with is you pretending your own treatment is an indictment on those criticizing you. What the "Avengers" may or may not do is not the equivalent to what you have done here. Coming from you, these accusations mean absolutely nothing given your history.
Not at all. Because I know from observation and experience that the only behavior needed to incur the Avenger wrath is to express a critique of 4E, or praise for 3E. Simple as that.
Please provide links to where this happened.
I bet I can find more links to threads where people disliked 4e and the response from avengers was polite and either along the lines of "if you want you can change that this way for your own game" or "if you prefer 3.5, just play it and enjoy it".
Yes I have seen someone do what you say once or twice. However, I don't think you should generalize that to be the standard reaction of all avengers.
I don't honestly think that anybody's buying the victim act at this point.
Unfortunately, WotC seem to do.
Actually I was talking endlessly about the lack of respect avengers give to other posters who are critical of 4E. You don't think this is the case, look at Cpt Micha, your own, and Outlaw's posting history.
If someone's disrespectful to me, or someone else they will be treated accordingly. I don't believe in living like a toothless hound especially when the moderation around here fails on every single level.
Please provide links to where this happened.
I bet I can find more links to threads where people disliked 4e and the response from avengers was polite and either along the lines of "if you want you can change that this way for your own game" or "if you prefer 3.5, just play it and enjoy it".
Yes I have seen someone do what you say once or twice. However, I don't think you should generalize that to be the standard reaction of all avengers.
I will not play this game. It is visibly more than once or twice. Just peruse the general forum. Anyone who looks at it and thinks avengers are being polite to critics is viewing it through rose colored glasses.
If someone's disrespectful to me, or someone else they will be treated accordingly. I don't believe in living like a toothless hound especially when the moderation around here fails on every single level.
But they are not being disrespectful to you. They are just saying why they don't like 4E. And I have seen you on many occassions tear into people over it.
I will not play this game. It is visibly more than once or twice. Just peruse the general forum. Anyone who looks at it and thinks avengers are being polite to critics is viewing it through rose colored glasses.
Disagreeing with someone and debating is not being disrespectful. If you don't want someone to debate your opinion (one way or another) don't post it. Opening statements that are borderlined baiting -are- problems. Especially when they are generalist and moronic at best such as "D&D $E" or "$E IS FOR IDIOTS AND FOOLS THAT DON'T KNOW HOW TO RP"
Disagreeing with someone and debating is not being disrespectful. If you don't want someone to debate your opinion (one way or another) don't post it.
I agree. But you routinely cross the line into condescension, hostility, and accusing the posters of never having played the game. You are not debating. You are just being rude.
I agree. But you routinely cross the line into condescension, hostility, and accusing the posters of never having played the game. You are not debating. You are just being rude.
See above post. That crap don't fly with me. That's not a debate. That's coming in being full bore hostile. You've never seen me full bore hostile. I hope you never do. That's just baiting and trolling. That's not specifying anything. That's just mindless posting with the sheer aim of trolling. There's no debate there.
Much as he and I disagree on nearly anything and everything. Psychotic Robot for example, has posted (occasionally) intelligent threads that include a legitimate debate, to which I respond accordingly with.
I agree. But you routinely cross the line into condescension, hostility, and accusing the posters of never having played the game. You are not debating. You are just being rude.
Again, you act as if you have something to say that we need to take seriously. People who post aborted fetuses have no credibility in discussing what is and isn't acceptable behavior.
If you have actual links and quotes, also known as hard evidence, we can discuss that evidence on its own terms. Given your history, anything else on this topic is simply hot air.
I will not play this game. It is visibly more than once or twice. Just peruse the general forum. Anyone who looks at it and thinks avengers are being polite to critics is viewing it through rose colored glasses.
I think you might be reading through the forums with rose colored glasses as well.
The people who don't like 4e and garner a poor response are the ones who say things like "I guess 4e is simpler and that is good for people who couldn't figure out 3.5" or "I guess WotC had to do it to bring in the video gamers". That isn't being polite, that is sneaking in offense comments while trying to sound polite.
The people who are actually polite tend to get very polite responses as far as I have seen.
I'm not saying it is okay to respond rudeness with rudeness, but I am saying I haven't seen polite people who don't like 4e get flamed.
Because discussing PMs is a violation of the CoC.
No it's not.
I think you might be reading through the forums with rose colored glasses as well.
The people who don't like 4e and garner a poor response are the ones who say things like "I guess 4e is simpler and that is good for people who couldn't figure out 3.5" or "I guess WotC had to do it to bring in the video gamers". That isn't being polite, that is sneaking in offense comments while trying to sound polite.
The people who are actually polite tend to get very polite responses as far as I have seen.
I'm not saying it is okay to respond rudeness with rudeness, but I am saying I haven't seen polite people who don't like 4e get flamed.
He's simply trying to martyr himself to make those who disagree with him look bad. Its very transparent, especially considering his history, particularly the fetus incidents yesterday.
He's simply trying to martyr himself to make those who disagree with him look bad. Its very transparent, especially considering his history, particularly the fetus incidents yesterday.
It's not much of a martyrdom if he just keeps coming back, is it?
That's full of fail on several levels.
Wait, why is it clear I haven't received such things.
Because your post only referenced other people who sent you PMs about PMs allegedly sent by "avengers"
There are two Avengers who have sent very angry and scathing posts to me and other posters.
Did you report them?
Because discussing PMs is a violation of the CoC.
As I said, it is a violation of the CoC to discuss private messages in the forums.
No, it isn't.
(ninja'd by Zherog)
I thought it was against the rules to post that you where someone else that had/is being banned? Shouldn't this one have been banned just for that reason only?
Remember the COC only applies to people that are civilized, and is only enforced on them as well.
Remember the COC only applies to people that are civilized, and is only enforced on them as well.
More to the point, the CoC really only applies to those who apply it to themselves. For those who don't, it's a mild inconvenience at best, as most of their "best work" (from a trolling standpoint) gets deleted and must be reposted later.
Actually, if you're referring to my post in the general discussion about the video, I didn't "admit to being a troll" anywhere. Hence it has not been moderated. I'm very disappointed in you for reading things into it that simply aren't there. Also, just because I say I'm going to try and spend more time on the forums does not mean you have to take it so negatively and turn it into something bad.
PostS, plural, as in more than one.
[thread=1086611]Here's the thread so everyone can make up there own mind.[/thread]
PostS, plural, as in more than one.
[thread=1086611]Here's the thread so everyone can make up there own mind.[/thread]
Thats the best part about being a "troll", if they decide to be petty, they're no better than I am AND I get to call them on it. (Sort of like having an adult hit a kid, even if the kid is calling them names.)
Also, sorry I didn't realize those were kobolds. I'd always imagined a more raspy clicky voice. Then again, the MM agrees with you.
I'm satirizing their ridiculing and generalization of "trolls". I believe that they think people who complain are trolls. So as a "troll" in their view, I really don't have much in the way of standards to be held to. They are a company on the other hand. I'm simply saying that a company should be above resorting to petty revenge over videos just because a portion of the fanbase is complaining.
I even reinforce this point later in the thread. As for me saying I'm going to spend more time: That has to do with me showing that I'm not going to sit down and shut up just because of a video that ridicules my posting habits and tries to portray me as something I'm not.
And THAT is why the post has not been moderated.
The PM I received was a huge tip-off. Thanks for that.
I'm satirizing their ridiculing and generalization of "trolls". I believe that they think people who complain are trolls. So as a "troll" in their view, I really don't have much in the way of standards to be held to. They are a company on the other hand. I'm simply saying that a company should be above resorting to petty revenge over videos just because a portion of the fanbase is complaining.
I even reinforce this point later in the thread. As for me saying I'm going to spend more time: That has to do with me showing that I'm not going to sit down and shut up just because of a video that ridicules my posting habits and tries to portray me as something I'm not.
And THAT is why the post has not been moderated.
The video is tongue-in-cheek humor and pokes fun at everyone, including WotC themselves.
Kobolds represent the 4e fanbois who worship WotC even while being crapped on and being taken advantage of. One of them even calls himself "High Sycophant" while the others at one point shout something like, "Yay, we love 4th edition!"
The troll very obviously represents the 4e haters and trolls. (And if you really feel insulted by this I see that as an admission of trolling on your part.)
The dragon is WotC itself, caring only about increasing its own hoard and crapping all over everyone else, including trolls, fans, and random passerbys. Not to mention big and evil (like all corporations, of course).
Don't take the vid so seriously, man.
The only reason he posted in that thread was to subtly (to a given value of 'subtle') lampshade what he's doing here. The same reason he pops into treads complaining about the moderation policy to say how awesome the current one is for letting him get away with everything he does.
I never said that.
The video is tongue-in-cheek humor and pokes fun at everyone, including WotC themselves.
Kobolds represent the 4e fanbois who worship WotC even while being crapped on and being taken advantage of. One of them even calls himself "High Sycophant" while the others at one point shout something like, "Yay, we love 4th edition!"
The troll very obviously represents the 4e haters and trolls. (And if you really feel insulted by this I see that as an admission of trolling on your part.)
The dragon is WotC itself, caring only about increasing its own hoard and crapping all over everyone else, including trolls, fans, and random passerbys. Not to mention big and evil (like all corporations, of course).
Don't take the vid so seriously, man.
I honestly didn't listen to the kobold at all. Waaay too annoying voice. I take the vid seriously because
So what? You're going to sue them now? I'd like to see you go down in flames and pain with that, really, so tell us if you do something simiarly dumb :D
Oh I really think they will laugh at you after that. I mean, laugh more about you than they already do. I mean, I would. I would have by now made a whole document of jokes about you and distribute it throughout the office :D
I mean, all my friends find you hilarious. Beyond hilarious even :D
meh
I honestly didn't listen to the kobold at all. Waaay too annoying voice. I take the vid seriously becauseit's the only way to make that accidental admission of me being a troll become less of an issuewhile the fanboys may put up with being mocked, I won't.
Now you hurt my feelings.
There is nothing wrong with our voices.:D Sorry I could help it. Off topic.
Now you hurt my feelings.
Sorry I could help it. Off topic.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm a fan of dragons (Though I don't like the wing formations of being stuck to the tail of metallic dragons in 3.5). I just always imagined the kobolds having a raspy clicky voice. Even if it says they have a yipping doglike voice in the MM.
As you all know we rarely comment on conduct issues. We've found in the past that the more we say the more loopholes people find. That's the short of why we don't say much.
This case was extreme. So extreme in fact that I am coming out and saying we have done the first IP banning on our forums since CS has taken over moderation.
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread but I want to point out a few things about inappropriate content and how to get it removed.
Tier 1 CS Reps do not patrol the forums. VCLs are not on 24 hours a day. We need your help in getting these things reported. We do have people on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week waiting for forum conduct reports. They are a #1 priority. Cases like the one in question are exactly why that is.
As someone posted, it was removed very shortly after being reported. We just need your help in reporting these issues to us. All you have to do is click on the red triangle icon, enter a short message and send it off. We try to make it very easy to let us know about inappropriate content.
This is your community. We have the tools to clean it up but we really need your eyes to show us where to go. Thank you.
This is from another thread in the Community Business board in reference to an extreme offense, one of the worst that I have heard of on any board.
A true **** the dog moment.
Actually I was talking endlessly about the lack of respect avengers give to other posters who are critical of 4E. You don't think this is the case, look at Cpt Micha, your own, and Outlaw's posting history.
I would challenge anybody to go through my posting history and show me where I have crossed this line. Same would go for Batshido and Cpt Micha.
I know i personally have ever received a single warning on this site, and this is just an example of somebody grasping at straws to try and back up his opinion before he was banned (he has a history of it)
I know i probably didn't need to respond to this post, but i felt it was important to make it clear to anybody reading through.
I would challenge anybody to go through my posting history and show me where I have crossed this line. Same would go for Batshido and Cpt Micha.
I know i personally have ever received a single warning on this site, and this is just an example of somebody grasping at straws to try and back up his opinion before he was banned (he has a history of it)
I know i probably didn't need to respond to this post, but i felt it was important to make it clear to anybody reading through.
I've never had a warning, either. Even back before the announcement of 4E when I was getting in sparring matches over Psionics and ToB.
I find it hard to believe that those of us who are behaving ourselves are the problem here. I think most others have that same problem, which is why people like Nich/LFH/SpearSpike get so frustrated when they get modded for stuff that actually deserves it. Nobody's buying what they're selling.
It's really not that difficult to argue a point while staying within the confines of the CoC.
I haven't received any form of warning in five years, though.
*Reads post*
*Looks at join date*
Your math appears to be a little off, but the sentiment is clearly understood. ;)
*Reads post*
*Looks at join date*
Your math appears to be a little off, but the sentiment is clearly understood. ;)
Four years. :embarrass
My bad. It just seems like five years..
Note: Can't remember having a post edited ether but I post alot so it may have happen at some point.
Four years. :embarrass
My bad. It just seems like five years..
June 2005 to June 2008 = 3 years. Technically we're talking ~3.2 years tops. Perhaps you meant 5 in "dog years"? 1 warning in 3 years on a forum which is renowned for being passive in its defense of its CoC... well done.
I'm not proud of it. It's more of an example that people can change.
But, yeah, my math skills ain't good. My profile doesn't indicate any warnings or suspensions, but I don't know if the profiles do reflect stuff like that.
It could have been any number of things. An informal warning from a WizO, a formal warning froma WizO, a friendly word of caution from a fellow forum member. I wish I wasn't old and could remember things better.
I got my first "Your post has been deleted" email the other day when I said a mean thing. I'm not sure if that's an official warning or just someone being really nice about deleting my post.
I ask only that you post with respect. I grant others respect by default until they prove hostile; at which point they simply find themselves on my ignore list.
This is a good stance to take.
This is a good stance to take.
I try to follow it as much as possible.