Zherog;16735509 wrote:
The above "solutions" are certainly well-delineated goals. But what are they meant to fix, specifically? And will they?
If there are indeed problems with the forum that need fixing, I think it's extremely important to target the exact issues involved and not hazy, unspecified feelings or have "fixes" that serve other goals or agendas rather than addressing the issues at hand.
In other words, don't buy an expensive hammer if what you really need is a pair of pliers. Especially if someone involved has a hammer store.
I continue to say do nothing. Make sure trolls are reported. Then revisit the issue in a few months. I believe there will still be people angered about the change and people who will still complain about it. But the trolls and threadcrappers will have given up after a month or so from the Release of the FR Players Guide
I agree. We have the CoC and the ability to report people. Wiz_Os have definitely been on the job almost immediately after I report a post.
What we're going through is a pretty long reaction to 4E Realms changes that have been slowly revealed over a long period of time. It's fairly natural, imo, and has already started to diminish in recent days.
I think #1 on the list I typed is a fine solution at any point if LK feels as though he needs assistance. Nobody ever said the Forum Lead job had to be a solo gig.
I think #2 is a worthy goal for right now. Building such a document (in my opinion) should be a community endeavor, rather than LK or somebody else sitting down and typing it out on their own. Solicit feedback for what topics to cover, how to cover them, and so on. I took that approach when I built the "What's a Player to Do? FAQ and Important Links" document. And I think it worked very well to involve the community.
The others on my list, i do agree a "wait and see" approach would be the best solution.
I continue to say do nothing. Make sure trolls are reported. Then revisit the issue in a few months. I believe there will still be people angered about the change and people who will still complain about it. But the trolls and threadcrappers will have given up after a month or so from the Release of the FR Players Guide
So here's my question. At what point does it become a CoC violation? Would you call this a CoC violation?
Neither am I. He got panned by many for errors in lore in Darkvision and especially Stardeep so instead of trying to get better at it, he destroyed the lore. It was easier that way
or this?
Of course, that was the best part of a shared world. Clearly these guys don't get it and its unfortunate. The real problem was they wanted to write books and not have to do research in previous lore. Now they don't have to.
Because personal attacks are against the CoC and you were attacking the authors of those books. Of coarse I don't feel that you were doing it as a violation of the CoC and you weren't trolling. However, it made me feel uncomfortable in the forum in general.
Additionally, as has been pointed out to you, going into a thread for pro-4e and posting anti-4e sentiments is derailing and against the CoC, but again not everyone does it in an attempt to troll. This makes it so the line is not as clear.
My opinion is that a pre-spellplague and post-spellplague Realmslore forums will make it so that DMs and Players will be able to go on and easily find a place where they can discuss the part of the setting they are interested in. If they need an idea for Maztica then they can go to the pre-spellplague era forum and if they want an idea for the Underchasm then they can go onto the post-spellplague forum.
I think #1 on the list I typed is a fine solution at any point if LK feels as though he needs assistance. Nobody ever said the Forum Lead job had to be a solo gig.
I think #2 is a worthy goal for right now. Building such a document (in my opinion) should be a community endeavor, rather than LK or somebody else sitting down and typing it out on their own. Solicit feedback for what topics to cover, how to cover them, and so on. I took that approach when I built the "What's a Player to Do? FAQ and Important Links" document. And I think it worked very well to involve the community.
I think number two is a great start no matter what else happens. I also think if LK chose a second lead that was pro-4e then that would go a long way to help the people who have felt disenfranchised by the anti-4e sentiment in the forums.
Again I will not say whether or not there is an anti-4e sentiment, but there have been many people who have said that they feel like there is and have felt cornered because of it. Doing something to help them would be a great thing IMO.
Speaking as someone who doesn't consider himself a member of that community (I only lurk, and I don't think I've been there at all since the merger):
I think #1 on the list I typed is a fine solution at any point if LK feels as though he needs assistance. Nobody ever said the Forum Lead job had to be a solo gig.
Just wondering... what would this solve, specifically? What would a second forum lead be able to do that Karsus is not, or has not been able to do?
I think #2 is a worthy goal for right now. Building such a document (in my opinion) should be a community endeavor, rather than LK or somebody else sitting down and typing it out on their own. Solicit feedback for what topics to cover, how to cover them, and so on. I took that approach when I built the "What's a Player to Do? FAQ and Important Links" document. And I think it worked very well to involve the community.
Extra FAQs just mean more things to read, which people on forums tend to skip over until they break a rule. FAQs are not a bad idea per se, but FAQs with rules are often hotly debated - do rules in the FAQ override the CoC, for example, even in spirit? This is messy stuff for everyday people to undertake, unless WotC writes it (which they should, if it has rules for the forum).
Because personal attacks are against the CoC and you were attacking the authors of those books.
You could certainly make that arguement, sure. They were essentially personal attacks but I was not attacking a poster but criticizing a designer. A criticism I firmly believe. To me, thats a big difference. These forums have for some time allowed critiques of authors as opposed to posters
Anyway, my only point is that a wait and see what happens approach is best I think. The wounds from the 4e realms are relatively fresh. Thats my only point
Just wondering... what would this solve, specifically? What would a second forum lead be able to do that Karsus is not, or has not been able to do?
As I said, my suggestion is to only add a second lead if LK believes there's more work than he can accomplish. Given that, it would "solve" (or, at least, go towards solving) the fact that there's more work than LK can handle. If LK truly thinks he has the whole thing under control and couldn't use the help, then there would be no need for a second FL.
So to be extra clear: I'm only advocating for a second lead to be added if LK himself wants somebody else to work with. The goal of the tandem, presumably, would be to continue building the community.
Extra FAQs just mean more things to read, which people on forums tend to skip over until they break a rule. FAQs are not a bad idea per se, but FAQs with rules are often hotly debated - do rules in the FAQ override the CoC, for example, even in spirit? This is messy stuff for everyday people to undertake, unless WotC writes it (which they should, if it has rules for the forum).
As a general rule of thumb, I agree that a lot of people tend to ignore sticky threads (which includes FAQs) when they sign up for a forum. But that alone doesn't mean they're a useless tool. In fact, on more than one occasion around here in the past, I've seen regular members reply to the frequently asked questions with something along the lines of, "the answers you seek are in the FAQ stickied at the top of the forum" and include a link. The same is true for gathered "Important Links."
As for the legalese of the CoC and who should write that, I'll point you towards mudbunny's very excellent [thread=1021837]How to be a Responsible Forum Member[/thread] thread stickied to the top of this forum. It covers some of that sort of ground, and was written by a community member rather than a member of the legal team or customer service (aka the mods). It can be done, and done effectively and clearly.
As I said, my suggestion is to only add a second lead if LK believes there's more work than he can accomplish. Given that, it would "solve" (or, at least, go towards solving) the fact that there's more work than LK can handle. If LK truly thinks he has the whole thing under control and couldn't use the help, then there would be no need for a second FL.
So to be extra clear: I'm only advocating for a second lead to be added if LK himself wants somebody else to work with. The goal of the tandem, presumably, would be to continue building the community.
Oh, okay. I was just curious.
As a general rule of thumb, I agree that a lot of people tend to ignore sticky threads (which includes FAQs) when they sign up for a forum. But that alone doesn't mean they're a useless tool. In fact, on more than one occasion around here in the past, I've seen regular members reply to the frequently asked questions with something along the lines of, "the answers you seek are in the FAQ stickied at the top of the forum" and include a link. The same is true for gathered "Important Links."
As for the legalese of the CoC and who should write that, I'll point you towards mudbunny's very excellent [thread=1021837]How to be a Responsible Forum Member[/thread] thread stickied to the top of this forum. It covers some of that sort of ground, and was written by a community member rather than a member of the legal team or customer service (aka the mods). It can be done, and done effectively and clearly.
Is there a way to easily cross-sticky that? Meaning, can clicking on a sticky in the Realms forum be immediately re-directed to mudbunny's sticky here? I agree, it's excellent and seems to cover the essentials of forum behavior.
You could certainly make that arguement, sure. They were essentially personal attacks but I was not attacking a poster but criticizing a designer. A criticism I firmly believe. To me, thats a big difference. These forums have for some time allowed critiques of authors as opposed to posters
Anyway, my only point is that a wait and see what happens approach is best I think. The wounds from the 4e realms are relatively fresh. Thats my only point
Well I criticized an Associated Press author and attacked the quality of his article and was banned for 24 hours for it, so doing so against a WotC employee should be a permanent ban if that is the case.
Split the forums to give each their own area to discuss free of the things they do not like.
Well I criticized an Associated Press author and attacked the quality of his article and was banned for 24 hours for it, so doing so against a WotC employee should be a permanent ban if that is the case.
Split the forums to give each their own area to discuss free of the things they do not like.
I guess Freedom of Speech is a thing of the past
I guess Freedom of Speech is a thing of the past
We've already been over this Merrik. Forums do not offer the same freedom of speech as your real life does. There is a very specific code of conduct that you agree to when you join the forums. As a lawyer you should know this.
I guess Freedom of Speech is a thing of the past
No, freedom of speech is a thing of the government. There is no freedom of speech here. Wizards can stop you from posting here for good reasons, bad reason and no reasons. Heck, the Code of Conduct says so:
[indent]Wizards of the Coast may deviate from this procedure at any time in any manner it deems appropriate without notice.[/indent]
Also, I don't know why personal attacks against designers should ever be allowed. All employees of Wizards have accounts to post in the forums (even if they never use them), so technically any attack on a designer is itself an attack on a member and thus against the Code of Conduct.
That said, personal attacks accomplish nothing except poison the atmosphere of the forums. They should always be subject to disciplinary action, even if the person is someone who would never be expected to appear on the forum.
Edit: Merrick's a lawyer? Really? Is he a lawyer in America? I'm surprised a lawyer wouldn't know that the First Amendment applies only to governmental acts. I'm pretty certain all American law schools require coursework in Constitutional law, which would include at least a basic primer on the First Amendment.
I guess Freedom of Speech is a thing of the past
In regards to D&D, 4th edition or FR, it seems you have no such right on the WotC forums. If you did they would not be so hard up about adding forums and worrying about some silly traffic.
WotC, thanks to GZ, was so worried about having enough threads daily in a forum rather than just creating a place for people to discuss various things. See the idea for having a general discussion area that is fully edition neutral and why they refuse to do so for some silly reason.
In the case of the AP author and that article, I was being harassed by a moderator I am sure as it continued later.
For Forgotten Realms, forums it was hard for Karsus to even get the initial split, again because of some traffic rating that makes no sense as ALL the forums run through the same server and getting people to talk about the game should be the main concern, but it seems only 4th edition is the concern and anything else is an afterthought, including but not limited to 3rd edition itself being an outcast that is not wished for discussion.
I am unsure what the real problem with making forums for the things people would like to discuss, but under GZ the decisions seemed to be made by the same people that made the games, and had no experience with running forums.
With Solice now in charge of the D&D area here, I do not understand what the problem is. Maybe the fear of changing the forums all over again and making some people upset in the interest of building a better community, and she does not want to ruffle too many feathers at once, or has been piled with a ****load of work trying to decipher the mess of a state that GZ left the forums in.
Again, it would take about 2 minutes to create the forums for pre-4th FR, and rename the existing ones to 4th, and such.
The amount of work is minute, it just must be decided to do so, so that the forums can heal themselves.
Why this was not thought of in advance, or done in advance, I and many other will probably never know, but that is something that will have to be asked of Solice and the CM that discuss things on some hidden forum about how to run the individual forums, rather than like this thread in the area OF the area that is being discussed.
So like this thread itself trying to determine what to do to resolve the situation was created to allow for better understanding of and resolution of, it would be just as simple to create a forum and allow for people that prefer the different versions of the Realms to discuss them separately rather than try to force them all to get along.
As when you try to force people to get along you often make even more people angry in the process.
I think a split of the forum will work, and if Karsus wants help with all the FR forums, then no problem with his choosing an aide; and it could set an example for future product releases to offer a forum for old and new in parallel to each other like the D&D and 4th edition forums were prior to the release of 4th.
Notice also when all the D&D forums were combined the problems seemed to only get worse, from my research; to when they were separate.
So Is freedom of speech dead? Yes, on the WotC forums I do think so if you are not allowed to express your own opinion, or ask for something as simple as a place to discuss something without having something you do not want to be a part of forced on you.
This goes for other things as well as the current FR situation.
Also, I don't know why personal attacks against designers should ever be allowed.
It is the opinions and decisions that they make that even allow the forums to exist as the product, and if you do not allow for people to attack the product or opinion, then you have no real discussion when you prevent anything but "I love it" to be said.
Any opposing opinion could easily be seen as a "personal attack" because it disagrees with the idea of a WotC employee, or anyone that you are disagreeing with. You are attacking that person's opinion, which is personal to them, ergo....personal attack.
It is the opinions and decisions that they make that even allow the forums to exist as the product, and if you do not allow for people to attack the product or opinion, then you have no real discussion when you prevent anything but "I love it" to be said.
Any opposing opinion could easily be seen as a "personal attack" because it disagrees with the idea of a WotC employee, or anyone that you are disagreeing with. You are attacking that person's opinion, which is personal to them, ergo....personal attack.
There is a difference between posting an attack against the creator of a product, like the posts I quoted, and making remarks about the product itself. A personal attack is one directed towards a person.
However, this is not the topic at hand. If you would like to discuss WotC code of conduct and how it pertains to freedom of speech then I would recommend you make a thread on the topic.
With Solice now in charge of the D&D area here, I do not understand what the problem is.
I don't know. Maybe it's because Solice has been in charge all of three weeks, and two of those have been spend at conventions? And the third has been a holiday weekend here in the US? Maybe a little patience is in order before we go collecting tar and feathers?
It is the opinions and decisions that they make that even allow the forums to exist as the product, and if you do not allow for people to attack the product or opinion
Did you see that I wrote "personal attack"? An attack on someone's opinion or product is not a "personal attack." We were discussing personal attacks, hellmute
Any opposing opinion could easily be seen as a "personal attack"
Not to anybody who knows what "personal attack" means.
You are attacking that person's opinion, which is personal to them, ergo....personal attack.
So... you don't know what a personal attack is? because if you did, you wouldn't have made the preceding quotation.
However, this is not the topic at hand. If you would like to discuss WotC code of conduct and how it pertains to freedom of speech then I would recommend you make a thread on the topic.
I concur. Please leave this thread to the listing and discussion of potential solutions towards making the FR community (and, by extension, all our communities) a better place.
Is there a way to easily cross-sticky that? Meaning, can clicking on a sticky in the Realms forum be immediately re-directed to mudbunny's sticky here? I agree, it's excellent and seems to cover the essentials of forum behavior.
I'm not super-familiar with the forum software. The only way I know of would be to make it an announcement. Those can certainly appear in more than one forum. The downside is you only ever see one at a time -- so once somebody posts another announcement, it would get pushed off the screen.
Anybody familiar with vB who knows the answer to this question?
An alternative is to simply do what my community down in the What's a Player to Do forum did --we gathered up all sorts of "important links" and put them into the FAQ thread. It covers things like the CoC, various forums around here and their purpose, links to name generators, links to character sheets, and so on.
I'm not super-familiar with the forum software. The only way I know of would be to make it an announcement. Those can certainly appear in more than one forum. The downside is you only ever see one at a time -- so once somebody posts another announcement, it would get pushed off the screen.
Anybody familiar with vB who knows the answer to this question?
An alternative is to simply do what my community down in the What's a Player to Do forum did --we gathered up all sorts of "important links" and put them into the FAQ thread. It covers things like the CoC, various forums around here and their purpose, links to name generators, links to character sheets, and so on.
Yes you can create a shadowed thread/forum with vBulletin. You must be in the administrator group for the forum to do so, just like creating forums and renaming them, unless some special group such as super-mod has been created to grant those permission to the user.
So depending on the permissions for users it CAN be done with vBulletin.
Otherwise you could just make a sticky in the other forums with a link to this one, and lock the sticky, so that you can go from that forum directly to here IF there is someone available to sticky and lock the thread created.
There are other methods that would involve direct access to the database to have this thread display in that forum as well, or a new thread there act as if it were this one when clicked by altering a few things within the database to trick the forums into thinking they are the same thread, or that this thread is located in multiple areas.
WotC_EricB (the one that fixed subscription problems) would be able to do any of the above, probably.
[/derail]
-First thing first, there is no need for a second Forum Lead, as I am having no troubles handling my duties as Forum Lead.
-Second thing, the only section splitting that should be happening, if any, would be a mitosis to create a 'Forgotten Realms General Discussion' area to house discussions that are quite common, that do not pertain to Realmslore or Running the Realms, such as book reviews, editorials, opinion pieces, community projects, and things of that nature. Anything else (such as 3e Forgotten Realms and 4e Forgotten Realms) is using the chance to gain another section in a wasteful manner, and so long as I am the representative of the Forgotten Realms area, I am not going to allow the section to grow lopsided- that is, have one section with 40 active threads, one section with 20, and one section with 5.
-Third thing, as I said elsewhere, that there is a "problem" is a gross exaggeration. I'll encourage everyone to look at the Realmslore section, and the Running the Realms sections. Please identify where the gross trolling is, where the gross baiting is, where the horrible problems are? Are there specific instances of specific individuals baiting/flaming each other? Sure. Have there been a couple of threads that I've had closed, because they simply had devolved, and weren't going to produce any actual, meaningful discussion, asides for "This is your fault!", "No, this is your fault!"? Sure. Are there specific instance of specific individuals participating in trolling? Sure. Is there an epidemic? Hardly. Looking at just the first page, I see numerous constructive threads, and a single problem thread, mainly as it was created to link to the other "Forgotten Realms Deevolution" thread.
-Fourth thing, as I said elsewhere, specific people need to stop doing specific things, and the relatively few problems that there are will stop. I won't name names, but I asked a few specific posters, via PM, to stop using such vitriol in their posts, or to stop publically calling others out for what they considered CoC violations, and to simply report others in private and leave it at that. Guess what? These people listened, and fewer wars of words were created because of it. I have a very long MS word document, in which I have compiled the behavior and posting patterns of most regular posters who contribute in a meaningful way (or a lack thereof) in the Forgotten Realms section. After looking at my data, I have eight..."problematic behavior types" that I have deduced as the 'sticky' points that cause problems. I will post them, sans with what posters can be put in each group. For those of you reading, and genuinely want to increase the posting experience of those posting in the Forgotten Realms section, it shouldn't be too hard to know what you're "guilty of" without me calling you out, and to cut back/stop/be more considerate of that type of behavior:
This is one of the biggest problems I see. People make broad, all-encompassing generalizations, that often times aren’t even grounded in correct facts, and attempt- knowingly or unknowingly- to pass them off as facts. Then, when others challenge them on those statements, they become indignant, citing that they are entitled to their opinions.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Does this make your opinion fact? No. Does this make your opinion unchallengeable? No. If you make broad generalizations, are people going to challenge them? Yes. If your broad generalization is “out there”, or is unsubstantiated by fact, are a lot of people going to respond, rebuking them? Yes. Is this a bad thing? No. Does this evoke passionate debate? Yes. Does the fact that the debate picks apart your opinions make the debate bad? No. Were this the case, scientific advancement would be nil.
Many people, when tensions in debates rise, and the discussion turns into a borderline flame war, feel the need to get the last word in. When somebody flames you, not wanting to be insulted, you flame them back. This prompts them to flame you back. Not wanting to be the “loser” in the “battle”, you flame them back. And, this goes on until one side loses interest, and stops.
When someone flames you, there’s no need to return the favor. Be the better person. Take the moral high ground. Don’t resort to their level. Someone says something, don’t respond, and simply report their post to the WizOs. When they have their post edited, and receive a message from the WizOs, and have official action taken on their account, who will be laughing in the end? You, or them?
So many people like to complain about things. It’s really in vogue, it seems. What’s even more annoying about people complaining about things, however, is when people complain about things, and then go right on and do exactly what they were complaining about. It happens all the time.
If you are going to complain about trolls, don’t be a troll yourself. Don’t decry being attacked for a particular opinion/stance/whatever else, and then, in turn, attack others for their particular opinion/stance/whatever.
People see posts in which somebody says something that they find “out of line”, and report them. That’s fine. In fact, that’s encouraged. That’s being a diligent member of the community. Code of Conduct violations, in whatever form they take, should be reported. A few posts later, they see a post in which somebody says something that violates the CoC, but being as that it supports/agrees with their own personal views on things, they gloss over it, and move on.
A violation of the Code of Conduct is a violation of the Code of Conduct whether or not the violation supports a belief/opinion that you have, or if it doesn’t. Is not money gained through illegal and dubious means known as “blood money”? And no one with scruples ever wants blood money. Likewise, posts that support/advance your own opinions on things that violate the CoC are “blood posts”. No one with scruples should “accept” blood posts.
This is one of the biggest problems. Someone sees something that they think is against the CoC, or some kind of behavior that they personally don’t like, or whatever it is. So, what do they do? They tell everyone about how so and so is breaking the Code of Conduct, how that kind of behavior isn’t/shouldn’t be tolerated, that they are reporting that person for violating the Code of Conduct, and that they will report people in the future for violating the Code of Conduct.
Ironically, calling others out for violating the Code of Conduct is, in itself, a violation of the Code of Conduct. Calling someone out is baiting them, pure and simple. What else does someone who does this expecting, asides for a reactionary statement? People need to learn to report others using the ‘Report Post’ button, and keep their mouths shut. As long as they press the button, a WizO is going to come by and look at the post, to determine if it violates the CoC, or not. By announcing how they are going to be doing this, they are doing nothing but perpetuating arguments and problems between posters.
People like to talk. A lot. And they’ll repeat themselves over and over and over and over. If someone has an opinion, in any relevant place they can share it, they’ll share it. Is this really necessary? In most cases, no. If you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over and over, there’s no reason to write it over and over and over. Make references to it. Link it. If it’s that important, make a new thread dedicated solely to what you think on that topic, where that topic is the sole point of the thread.
When people share opinions, they’re likely to pique the interest of others. Some might agree, while others might not agree. By spouting the same thing over and over and over, in multiple threads, you are increasing the chances of the same exact topic being discussed in multiple threads, which may or may not be directly related or tangential to the actual topic of the post.
In and of itself, rabble rousers don’t case any problems. But, when a problem already exists, rabble rousers exacerbate the problem. And, there are plenty of rabble rousers around here, let me tell you. When a problem exists, these are the people who oftentimes instigate trouble, pointing the problem out, prompting discussion about the problem while, in actuality, not actually addressing how to solve the problem at hand. What does this do? It simply inflames passions and restarts the same old arguments.
Who are these people? Most of the time, they aren’t actually members, or contributors to a specific community. In other words, in most cases, they are primarily spectators, not actors, contributing very little to the community. Why do these people do it? Some people are genuinely concerned with whatever the problem is. Others are simply interested in sewing discord and chaos. A handful are looking to cash in, getting on other people’s good graces with feigned concern, so that those good graces will pay off in the form of ‘prestige’ or ‘political position’, or ‘favors’, or what have you. But, whatever the reason, where there is smoke, they’ll go running to either attempt to put out the flames, or fan the flames.
Should someone who is a fervent Holocaust denier feel as if his views are the norm on a Holocaust remembrance forum? Are his views welcome? A counterpoint to any argument or debate is always a welcome thing, as long as they are made tastefully, of course. Should this person feel it odd, though, that so many people disagree with what he is saying? No, because this person is in the minority opinion.
Every community has a majority and a minority. This doesn’t necessarily reflect sociological power status in a group, or anything of that sort. Rather, it’s a simple mathematic reflection of those who hold the predominant viewpoint in a group, as opposed to those who hold the minority viewpoint in a group. Those who are in the minority group should not feel any kind of absurdity and unfairness in a situation when, by and large, a great deal of the majority sentiment disagrees with their own sentiments. It doesn't make what they are saying right, it doesn't make what they are saying wrong, it doesn't make what they are saying anything. It simply means that, they shouldn't find it odd when multiple people disagree with them.
-Second thing, the only section splitting that should be happening, if any, would be a mitosis to create a 'Forgotten Realms General Discussion' area to house discussions that are quite common, that do not pertain to Realmslore or Running the Realms, such as book reviews, editorials, opinion pieces, community projects, and things of that nature. Anything else (such as 3e Forgotten Realms and 4e Forgotten Realms) is using the chance to gain another section in a wasteful manner, and so long as I am the representative of the Forgotten Realms area, I am not going to allow the section to grow lopsided- that is, have one section with 40 active threads, one section with 20, and one section with 5.
LK, first of all, let me thank you for joining the discussion. It's great to have your opinions here.
My main question on this is whether you think that the two versions on the setting have enough in common to warrant a single discussion thread on the lore? My biggest thing, personally, is that there are a lot of differences between the two settings as it is. Someone who is new to the 4ed setting will not know a lot about Maztica and what sorts of adventures can be created there. Meanwhile someone who has no knowledge of the 4ed setting won't know what to do with the Underchasm.
Again, my opinion only, I don't think the big issue with splitting them post and pre spellplague will stop the trolling, but I do think that there are big differences in the settings that make the discussions on them mutually exclusive. Personally, I think this would work better than a mechanics/lore forum. However, I would like to hear the reasons you disagree (I assume you do based on what you've said).
And we don't want duplicate boards. I'd like to see the structure of the forums become Newbie friendly. It shoudl be easy to know where to post things. Having duplicate boards won't solve any problems, only let people who want to fight and argue to do so in more forums. We don't want to dilute the Forgotten Relams community (Or any community here) into smaller groups.
If people don't keep pre-4e FR around, how will new people even come close to knowing the history. Telling them the current edition is no good isn't helpful, but "Hey, did you guys want the history before the change?" would. Then people might play 4e using older edition Realms material. Or, maybe someone will see something in 4e FR that they want to use in their 3e game. There are a lot of opportunites to be had, and those will be lost if we just let the trolls win.
I also have to agree with Karsus- it seems the "problems" are overblown. A few people making a lot of noise for the sake of making noise.
My main question on this is whether you think that the two versions on the setting have enough in common to warrant a single discussion thread on the lore? My biggest thing, personally, is that there are a lot of differences between the two settings as it is. Someone who is new to the 4ed setting will not know a lot about Maztica and what sorts of adventures can be created there. Meanwhile someone who has no knowledge of the 4ed setting won't know what to do with the Underchasm.
-There are plenty of major differences, but it's still the same setting. If someone wants information about a specific era, they'll either have to specify using tags (ie, [3e], or [4e], as many people already do), or they'll have to deal with being given information that may be relevant to either one era and not the other, and pick out what is useful for them, and what is not useful to them.
-Such a split, as I alluded to, causes a lopsidedness that is guaranteed to have the sections remerged, not being able to sustain enough activity to warrant the section being separate. Being that, by and far, 75% of the information that exists is in the 1e-2e-3e era, 75% of posts will be in this theoretical section, while the remaining minority will be in the theoretical 4e one. I had a hard enough time getting the section to be split the first time, and should we be given the opportunity again, I am not going to see it wasted. Instead, I want to see it used as most effectively as possible.
-Furthermore, as I have mentioned elsewhere, splitting things into 3e and 4e isn't going to stop those few who get off on "aggravating" others. In a discussion in a 3e section about Elminster, people are still going to point out how they know for certain that he is a character born from Ed Greenwood's secret desires. In discussion in a 4e section about Underchasm, people are still going to bring up how they feel the concept of Underchasm was an ill-begotten idea, because of XYZ.
-There are plenty of major differences, but it's still the same setting.
If I may ask a few quesitons in this regard.....
What was Elminster doing when last seen in 3rd, versus what is he doing now?
What is Mystra doing in 4th?
While the planet did not undergo a change such as the cataclysm of Krynn, there is still little left of what was which almost makes is a new setting entirely.
Now this could be said for those playing through pre and post-war Ansalon as well, but at least the gods leaving there was something that not many people played through.
With the 4th Realms, there are major changes that have done much to alter the setting AS people are playing through it.
So while there are many things still recognizable, the new Realms are far different than the previous.
How confusing would it be to have just a single Lore forun and have a new player come across a thread discussing Mystra and the Chosen? This person has only played 4th, and may have little knowledge of what transpired before it.
So they would be highly confused and may get frustrated from this confusion and it affect their posting style or habits or may even cause them to leave due to the confusion.
While it wouldn't matter the other way around, in the interest of new players TO 4th edition and D&D and the Realms under 4th, it may provide a better avenue to not throw in all the history of the Realms, since it may not play any part in their games. Let them venture into it on there own when they are ready.
Otherwise you could just have every setting under Planescape, or SpellJammer, since they are all connected via those "settings".
If will not affect people who want to discus both, but for those that do not wish to discuss the 4th edition Realms, they would have a place to go, and threads regarding pre-plagued Realms, could be routed to the proper forum and be removed from interfering with the plagued-Realms (no pun intended).
So what harm would it do to have one pre forum and one post forum?
If I may ask a few quesitons in this regard.....
-If you are genuinely looking for answers, as opposed to looking to make a point, you can start threads in the Realmslore section.
So while there are many things still recognizable, the new Realms are far different than the previous.
-Does not the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore section already cover a 30,000+ year history, in which various major changes exist to the world?
So what harm would it do to have one pre forum and one post forum?
-I already explained this.
-If you are genuinely looking for answers, as opposed to looking to make a point, you can start threads in the Realmslore section.
-Does not the Forgotten Realms: Realmslore section already cover a 30,000+ year history, in which various major changes exist to the world?
-I already explained this.
I hope with the few exceprts I already know what Mystra is doing now...and Elminsters insantiy and all that... But have been avoiding the Realms for a while until it gets settled since last I visited long ago.....Yeah, there is a LOT to discuss in the Realms, which like lumping all previous D&D editions into one forum and 4th having its own groupings, at least give people a place to discuss 3rd edition if they wish NOT to discuss 4th. So It could work for the Realms, and everything else as well.
You will never avoid people complaining about the changes to something they liked the way it was, unless you stop making changes, so you have to live with that as a byproduct of changing in the first place.
I must have missed where a real problem with splitting pre and post is somewhere. Can you redirect me to it?
Is there any gesture that will show this just isn't true that can be done? Again I don't have a clue what it would be. If I did I would suggest it, but I am wondering what your opinions on the matter are?
I must have missed where a real problem with splitting pre and post is somewhere. Can you redirect me to it?
He has stated that he feels that splitting in that way will be a waste of a split opportunity when there could be a general forums as well. He also feels that the balance on active topics would be greatly affected.
Personally, I don't think a general forum will get much traffic and I think that it will be the forum with 5 active topics. However, I also feel that right now there is no place to post those things beyond Realmslore. So right now I have no opinion on a general forum, but that's a big reaso why LK is against the split.
General FR forum?
Now I will assume you have read the entire thread, but I want to let you know that this has already been all stated by LK in this thread, so make sure to read more carefully. :P
The General FR forum would be for threads that do not have to do with the Realmslore or the Mechanics, for example writing about the novels, editorials, etc.
Sigged. Should be stickied, too.
-Such a split, as I alluded to, causes a lopsidedness that is guaranteed to have the sections remerged, not being able to sustain enough activity to warrant the section being separate. Being that, by and far, 75% of the information that exists is in the 1e-2e-3e era, 75% of posts will be in this theoretical section, while the remaining minority will be in the theoretical 4e one. I had a hard enough time getting the section to be split the first time, and should we be given the opportunity again, I am not going to see it wasted. Instead, I want to see it used as most effectively as possible.
While I do appreciate what you are saying I just want to say that I feel there would not be a direct correlation between the information that is out there and the number of posts that will be in a forum. While 75% of the information out there might be from previous editions the current edition is very open and has few details. This means there is more room for projects like the Kara-Tur Project for the new edition.
Also as I said I don't think a general forum will be the most effective use, but that should be discussed in another thread.
Separating the pre and post won't work because it just perpetuates the idea that there are two different realms, and that they don't share any lore.
As far as a co-lead, that should be all of our job in these forums, especially the regulars, we need to set the example for the new people, and police ourselves. If someone is violating the CoC, don't attack them, just report it. If someone becomes a real problem, then use the ignore feature. If someone is close to the line, send them a PM and let them know, but be polite. If you are angry about a post or feel insulted, take a deep breath, if that doesn't work, get up and walk away from the computer, eat something or have a glass of water, basically give yourself a minute to think before you fire off a scathing reply that you will regret in 5 minutes. (I am so guilty of this).
The Realms and these boards are provided for us for entertainment, not as a battleground. I want to share and discuss the lore that exists and help create the lore that is to come, and I hope you all do to. Join with me and we can take back the FR forums for there intended purpose.
If you feel that by PM someone you mark yourself as a target, or you feel you can't be polite, PM LK or someone else who you feel is neutral and ask them to do it, with the stipulation that you remain anonymous. Make sure to be specific about the post(s) you are referencing though.
We should not try and split up the community but just tidy it up. There is no need for a 3E and 4E FR area.
That being discussed, lets figure out what else can be done. LK has said that he doesn't feel he needs any more help in the FR forums and with the world forums getting a forum guide soon I don't doubt that he will be able to continue to handle it easily (Although I still don't know what the guides will be doing).
Right now there is a sticky up on the forum that has links to good threads for 4e, but perhaps a more general FAQ or links thread would be helpful.
Also what is the general opinion of the people here on what and when people should report other members? We've discussed some of the types of problems the forum has. Should those things be reported and can we expect moderation against them. I feel bad reporting those types of posts, but I also feel bad when I read those posts so where is the line for the members and should there be a post in the FR forums discussing it?
Also what is the general opinion of the people here on what and when people should report other members? We've discussed some of the types of problems the forum has. Should those things be reported and can we expect moderation against them. I feel bad reporting those types of posts, but I also feel bad when I read those posts so where is the line for the members and should there be a post in the FR forums discussing it?
My opinion: if you think it's a violation of the CoC, report it. It's about as simple as that. What you say when you report something, though, is important.
"Baiting" probably isn't a very good message. Not all the WizOs understand the uneasy feelings about the spellplague, to grab an example. Don't just say what the problem is; say why you think it's a problem.
"This post appears to be baiting the OP the thread by hinting that only a 12 year old would think the spellplague was a clever way to fast forward the time line."
Don't worry about being too long winded. Some cases require a long explanation, and (in my experience) the mods appreciate being given as much detail as possible.
However, I wish to submit the following.
First, consider the first paragraph of what defines a forum lead.
Forum leads are community members who work with the Wizards of the Coast community management team to help improve the forum communities. Forum leads will provide WotC with suggestions and ideas, as well as help the community by providing guidance and help to all community members, with an emphasis on helping those who are new to the forum community.
I think the consistent work LK has done to have threads moved/merged/deleted is good start.
But it’s just a start because improving the FR community involves more than that.
Improving the community should involve focused efforts to knit the community together and get the community working together, so that we can realize a more beneficial experience and friendly atmosphere on the FR Forums as a whole.
I believe that someone should be given title to the Running the Realms forum (not necessarily Forum Lead, though I guess I don’t know what else you’d call them), whose purpose will be to find ways to encourage people to interact on that forum on a wider scale.
This person would be responsible for the following:
1) Leading the community around the Realms. The quasi-FL would create threads that encourage people to participate in group projects that build upon know aspects of the Realms (like we’ve already done on the DM challenge - The council of Magisters thread and the Realms DM Exercise: Name the 13 Vindicators of the Ironfell Council thread)....say one place/region or local every few weeks or a month.
(Note we're only supposed to get DDI articles about the Realms after the Player's Guide comes out. Thus, there's a ginormous amount of room for the community to fill in the gaps in the setting.)
2) Lead discussion on how to build Realms characters, in ways that mix the lore and mechanics of the game to optimize both aspects and make for memorable characters.
(The 4E Player's Guide to Faerûn is coming out this month. Having the quasi-FL focus on ways to utilize it can help get a lot of threads going on the RtR Forum.)
3) Lead discussions that involve Realms Dungeon Masters. Such topics can include how much lore is good/bad for a game, what regions of the Realms are yours or your player’s favorites to adventure in, what kind of adventures people run in the Realms and so on.
4) Keep an eye out for people who appear to be new to the forums and/or new to the Realms, with the purpose of helping these people most of all (no matter how their first post might come off) and encouraging other Running the Realms community members to do the same, in a friendly and non-judgmental way, with emphasis on what the person is trying to achieve in their game, and not on how much lore they seem to not know or have wrong.
That last, I think, is most important.
This person should also remember they are helping to foster discussion between Realms Dungeon Masters and players about how to play in any edition of the game, not just 4E.
I believe there is huge D&D-playing audience just waiting to jump into the Realms who would gladly participate in the Realms Forums if they knew there was a productive place to share ideas and get Realms answers that pertain to playing D&D in the Realms, minus all the heavy lore talk and drama (or the perception of such, even as it dwindles down).
Naex and/or Banpai would be my first choices to lead the Running the Realms forum. Their contributions in terms of new lore and rule-based creations speak for themselves. I should like to mention Purple Dragon as well.
Bel
-Like Webster said, that there is a problem is exaggerating the issue. Certain individuals make noise here, and in the Forgotten Realms section, for the sake of it, which in turn, causes more people to make more noise, and so on and so on. When people stop trying to rock the boat, the rocking stops. Funny, that.
Ok well it seems like we've given a good run through on the whole splitting idea. The general consensus here is that the two forums should stay as they are.
-Again, based on the levels of activity, I think that there should be a third 'Forgotten Realms General' thread, and such a thread would be very nice. The two sections that exist, though, yes, they should be staying as they are.
Also what is the general opinion of the people here on what and when people should report other members? We've discussed some of the types of problems the forum has. Should those things be reported and can we expect moderation against them. I feel bad reporting those types of posts, but I also feel bad when I read those posts so where is the line for the members and should there be a post in the FR forums discussing it?
-Anything that you think might be against the CoC, report. Remember, though- do so "in private". If a WizO agrees with you, then they'll change/delete whatever the problem is (as evidenced above, apparently. Things that get erased, I always wonder...). If the WizO does not do anything, then whatever it is does not fall under the guidelines of what they consider a violation of the CoC. Remember, just because you think something is against the CoC, or should be, doesn't mean that it actually is. If something is done, excellent. If nothing is done, then there isn't a problem, in the eyes of the moderators.
If nothing is done, then there isn't a problem, in the eyes of the moderators.
In the eyes of the moderator (singular). WizO's have rarely (IMX) been known to change their minds or otherwise reverse themselves when a seemingly minor issue keeps getting reported.
::::::::::::::::::::
My general reply to Trobon's last is this: Report away! For all I just said above, the best guideline for learning what to report and what not to is to observe the level of WizO response. Also, keep to the point when reporting. If it’s not obvious what you object to and you can’t concisely summarize your complaint....maybe it’s not an issue after all.
Speaking of issues, the only issue I’m up in the air about concerns people being able to post their opinions about how they view the Realms as a whole. I don’t know that we’ve quite solved how people are going to be able to post legitimate/contrary opinions about how they view the Realms, without things devolving and a host of back and forth reportings to the WizO’s as a result.
Lastly, what would a third Realms Forum’s purpose be? Seems to me we’ve got our bases covered. How best could it serve the community in terms of discussion and topics (1st ever return of novel discussions, perhaps)?
Also, while I agree with Naex about the fact that all of the posters should be doing this, I think that someone who would lead discussions like Mr. Misc suggest would be something that could be considered. The reason I say this is because right now there are posters who post saying that they feel like the FR forums have turned against them and that they have no representation.
No offense intended towards LK, but being a forum lead that opposes the switch may have made it hard on some people who might feel like they have no representation. Now LK is the forum lead there because he is a good Forum Lead who knows when to close threads, when to merge them and when to tell people they are crossing the line. I don't think he should be replaced by any means. What I do think is that a visible person who does lead 4e discussions would help.
That being said, I don't think this should be considered until after the forum guides have been more formalized. At this point there is no real knowledge on what the forum guides will be doing and it may turn out that the worlds forum guide will cover this. In that case there might not be a need for this at all. After the forum guides are formalized I think it should be discussed between the Realms community if this would help. It may turn out that it wouldn't, but moderated discussion rarely hurts things.
Thank you everyone who has kept this discussion clean and friendly so far. I think we have gotten more discussed and thought about than the entire other thread on this issue and its because of the friendly attitude (although the other thread was a great jumping point for ideas).
It should go without saying that every user on this board expresses his or her own opinion in every posting unless he/she explicitly states otherwise.
The reason? People take shortcuts. It gets annoying to add even an "IMO" to every one of your posts just because some people might think you're stating a fact if you don't. If these users get challenged because of that, it's usually in a not so friendly way, which results in flaring tempers.
That's not so much "Hiding" as "Falling back on your last line of defense", i.e. saying that it's only their opinion. Which should have been clear to everyone from the beginning.
In the eyes of the moderator (singular). WizO's have rarely (IMX) been known to change their minds or otherwise reverse themselves when a seemingly minor issue keeps getting reported.
-In the eyes of the moderators, plural. There are multiple WizOs out there. They all handle responding to reported posts.
Speaking of issues, the only issue I’m up in the air about concerns people being able to post their opinions about how they view the Realms as a whole. I don’t know that we’ve quite solved how people are going to be able to post legitimate/contrary opinions about how they view the Realms, without things devolving and a host of back and forth reportings to the WizO’s as a result.
-Where's the problem? People post, if others think there's a CoC violation, they report, the WizO does something, or nothing, and that's that. Debate and varying opinions are nothing new.
Lastly, what would a third Realms Forum’s purpose be? Seems to me we’ve got our bases covered. How best could it serve the community in terms of discussion and topics (1st ever return of novel discussions, perhaps)?
-For the third time now, as I said, a 'Forgotten Realms General' section is in order.
LK, regarding your point #1, "Hiding Behind Opinions", I have a different opinion. (hey! ;) )
It should go without saying that every user on this board expresses his or her own opinion in every posting unless he/she explicitly states otherwise.
The reason? People take shortcuts. It gets annoying to add even an "IMO" to every one of your posts just because some people might think you're stating a fact if you don't. If these users get challenged because of that, it's usually in a not so friendly way, which results in flaring tempers.
That's not so much "Hiding" as "Falling back on your last line of defense", i.e. saying that it's only their opinion. Which should have been clear to everyone from the beginning.
-I just wrote that up quickly, based on personal experience watching certain posters, and the way they say things/react to things. That's by no means any kind of guide or anything. That's just me jotting down the behaviors by other people that start problems.
-I meant that more in a way that someone says an outlandish statement, or a statement that's not actually supported by fact, or something of that ilk, and then when being challenged over it, suddenly becoming very defensive, very agitated, very (passive)aggressive, and using nothing to back the claims except the old and tired, "Well, this is my opinion, so nothing else matters, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!". To use an example, an unnamed poster recently made a comment about how the only reason the Forgotten Realms area received a second section was because of all of the argumentative/baiting/flaming threads that existed over the course of April-July (before the section was split). I, knowing the obvious invalidity of such a statement, challenged the individual on this, and the response was more or less, "[Facts] don't matter. That's my opinion, and that's that."
LK, regarding your point #1, "Hiding Behind Opinions", I have a different opinion. (hey! ;) )
It should go without saying that every user on this board expresses his or her own opinion in every posting unless he/she explicitly states otherwise.
The reason? People take shortcuts.
I very much disagree. What you say is what you say. If someone wants to take shortcuts, they should expect not to be understood. This is a medium devoid of tone or meaning/intent, so it should be a priority to attempt to be as clear as possible.
It's your choice what you say here, even more so then in aural conversation, since it is quite simple to check your own writing before you post and edit what needs to be edited. If someone doesn't want to spend the time to do so, then that's their choice.
It is always a good idea to assume that, unless it is indicated otherwise, that what people are writing is their opinion. It greatly reduces the amount of stress and headache.
When posting, mark the edition, if it is specific, in the thread title, that way at least there is a quick identifier if the poster wants Lore pertaining to that edition.
That would work if the system forced such tagging of the threads. You can ask people to, but that doesn't always work. You could even add an area to the post form to include it, but that still wouldn't work, unless you forced to choose between the editions. Which is not a bad idea.
Simplest is to create a forum for each, or the biggest place to split. In this case, again, it is pre and post 4th....
Discipline is handled by Customer Service, not forum leads or VCL.
Except in the case where forum leads and VCLs ARE CSRs.
Then your statement become false.
That would work if the system forced such tagging of the threads. You can ask people to, but that doesn't always work. You could even add an area to the post form to include it, but that still wouldn't work, unless you forced to choose between the editions. Which is not a bad idea.
Simplest is to create a forum for each, or the biggest place to split. In this case, again, it is pre and post 4th....
I disagree, since all the 3rd edition fluff is potentially useful in 4e, or at least can lead to new fluff as repercussions of the past, 4e people should still have easy access to that material. Also some lore won't be edition specific, such as foods, farming practices, etc., since much of the day to day life of realms citizens hasn't changed all that much. No one has to mark their post, but it makes it easier for those who choose to stay in 3.5 to choose not to participate in a thread about 4e.
I disagree, since all the 3rd edition fluff is potentially useful in 4e, or at least can lead to new fluff as repercussions of the past, 4e people should still have easy access to that material. Also some lore won't be edition specific, such as foods, farming practices, etc., since much of the day to day life of realms citizens hasn't changed all that much. No one has to mark their post, but it makes it easier for those who choose to stay in 3.5 to choose not to participate in a thread about 4e.
It isn't some locked forum that does not allow people to enter it, it would just be another area for 3rd or earlier editions that do not have the Spellplauge all in it so people would not have to sort through it.
People would still be able to read, and quote out portions and take them back to the 4th edition forum to apply what ever they wish from the past.
It just allows people who want the Spellplauge and the changes to the Realms, that did not like how much material there was to have their own place, and would allow those who do not want the Spellplague and like the way to Realms were to talk freely of it.
Nothing would say you couldn't visit both forums, but you could have one free of the Spellplauge, and another free of everythiing that the Spellplague was proposed to fix to get more people to like the Realms by having less "stuff" for them to feel controlled by with its history.
Marking pre and post would help that people who wish to view one or the other without having separate forums can avoid the discussions they do not wish to be a part of, and thus prevent them from reading something that will get the on edge and cause them to post something where they never wanted to be in the first place, and end up starting some flame war.
Marking pre and post would help that people who wish to view one or the other without having separate forums can avoid the discussions they do not wish to be a part of, and thus prevent them from reading something that will get the on edge and cause them to post something where they never wanted to be in the first place, and end up starting some flame war.
-And, people can do that right now. I'd suggest taking a look at the Realmslore and Running the Realms sections for a bit, and getting a handle on the daily activity and such, hellmute.
-And, people can do that right now. I'd suggest taking a look at the Realmslore and Running the Realms sections for a bit, and getting a handle on the daily activity and such, hellmute.
No one has to mark their post
That is what I was responding to, and saying it would help if they DID have to mark their post in some fashion. It wouldn't mean you could not have mixed threads, but you could tell quicker IF there was built into the system a way to say you had to do so.
The problem lies in how big the WotC forums are and that this change would affect EVERY area of this zoo of a forum.
Unless of course they were to give subdomains to directories that contained copies of the forums for each area, but that would require changing one area at a time for somethings as the forums would need to have their own things for the different areas, and probably even separate tables in the database.
It is possible, and having a way to force the inclusion of the 3E/4E/other tags into the titles would not hurt.
It may even be possible to do so with just one forum, but I don't have THAT MUCH knowledge of vBulletin because I won't pay for something like this to play around with it to see what changes can be made. It SHOULD be able to do it if someone takes the time to implement it properly.
It does not take visiting the forums to say this IS an opinion that could help if ideas are saved for future reference.
That is what I was responding to, and saying it would help if they DID have to mark their post in some fashion. It wouldn't mean you could not have mixed threads, but you could tell quicker IF there was built into the system a way to say you had to do so.
-It isn't necessary, however. Some people do this, and it let's people equivocally know that their questions pertain to [Edition], and that all answers should be in [Edition]. Based on the context of one's questions, such tags do not need to be added. For example, when someone is asking for information about something that was never existed previously, until now, any information relevant to the thread is obviously going to centered around the newer books, and not the older books.
-And then, to "muddy the waters" you have posts that transcend editions.
The problem lies in how big the WotC forums are and that this change would affect EVERY area of this zoo of a forum.
-I call either 'emu', or 'llama'. I hold both animals near and dear to my heart.
It does not take visiting the forums to say this IS an opinion that could help if ideas are saved for future reference.
-No, but knowing what's going on, concerning a specific problem, makes solving it a lot easier. You can say that the spaceship exploded because of shoddy development, but until you actually have the development plans in front of you, that's just shooting in the dark.
So visiting does not mean posting to know what is there, and what one does not like about it.
So visiting does not mean posting to know what is there, and what one does not like about it.
-I am talking about forum sociology and structure, not the Forgotten Realms themselves.
-I am talking about forum sociology and structure, not the Forgotten Realms themselves.
I was talking about including the 3e/4e in the Realms forums specifically, but it could work in other places.
Start talking 3e and 4e in the Realms itself might make someone look at you like they were crazy. ;)So it does work, but there could be room for improvement of the system, or someone just sees more of a problem than others in the FR boards themselves?
-That's always a joke in my games, when my players ask me metagame questions, like, "What level is he/she?", or things like that. I just look at them and say innocently, "Level? Experience Points? What are those? What are you talking about?"
Or how about I haven't posted because I don't want to get into the 4th edition of the Realms, and would prefer a place without it. Also while re-reading about the Realms I didn't have much to say until after the splir of lore/crunch and got bust sicne then to post.
So visiting does not mean posting to know what is there, and what one does not like about it.
The 4e people in FR forums don't, generally speaking, muddy conversations that are clearly about earlier editions with posts about newer material. Mostly they have been very good. So if you put a (3e) or (3.5) or (2e) or (1e) in the post, or just make it clear in the first post that it is a discussion about earlier editions, we promise not to bury you with inappropriate posts.
The 4e people in FR forums don't, generally speaking, muddy conversations that are clearly about earlier editions with posts about newer material. Mostly they have been very good. So if you put a (3e) or (3.5) or (2e) or (1e) in the post, or just make it clear in the first post that it is a discussion about earlier editions, we promise not to bury you with inappropriate posts.
Right. So if it is not something that can or is willing to be done to make a forum for post and pre Spellplague, then maybe having that prefix to topic titles would be a great boon to not only FR, but other such combined forums as other settings will be out sooner or later. It would be best if the option was built into the forums so people would not have to try to make things uniform as the forums would do it for you for title sorting purposes.
Does "{" come before "[" and after "(" ?
Are you sorting on UTF-8, ASCII, what?
It does and will work by hand, but having the forums perform this function for you just means a GREAT feature/function addition to them, and you might even be able to include such a setting into the USER CP to allow people to block display of some of those undesirable threads for them on an individual basis.
....
.... .... Yeah, it could be done with the forums software, and probably on a subforum by subforum basis at that. Depending on the license restrictions for vBulletin, of course....I very much disagree. What you say is what you say. If someone wants to take shortcuts, they should expect not to be understood. This is a medium devoid of tone or meaning/intent, so it should be a priority to attempt to be as clear as possible.
It's your choice what you say here, even more so then in aural conversation, since it is quite simple to check your own writing before you post and edit what needs to be edited. If someone doesn't want to spend the time to do so, then that's their choice.
But that goes both ways. If the people reading statements that they feel are incorrectly formulated, it's their choice to be insulted, answer in a rude way, or ignore these posts. This is the internet. There is no need to answer a post right away without considering what the poster actually meant when he/she wrote what he wrote. You have time. Don't post angry.
But that goes both ways. If the people reading statements that they feel are incorrectly formulated, it's their choice to be insulted, answer in a rude way, or ignore these posts. This is the internet. There is no need to answer a post right away without considering what the poster actually meant when he/she wrote what he wrote. You have time. Don't post angry.
I was wondering if there was a way to slow down some of the back and forth on threads. Maybe increase the time you have to wait after you post to 5 or 10 minutes before you can post on that thread again. That way it would be much harder to carry on a battle, and the more friendly type might be shifted to PMs if off topic playing around.
Also was thinking that if a thread was starting to go off track, that if two or more warnings were given by a Forum Lead, Forum Guide, VCL, or WIZ_O, then the thread gets automatically closed for 24 hours , and if anyone starts a similar thread or carries the fight to a new thread then they get a temporary ban.
But that goes both ways. If the people reading statements that they feel are incorrectly formulated, it's their choice to be insulted, answer in a rude way, or ignore these posts. This is the internet. There is no need to answer a post right away without considering what the poster actually meant when he/she wrote what he wrote. You have time. Don't post angry.
In general, I agree with you that people should take a lot of what is written as opinion.
However, this is a forum about D&D. There are lots of people asking questions like: "How do I make a spoiler block?" or "What page in the PHB has rules about x?" These questions and their answers are not opinions. Because of this I do think posters needs to be clear about what they mean as fact and what they mean as opinion. I have seen people give both in one post and not make clear when they switched from one to the other.
In addition, I think there are quite a few posters who need to take the time to reread what they write. I have read some posts where I had no idea what the person was talking about because the spelling/grammar/word choice was so unclear. I have seen one or two posts where people wrote the opposite of what they meant. And then got mad when people read what they wrote and responded to what they wrote rather than what they meant. There are cases where no logical person can intuit what a poster actually means. You can't blame people for reading what someone actually wrote as opposed to what they meant to write.
(in most cases - yes sometimes it is obvious. If one person says the same thing 5 times in one post and then the last time they leave off two letter and say the opposite, you can probably guess that person means what they said 5 times and the last time is a typo)
Maybe increase the time you have to wait after you post to 5 or 10 minutes before you can post on that thread again. That way it would be much harder to carry on a battle, and the more friendly type might be shifted to PMs if off topic playing around.
That strikes me as a really bad idea(tm).
A) Sometimes, people respond to multiple posts by making a new post for each. Having a 5 minute cool down stifles that conversation.
B) I suspect there would be more PMs, but not for the reason you suggest. Instead, I think the flame wars would move to PM. And, I'd be willing to wager, they'd carry over to other threads -- even more than now, I mean.
But, really, the problem isn't that I can make a post every 15 seconds (or whatever it is) on a given thread. The problem is some people are acting like jerks.
That being said:
It is my belief that the position of Forum Lead, because it is a title that is associated with the administration (however loosely) of the Forgotten Realms boards on the Wizards Community on a forum hosted by Wizards, carries with it some weight of authority. Not much of one, but let's face it: few new or mainstream posters know, or care to know, exactly what a Forum Lead is or does or can or cannot do; they merely presume that he is associated with the boards despite not having a WizO title next to his name. I can't even find a good post describing what it is, but the tone of his posts and his sig make it clear that he has some authority however ill-defined it may be.
That title, however official or unofficial it might be, brings with it the responsibility to (in my opinion) support Wizards of the Coast, and in this particular case, to support the 4E Forgotten Realms. It is they who allow you to have that title on these boards, and to reflect in your communications the position that the 4E Realms is not good, and to criticize their works in such posts, is a disservice to the position.
If, as someone told me a while back but which I cannot corroborate, the position of Forum Lead is a community-voted position, that would indicate not that Lord Karsus is the best choice for the position, but rather the one who those who care to vote and know how the process works would choose for that position. I am in no way saying he is unfit for it--as I said, I like him, and respect him. However, the vast majority of people who would read the boards likely do not care to vote, or even know how; I know I don't know how.
LK is by no means a 4E hater, but he has a sarcastic and witty manner that occasionally expresses itself in comments that are negative about the 4E Realms. I don't think the occasional comment is completely untoward, mind you; I do, however, think that it tends to permeate his opinions and the image he presents. I do not think this is good for Wizards and I do not think it appropriate to the position. Consider that the impression he gives is one that those new posters who come here for help or interest in the 4E FR will see, and that they will inevitably associate with Wizards if they don't know what a Forum Lead is.
I would not go so far as to state that LK should step down from his position. I do think it would be appropriate for him to reconsider the nature of that post and its responsibilities, and to endeavor to increase his objectivity. I also believe he is entitled to express his opinions. I think, also, that it would be appropriate for him to add to his signature the disclaimer placed in sigs by WizO's that I've seen in the past: The opinions of this poster DO NOT necessarily reflect the opinions of Wizards of the Coast.
It would also be helpful for that underlined "Forum Lead" line in your signature, LK, to link to something that explains what the Heck one actually is.
I hope I do not offend; see disclaimer above. My issue is not with LK, but with the responsibility of his position.
If, as someone told me a while back but which I cannot corroborate, the position of Forum Lead is a community-voted position
It is not. People form the community can nominate and discuss potential FLs. But it's not an elected position. CM reviews nominations and then chooses people they think best-suited for the job.
That strikes me as a really bad idea(tm).
A) Sometimes, people respond to multiple posts by making a new post for each.
That is spamming and you are supposed to use the built in multi-quote feature to prevent from making consecutive posts from yourself. Or your are supposed to hand quote each quoted post into a singular post of your own.
That is spamming and you are supposed to use the built in multi-quote feature to prevent from making consecutive posts from yourself.
[post=16753349]Well,[/post] [post=16753378]nobody's[/post] [post=16753423]perfect.[/post]
(And that's not spamming, though it can be annoying.)
That is spamming and you are supposed to use the built in multi-quote feature to prevent from making consecutive posts from yourself. Or your are supposed to hand quote each quoted post into a singular post of your own.
As wrecan said, that's not spamming.
[post=16753349]Well,[/post] [post=16753378]nobody's[/post] [post=16753423]perfect.[/post]
(And that's not spamming, though it can be annoying.)
Through
That's correct, se. It's still busted. I just tried it to verify.
Oh yes it is considered spamming, and I have the ban record that says so. (and the multi-quote IS still busted)
Posting more than once in a thread so you have consecutive posts is considered spamming by at least ONE moderator around here.
Maybe there should be a uniform set of rules that people could follow and all parties would know what they mean without varying ideas from different people?
I could list many WotC personnel and others that have spammed (by the definition in my ban record), but this is not the place for it.
[/derail]
We bring you now back to your FR forums discussion.
I'm sorry, Hellmute. But you're wrong. The act of posting three different posts in a row is not, in and of itself, spamming.
Tell that to the WizO that banned me for similar.
[/derail]
Tell that to the WizO that banned me for similar.
[/derail]
If you feel you were banned unfairly, you need to write to Customer Service, as has been explained to you. As I said, people can make mistakes and if a WizO is operating under the mistaken believe that posting three different posts in a row on one thread is spamming, then CS needs to know so they can educate this WizO as to proper procedures.
Until someone from CS tells me otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, it's not spamming.
If you feel you were banned unfairly, you need to write to Customer Service, as has been explained to you. As I said, people can make mistakes and if a WizO is operating under the mistaken believe that posting three different posts in a row on one thread is spamming, then CS needs to know so they can educate this WizO as to proper procedures.
Until someone from CS tells me otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, it's not spamming.
Solice already knows of the incident.
[/final derail] (aka create a new thread and stop friggin getting off topic of the Realms forums!)
LK is by no means a 4E hater, but he has a sarcastic and witty manner that occasionally expresses itself in comments that are negative about the 4E Realms. I don't think the occasional comment is completely untoward, mind you; I do, however, think that it tends to permeate his opinions and the image he presents. I do not think this is good for Wizards and I do not think it appropriate to the position. Consider that the impression he gives is one that those new posters who come here for help or interest in the 4E FR will see, and that they will inevitably associate with Wizards if they don't know what a Forum Lead is.
This is exactly what I've been trying to get at.
The Forgotten Realms forums need someone who is visibly positive and enthusiastic about the 4E Forgotten Realms and who doesn't take an acerbic tone towards people who appear to not "know" the lore of the setting.
Isn’t the Scribe program still going in one form or another? If an FL’s job is to act as liaison to CM, then let’s leave that to Karsus and give someone else the job of promoting community interaction and involvement via the 4E Rules and the 4E Forgotten Realms on the forums proper.
That's correct, se. It's still busted. I just tried it to verify.
Really? What's wrong with it? I usually don't have problems using it.
I clicked on the plus for three posts; I pressed the "Reply" button. Only the first post appeared in my posting window.
You can get multi-quote to work?
I clicked on the plus for three posts; I pressed the "Reply" button. Only the first post appeared in my posting window.
You need to press "Quote", not reply, and only it has a limit of two quotes.
You need to press "Quote", not reply, and only it has a limit of two quotes.
While that is true, that is not fixed, nor the original working condition of the Multiquote feature.
Isn’t the Scribe program still going in one form or another? If an FL’s job is to act as liaison to CM, then let’s leave that to Karsus and give someone else the job of promoting community interaction and involvement via the 4E Rules and the 4E Forgotten Realms on the forums proper.
I read your arguments for the Scribe position and found them unconvincing. You assert that having a "scribe" would increase the amount of posters in the RtR section but did not explain how that would happen.
-There has also been suggestions from some posters that we should leave it as it is.
I'm fine with things as they are.
You assert that having a "scribe" would increase the amount of posters in the RtR section but did not explain how that would happen.
Actually, I did.
I gave several 'jobs' a scribe in this position would do, most of them related to posting pro-active threads to get the FR gaming community to share their ideas and (hopefully) start working together.
)A forum guide wouldn't be for just one board, though, but an area.
Actually, I did.
I gave several 'jobs' a scribe in this position would do, most of them related to posting pro-active threads to get the FR gaming community to share their ideas and (hopefully) start working together.
I don't see how that would necessarily attract more people to the forums (which is what you seemed to be asserting would happen). I also don't see why that needs to be an official position, although of course that'd be up to Webster.
A forum guide wouldn't be for just one board, though, but an area.
Can you please tell me a bit more about what a Forum Guide is and how it differs from a Scribe or a Forum Lead?
Hello Webster,
Can you please tell me a bit more about what a Forum Guide is and how it differs from a Scribe or a Forum Lead?
Not Webster, but here is the info on what a FG is.
(from my "How to be a responsible forum member post")
FGs are Forum Guides. Forum Guides are members of the community who work with a VCL to help that VCL's community in whatever way the VCL feels is best. Forum Guides have no additional access or authority over other community members, although they are given an official title in recognition of their official status, and are bound by the same policy and conduct guidelines as VCLs.
Each eligible VCL is assigned 6 forum guide slots that they may fill at their discretion. VCLs are expected to actively manage and mentor their forum guides, and in many cases, groom them to become the next generation of VCLs.
Forum Guides also may use their time of service as a forum guide as experience when applying for jobs in the gaming industry in general, and with Wizards of the Coast specifically. We plan on doing some significant growing in all areas of the company, especially Customer Service, and a proven track record as a forum guide can really help a candidate stand out from the crowd.
How are Forum Guides selected?
Forum Guides are selected by VCLs and may be added or removed by VCLs at any time. The only limitation is that each eligible VCL may only have as many as 6 Forum Guides at a time (although they may have as few as 1 or even none).
What if I want to be a forum guide but do not ever want to become a VCL or a job in the game industry? Is it still for me?
Yes! One of the goals of the Forum Guide program is to have it be as flexible as possible so that the position can be molded to fit the skills and passions of the interested community member. Rather than make rigid guidelines for this position, we're leaving it up to each VCL to decide what they want each of their Forum Guides to be doing. A VCL may decide that one of their forum guides helps with editorial moderation by suggesting thread moves and closings, while another might focus on the creation of FAQs and other informational posts, while another might focus on answering rules questions (unofficially, of course), while another might help the community in some way we've never even thought of before.
From VCL - Forum Guide FAQ
So, to webster: I see you mentioned you've been busy of late. Are you in a position where you can you tell us more of what you have in mind as to the jobs a Forum Guide would be doing, either for just the FR section or for the Other Worlds section as a whole?
Thus, Kemp’s presence is to my eyes a minor miracle.
However, LK is sometimes too hasty on moving/merging threads from outside the Realms forums into the Realms forums. That said it does take time and effort to peruse all the other D&D forums and find threads that belong on the FR Forum, so the enthusiasm is obviously there and that’s a good thing.
It'd be nice, though, if LK invited more open discussion and forum member input. Too often, we are told by Karsus what's going on and what the changes will be.
The Forum Lead position is one that is supposed to bring forum member input to the CM Team. Right now, the only FR voice CM hears (so far as I know) is Karsus', and that's hardly representative of the FR Forum membership.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Nobody doubts Karsus is doing a good job. He's got the Paul Kemp thread going and will have the UnCon q/a going too. I never, ever expected to see another FR designer/writer of any kind to make an appearance on WotC’s FR Forums.
Thus, Kemp’s presence is to my eyes a minor miracle.
However, LK is sometimes too hasty on moving/merging threads from outside the Realms forums into the Realms forums. That said it does take time and effort to peruse all the other D&D forums and find threads that belong on the FR Forum, so the enthusiasm is obviously there and that’s a good thing.
It'd be nice, though, if LK invited more open discussion and forum member input. Too often, we are told by Karsus what's going on and what the changes will be.
The Forum Lead position is one that is supposed to bring forum member input to the CM Team. Right now, the only FR voice CM hears (so far as I know) is Karsus', and that's hardly representative of the FR Forum membership.
This is also my opinion.
What is he doing that is bad? The only thing I saw was UnCon Interview, but he's asking for people's opinions. I dont have any to give since I am new and am still learning my stuff but other people did.
The FR forums used to be really tense and hostile, with fans of 4E and the 4E realms and people upset by the changes flaming each other. Things have calmed down tremendously. LK got some flack from not being exactly neutral and exposing anti-4E views(and being tolerant of some of the more rabid anti-4E people) as the authority figure on those forums. A lot of that flack was undeserved, but things were really nasty there a little while ago.
LK moves things around alot but most of it seems to be the correct decision.
Towards the end he was cracking down on both sides pro and con and putting them in their place. That is all I ever wanted so all is well at the present. It also helps that many of the negative nellys have decided to tone it down or just go to another website which is the smart thing to do. Why post on a site if you have so much animosity for the current product? It just always seemed childish to me. (I'm sure my responses were not much better at times)
Things seem pretty cool on the FR forums and people seem to be just talking about the game and not how they hate certain aspects of it.
You still have to be careful. It almost seems any thread asking for opinions on the books or the changes will call in the negativity faster then anything. It makes those who like the setting give up on the thread (in fact, one post that did express the futility of it all was deleted for some unknown reason) and we get yet another thread devoted to negativity. Those who do venture into a seemingly neutral thread and try to express their likes are then debated by every single person while those who dislike 4e remain free of any such debate targeted at them.
But yeah, there is some improvement. But that simply says more about how bad the forums were rather then how they are now.
The key thing is if you make a pro4E thread and wish to discuss the positive stuff go for it. If others come to rain on your parade then ask a Wizo if they are breaking C of C. Of not just ignore them. They want people to respond to them. They realize that threadcrapping is mean, nasty, and childish but they need the attention. Stop answering and sic a Wizo on them enough and they may just go away.
You still have to be careful. It almost seems any thread asking for opinions on the books or the changes will call in the negativity faster then anything. It makes those who like the setting give up on the thread (in fact, one post that did express the futility of it all was deleted for some unknown reason)
Yeah, that was my post. Second time that has ever happened on my five years on this board, and both times when Lord Karsus was involved. I'd say more, but I don't want this post to be erased as well.
The problem is some people (the same handful of people, actually) view such opinion-sharing discussions about the Realms as debates, when the dialogue is hardly that at all.
People should be able to say things like, "I felt like I had to keep up with the Realms of old...is there much lore to learn now?" or "It seemed like the Realms were full of munchkin NPCs ruling the day. Has that changed?" or any similar variation of these questions without the exact same people jumping in to turn the tables on the OP and try to make the discussion a referendum on the OP's point of view.
That mild form of litmus test harassment needs to stop so new people can come in, post their questions and get a slew of varied opinions from informed forum members and so make smart decisions about whether they want to game in the 4E Realms or not.
I would very much like to see someone that owns the 4E books and is a fan of the 4E Realms post a FAQ thread so the same core questions we’re seeing repeatedly asked can be answered in one place (on the FR General Forum, I should think).
[edited out]
IDK....I **do** think people who are rediscovering the setting should have the opportunity to post a q/a thread.
The problem is some people (the same handful of people, actually) view such opinion-sharing discussions about the Realms as debates, when the dialogue is hardly that at all.
People should be able to say things like, "I felt like I had to keep up with the Realms of old...is there much lore to learn now?" or "It seemed like the Realms were full of munchkin NPCs ruling the day. Has that changed?" or any similar variation of these questions without the exact same people jumping in to turn the tables on the OP and try to make the discussion a referendum on the OP's point of view.
That mild form of litmus test harassment needs to stop so new people can come in, post their questions and get a slew of varied opinions from informed forum members and so make smart decisions about whether they want to game in the 4E Realms or not.
I would very much like to see someone that owns the 4E books and is a fan of the 4E Realms post a FAQ thread so the same core questions we’re seeing repeatedly asked can be answered in one place (on the FR General Forum, I should think).
[edited out]
I can do that if you'd like. Exactly what did you have in mind?
Yeah, that was my post. Second time that has ever happened on my five years on this board, and both times when Lord Karsus was involved. I'd say more, but I don't want this post to be erased as well.
LK does not have the ability to erase posts. If your post was erased, odds are the forum moderators had a problem with it.
I think that a lot of people are very hypocritical though. They are saying cetain things and being a part of the problem that theyre complaining about. A lot of those people are posting here trashing him here and that isnt fair.
I see that people are still making character-defaming Lord Karsus conspiracy theories. I have to wonder what the intent is behind such fabrications, but hey don't let me get in the way of over-dramatisation.
Also,
Second time that has ever happened on my five years on this board
*looks at join date*
Is this even still an issue? I said in the last thread that things would clear up with time. Whatever "problem" there is, is now less than 10% of the "problem" that there was.
I see that people are still making character-defaming Lord Karsus conspiracy theories. I have to wonder what the intent is behind such fabrications, but hey don't let me get in the way of over-dramatisation.
Also,
*looks at join date*
I started out as Altar_Boy, but never bothered to migrate my account.
And the reasons behind these "accusations" is because he's a poor Forum Lead. The forum needs a voice of moderation and guidance, and it isn't him. Closest I can see is Troban.
And the reasons behind these "accusations" is because he's a poor Forum Lead. The forum needs a voice of moderation and guidance, and it isn't him.
I don't think you understand what his job description is, if you think he is performing poorly. Maybe its because 90% of his job goes largely unseen. Regardless, he does more for the Realms section, in terms of pure time and effort put into managing it, than one could reasonably expect from someone who isn't receiving a paycheck. Your words about his competency are comepletly baseless and unprovable, and, to be honest with you, I don't expect anyone to take them seriously. Even the people on your "side" wouldn't go as far as to say what you have. Even Mr. Misc, LK's staunchest opponent, sings his praises. Your conspiratorial "he gets my posts deleted" issue has already been pointed out to you to be innacurate, since he does not have the power to delete posts. What you are saying is just so much theatrical cabbage. Really, the fact that you say he is a poor lead only proves that you do not have a noteworthy understanding of how the Realms section functions. I'm sorry, but its true.
And the reasons behind these "accusations" is because he's a poor Forum Lead.
You said you had a post erased. You then implied that that was not only unfair, but also that LK was the one responsible for said "unfair" decision, even though it's a fact that LK cannot delete posts.
I think implying such a thing is disingenuous (at best) in the absence of any proof.
Peace Out.
Fine. Then I'll just do what Lord Karsus does and stay out of threads that I don't feel comfortable in.
Peace Out.
And another pro-4E poster is intimidated. I'm not sure I agree that LK was at fault, and I also imagine that this incident wasn't the only negative experience you've had with the FR forums.
And another pro-4E poster is intimidated.
-Thats par for course in the FR Forums IMO.
Going into lurker mode has been very enlightening about the FR Forums. ;) -My two Credits.
18DELTA
I think it’d do wonders if LK pm’d Alter_Boy to explain his involvement (if at all), simply to help clear the air. Reaching out to people (even the ones who are suspicious of you) is the first good step to fixing things.
I can do that if you'd like. Exactly what did you have in mind?
A non-judgemental, fact-based set of responses to the most common questions new fans (and older fans that have come back around) ask on the FR Forums.
We could probably cull those questions from the current threads that are running to get started.
Hey,
A non-judgemental, fact-based set of responses to the most common questions new fans (and older fans that have come back around) ask on the FR Forums.
We could probably cull those questions from the current threads that are running to get started.
What I can answer are questions on the books themselves, and how a player new to the Realms can enter. I'm a little less solid on the previous history of the system. Sounds like a great idea, and I'd be happy to be on board.
And what I don't know, Therise, Rin, LK or someone else likely will.
It'd be nice, though, if LK invited more open discussion and forum member input. Too often, we are told by Karsus what's going on and what the changes will be.
It would also be nice if people stopped stirring up drama.
It would also be nice if people stopped stirring up drama.
How would this occur? I like the 4E Realms. I'd like to say so and discuss these books with other people on the WotC forums. Can I do this without stirring up drama? It hasn't really happened yet.
It would also be nice if people stopped stirring up drama.
Sounds to me like you are saying we're not supposed to provide feedback or express ourselves.
Sounds to me like you are saying we're not supposed to provide feedback or express ourselves.
This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - twisting my words into the exact opposite of what I mean, to suit your agenda.
This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - twisting my words into the exact opposite of what I mean, to suit your agenda.
Then tell us what you mean in simple terms that aren't open to interpretation. What did you mean by the stirring up drama comment?
Then tell us what you mean in simple terms that aren't open to interpretation. What did you mean by the stirring up drama comment?
If you cannot tell what is drama and what isn't, there is absolutely nothing I can do on a forum to explain it. I'm sick to death of these little games, and it's the forum that pays the price.
I understand that CM may simply be forwarding him marching orders and that he may be in no position to offer us the chance to give him input before a decision is made.
:::::::::::::
Again, Forum Leads exist (in part) to forward community member input up the chain to CM. I just don't see that happening on the FR Forums and I sure as heck don't see the problem in saying so out loud.
That's not an attack on Karsus and certainly not "bringing up drama."
LK is doing a good job.
::::::::::::::
Lastly, it's your choice in deciding to see every post I make as a "little game" meant to cause trouble.
But if you step back, you might just see that I'm as sincerely interested as anyone else you care to name in seeing the FR Forums succeed and grow.
There is more than enough room for the both of us to coexist without always having to butt heads at every intersection.
What can we do to get people to post in the "right" area? There still seems to be a lot of thread moves, and I'd have expected people to know where to go by now.
Here's a question:
What can we do to get people to post in the "right" area? There still seems to be a lot of thread moves, and I'd have expected people to know where to go by now.
What is being moved from what forum to what forum? Because I thought the moves were quite few now.
There are three FR forums folks, people are bound to post in the wrong spot at least once a day. I am not big on forum splits because I think it just splits the community a little more. Some folks may not visit any forum but RL and they may miss out on some interesting conversations in the other two forums. Not a big deal at the end of the day though.
And another pro-4E poster is intimidated.
I thought you disagreed with him too?
If he is intimidated, then in this case he brought it on himself. I don't think budding "conspiracy theories" and character assassination should go unchallenged. Next time he should think more carefully about what he says, especially about other posters.
I can help you out there. That's what got me participating on online bulletin boards, mailing lists and (later) message boards in the first place.
And what I don't know, Therise, Rin, LK or someone else likely will.
I'd be willing to help out, if anyone has any questions.
There’s nothing wrong with what Alter_Boy posted.
I disagree, and I haven't seen proof of his claims to change my mind, from him or you or anyone else.
He didn’t deserve the amount of vitriol certain of you leveled at him.
I did not say anything "vitriolic", unless challenging an accusation that has no proof at all to back it up counts as "vitriolic" regardless of tone.
I disagree.
I did not say anything "vitriolic", unless challenging an accusation that has no proof at all to back it up counts as "vitriolic" regardless of tone.
He isn't talking about Alter_Boy's comment on Lord Karsus found in this thread. He is talking about the comment made on the FR board that Alter_Boy got flamed for, and later deleted.
He isn't talking about Alter_Boy's comment on Lord Karsus found in this thread. He is talking about the comment made on the FR board that Alter_Boy got flamed for, and later deleted.
That was certainly not clear from his post.
In any case, I did not see the post you are talking about (or at least, I do not recall it), and therefore I'm not going to comment on it.
What can we do to get people to post in the "right" area? There still seems to be a lot of thread moves, and I'd have expected people to know where to go by now.
Good question.
First off, the sub-forum descriptions need to be revised.
The words "players" and "Dungeon Masters" should be added to the Running the Realms sub-forum description. Also, the description says more or less that people can talk about mechanics in this sub-forum. That's insufficient. Change it to say people can talk about their FR campaigns, their FR characters and about unique FR mechanics.
In other words, make the forum description clearly state that it's about the whole of playing D&D in the Realms, not just about talking Realms mechanics.
The FR General section just needs a description added to it. Simply leaving it blank on the presumption people will figure out what should go in it after they read what the RtR and Realmslore sub-forum descriptions have to say isn't good enough IMO.
My two cents, at any rate.
This one has to do with people posting from time to time that they viewed the 3E and older Realms as NPC-dominated (read: Drizzt, the Chosen of Mystra and so on) with no room left for player characters to make their mark, so the Realms aren’t all that fun to play in.
This perfectly valid opinion is never left unchecked. A few people will always make sure to challenge the opinion’s author with some form of, “There’s no rule that says you have to use NPC X, Y or Z in your game. What’s your problem?”
Of course these responses are completely missing the point, but that's not as important as the fact that thread derailment always ensues and new people are being harassed for sharing their valid opinions about the setting.
I already know our Forum Lead won’t encourage people to live and let live, because he’s publicly stated that each and every topic on the Forgotten Realms Forums are open to debate and nobody should be surprised when (supposedly) unpopular opinions are discouraged by the "majority."
So I’m curious what else can be done to get these people to back off? Is there anything the VCL can do to help?
The 4E Realms caters to people who didn’t care for all the big-name NPCs running around in the setting and I’d hate to see these new people get chased off the FR forums. We need new blood on the FR Forums and these people are important, even if their opinions aren't very popular with a tiny subsection of the FR community.
No sollution is required.
Nothing the forum can do will solve a problem of which the perception is a deliberate construction.
This thread has no purpose other than to stir up trouble and to increase tension between forum-goers, as well as pot-shots and character assination.
If anything causes people to be disdainful of certain posters, it is this crusade.
The continued attempts at melodrama and mischaracterization are unappreciated.
Is there anything the VCL can do to help?
Yes there is, but I need help- if someone could send me via pm links to any trouble threads, I can step in.
This one has to do with people posting from time to time that they viewed the 3E and older Realms as NPC-dominated (read: Drizzt, the Chosen of Mystra and so on) with no room left for player characters to make their mark, so the Realms aren’t all that fun to play in.
This perfectly valid opinion is never left unchecked. A few people will always make sure to challenge the opinion’s author with some form of, “There’s no rule that says you have to use NPC X, Y or Z in your game. What’s your problem?”
To me, this is a more specific example of a more general problem. The more general definition of what you said is that people who say "I like the 4E Realms because I had X problem with previous editions" get jumped on. The problem with NPCs is just one example of that.
The fact is that many non-FR fans passed on the setting because of specific issues. The designers named many of these issues as priorities and motivation for the changes they made. It strikes a nerve with longtime fans who are upset at the changes that were made, when people mention the developers reasons for the change when describing why they like the 4E version of Forgotten Realms. These opinions are generally attacked, and the new FR fans are told that the issues they had were their problems, and not any issue with the Realms. To these people the changes are invalid, the developers reasons for making them is invalid, and people having these opinions is also invalid.
The end result of this is that new people who come to the forum because they like what they've read of Forgotten Realms in the new books tend to get jumped on and told their opinions are worthless if they say anything negative about the previous edition. Sometimes, just saying that you like the 4E FR is enough. I don't think people generally mean to harass and discourage people, but that is the end result.
There is no problem.
No sollution is required.
Nothing the forum can do will solve a problem of which the perception is a deliberate construction.
This thread has no purpose other than to stir up trouble and to increase tension between forum-goers, as well as pot-shots and character assination.
If anything causes people to be disdainful of certain posters, it is this crusade.
The continued attempts at melodrama and mischaracterization are unappreciated.
Absolutely 100% correct. It isn't a surprise that this thread (and similar ones on the FR forum) gets resurrected every time the Realms lists dramatically decrease in animosity.
The best solution for the FR Forums is to close and lock this thread, and others like it.
There is no problem.
No sollution is required.
Nothing the forum can do will solve a problem of which the perception is a deliberate construction.
This thread has no purpose other than to stir up trouble and to increase tension between forum-goers, as well as pot-shots and character assination.
If anything causes people to be disdainful of certain posters, it is this crusade.
The continued attempts at melodrama and mischaracterization are unappreciated.
I was treated with disdain before I was a part of this crusade. I see new faces to those forums treated with this same disdain. Personally I'm not expecting people to agree with my opinions. What I would like to see is "I didn't care for the previous edition, but I like what they've done for 4E" to be responded to with "I disagree with you, I liked things better before" instead of "Your opinion is wrong, and this is the proof".
Yes there is, but I need help- if someone could send me via pm links to any trouble threads, I can step in.
I think a good example would be the Only three FR books for 4e? thread.
Post #14 starts it off. Zousha's post was a bit off topic, but generally harmless.
However, posts 15 through 18 are all off topic and either go after Zousha or are attacks aimed at everyone who supposedly doesn't understand "such a simple and obvious thing."
Only Rinonalyrna and Stigger kept it cool.
I think thecasualoblivion did a far better job than I ever could of describing the overall problem. Nicely written, that.
:::::::::::::::::::
On second thought, maybe our FL can be of help.
Is it too much for you (Webster) to ask of our Forum Lead to get in touch with people behind the scenes and ask them to try and live and let live?
Lord Karsus has considerable influence amongst the entire FR Community. I hope he can use that to tamp things down a bit so we can welcome the new people during this critical time.
After all, the FR Campaign Guide and Player's Guide having just been released, so our Forum Lead and the FR regulars that have been around a long time should be first in line to welcome these people and make sure they can come to the FR Forums to maximize their enjoyment of these new products and the ideas behind them, without trouble or harassment.
(Note that this idea includes legitimate criticism of these products. It doesn't all have to be happy happy joy joy. Let's just keep it to the appropriate threads, hey?)
The best solution for the FR Forums is to close and lock this thread, and others like it.
Yes, please! Soon!
Absolutely 100% correct. It isn't a surprise that this thread (and similar ones on the FR forum) gets resurrected every time the Realms lists dramatically decrease in animosity.
Take note; now that the other source of community business drama, the silly "omg the mods are useless idiots I'm going to shout about it dramatically in a half dozen threads" trend has been taken off the table, this thread has started up again. Interesting, no? It seems that if there is not some great cause to be fought for in the name of the salvation of the forum, people get bored.
The best solution for the FR Forums is to close and lock this thread, and others like it.
Stronly agreed. It was a good way to deal with the "how much?" threads, which were essentially just foamy-at-the-mouth moderation bashing. The same tactic would be a good way to deal with this, which is essentially the same thing except focused on a particular FL rather than on moderators.
(...)On second thought, maybe our FL can be of help.
Is it too much for you (Webster) to ask of our Forum Lead to get in touch with people behind the scenes and ask them to try and live and let live?
Interesting tactic, trying to get the VCL and FL to call people out for something you personally believe is wrong behavior. If you did it yourself, it could be considered harassment under the CoC (which is probably why you haven't yet named these supposedly naughty posters).
But why not just report said "naughty" posts to Wiz_Os and be done with it? Because the former is a way to intimidate people, without technically being harassment under the CoC, is that it?
Take note; now that the other source of community business drama, the silly "omg the mods are useless idiots I'm going to shout about it dramatically in a half dozen threads" trend has been taken off the table, this thread has started up again. Interesting, no? It seems that if there is not some great cause to be fought for in the name of the salvation of the forum, people get bored.
Yep, I agree. It's sad, really.
Stronly agreed. It was a good way to deal with the "how much?" threads, which were essentially just foamy-at-the-mouth moderation bashing. The same tactic would be a good way to deal with this, which is essentially the same thing except focused on a particular FL rather than on moderators.
Yep, completely agree. Please, mods... please lock and close this thread.
18DELTA :coolcthul
-This thread DOES NOT need to be closed.
18DELTA :coolcthul
Has any "solution" from this thread been tried and successfully implemented? For that matter, has a genuine problem been identified that isn't just someone's personal belief or dissatisfaction with the CoC as implemented?
Interesting tactic, trying to get the VCL and FL to call people out for something you personally believe is wrong behavior. If you did it yourself, it could be considered harassment under the CoC (which is probably why you haven't yet named these supposedly naughty posters).
But why not just report said "naughty" posts to Wiz_Os and be done with it? Because the former is a way to intimidate people, without technically being harassment under the CoC, is that it?
He's not asking LK or Webster to "call out" these people. If I understand it, he is asking them to, via PM, contact these people and either stop the behaviour that he finds wrong or to just ignore threads that espouse a point of view they disagree with.
He's not asking LK or Webster to "call out" these people. If I understand it, he is asking them to, via PM, contact these people and either stop the behaviour that he finds wrong or to just ignore threads that espouse a point of view they disagree with.
Thing is, if these supposed people are not, in fact, breaking the CoC for a reportable offense - then it's intimidation. Why do we all need to espouse the same points of view that one poster has, or "have a talking to" by someone in an official capacity (when we aren't breaking the CoC)?
When a VCL or Forum Lead PMs someone and says, "I'm sorry, but Mr. Miscellany disagrees with your tone" - doesn't that seem highly problematic in an official sense?
Thing is, if these supposed people are not, in fact, breaking the CoC for a reportable offense - then it's intimidation.
No, it's not. Being incivil is not against the CoC, but it is absolutely something the VCLs and FLs can work to decrease. As Forum Lead for "What's a DM to Do?" I have PMed people to let them know that their behavior may have come across as unnecessarily biting or mean.
The WizOs enforce the Code of Conduct. The FLs and VCLs handle editorial content, and than can (and imo should) included incivility.
Why do we all need to espouse the same points of view that one poster has
It's not matter of the point of view, but the manner in which it is expressed. The Forgotten Realms boards are second only to 4E General in terms of the level of incivility expressed there. People have a tendency to post things in an imperious manner and to belittle people who disagree. It's unfortunate and it's unproductive.
When a VCL or Forum Lead PMs someone and says, "I'm sorry, but Mr. Miscellany disagrees with your tone" - doesn't that seem highly problematic in an official sense?
Obviously, the Forum Lead shouldn't be Mr.Miscellany's mouthpiece. but if the FL see incivility on the boards, I think he is well within his rights (though not obligated) to PM the person and ask them to take it back a notch.
He's not asking LK or Webster to "call out" these people. If I understand it, he is asking them to, via PM, contact these people and either stop the behaviour that he finds wrong or to just ignore threads that espouse a point of view they disagree with.
Well, I have seen LK state on a few occaisons that he does in fact speak to people who are problematic posters, and that afterwards they generally behave better. Whether what Mr Miscellany deems problematic, and what is actually problematic are the same thing... thats another matter. However, he cannot know that LK does not actively encourage civility via PM, regarless of the edition views of the person in question. Obviously, LK shouldnt have to advertise private conversations with people.
Thing is, if these supposed people are not, in fact, breaking the CoC for a reportable offense - then it's intimidation. Why do we all need to espouse the same points of view that one poster has, or "have a talking to" by someone in an official capacity (when we aren't breaking the CoC)?
To reiterate my understanding of what Therise is saying here (in words I have used before);
If the CoC is good enough for poster A, it should be good enough for poster B. If poster A likes the 4e Realms and only has to observe the CoC, then poster B, who does not like the changes, should not have to observe some secondary, invisible code that he did not sign up for when he registered his account.
Clearly, and to his own admission, Mr Miscellany and his associates actively report any and every post that they feel is excessively negative. Since he is advocating additional "solutions" or whatever, clearly the existing method of reporting posts, and the Wizo's subsequent judgements on those posts, is not satisfactory for him and certain others. Therefore, they are advocating that people who do not share their opinions be forced to obey a set of rules that fall outside the CoC. If this wasn't the case, it would be good enough for them to stop at reporting posts and leave it at that.
It's not matter of the point of view, but the manner in which it is expressed. The Forgotten Realms boards are second only to 4E General in terms of the level of incivility expressed there. People have a tendency to post things in an imperious manner and to belittle people who disagree. It's unfortunate and it's unproductive.
Really? I don't see it. That is certainly the dramatic contruction we are faced with in this thread, but I see very little that supports it in reality. The only threads in the FR boards that become remarkly uncivil, are those threads in which certain people are agressive in their defense of the 4e realms, and that insist on calling out all the "antis" who are trying to "quash those opinions" or some nonsense. So, if there is a problem, it is because certain people have decided that there is a problem, and that they are going to react to it and "fight the good fight". What lack of civility there is always starts with the person being defensive.
Really? I don't see it. That is certainly the dramatic contruction we are faced with in this thread, but I see very little that supports it in reality. The only threads in the FR boards that become remarkly uncivil, are those threads in which certain people are agressive in their defense of the 4e realms, and that insist on calling out all the "antis" who are trying to "quash those opinions" or some nonsense. So, if there is a problem, it is because certain people have decided that there is a problem, and that they are going to react to it and "fight the good fight". What lack of civility there is always starts with the person being defensive.
In other words, things are civil unless you disagree with the prevailing opinion. Things have gotten better, but pro-4E opinions get aggressively responded to, whether or not they are calling out the "antis" or posted by somebody with no history on the FR forums, and regardless of the intentions of whoever posted it.
In which case this will continue until certain 'vocal' individuals elect to simply ignore the thread/posts and by not continously supplying fuel to the fire or are permanently invited by WoTC to go elsewhere. Since by reading many of threads complaining about some very offensive individuals and how they continue to plague the boards via an army of 'puppets' the general opinion of 'they'll get bored and leave' I believe is an incorrect view. Unless these individuals get bored after a year or so, the amount of unseen damage they will have caused in people simply not frequenting the forums due to the written excrement that seems to continue from a relatively small number of posters.
You'll get the customers who let you know that something is wrong or that the service was unacceptable and then you'll get the customers that you never hear from, that having received unacceptable service, simply never return to your business. Word of mouth advertising is important for any business and if Consumer X tells his circle of friends of his experience and impressions, be it good or ill, they are inclined to take the person at their word. The statment of "You never get a second chance to make a first impression" is a true one. WoTC has aimed 4E at bringing a new group of consumers, many who may or may not have played DnD in the past. Coming to the forums and having to bear witness to the antics of both pro/anti and then just the "infantile" antics of some of the others will be part of the DnD Experience.
This thread serves no purpose save as yet another ground for a vocal minority of individuals who have some sort of personal agenda and/or vendettas.
(This post neither supports nor denies the claim that Cake > Pie, nor that the Cake is a Lie.)
and on the other side of the coin Anti 4E get aggressively responded to, whether or not they are calling out the "Pros" or posted by somebody with no history on the FR forums, and regardless of the intentions of whoever posted it.
Thank you for pointing out the irony in his statement.
We could have myself and a few others stop complaing about being mistreated by anti-4E fans, and to stop "calling out antis". I'm not saying this is what happens, I'm speaking hypothetically. Lets say this goes away. In return, could we expect pro-4E opinions on the Forgotten Realms to be treated with respect instead of having people respond by saying how much they hate the changes, that the FR is ruined, trying to prove the OP wrong, or its a shame they had to ruin my realms for you to have yours. To be able to say that you had issues and dislikes with the previous edition that were addressed in 4E without having people argue with you that your issues and opinions were/are wrong.
I don't see this happening.
As for me personally, I'm not looking to be right, for everyone to agree with me, or to have a pro-4E echo chamber. I'd just like to see the dissenting opinion be treated with respect instead of derision.
Really? I don't see it.
Yes, that's part of the problem. People see their own side being mistreated but don't see the mistreatment going the other way.
I have no bone to pick. I have a passing interest in FR, but I'm no fan of either pre-Spellplague or post-Spellplague FR. I do have an interest in the forums as a place that welcomes all fans of FR, and I don't think that FR General is such a place, but it can be.
What lack of civility there is always starts with the person being defensive.
I don't see that at all. I see a lot of people on both sides who are hurt, angry and defensive and tend to jump at shadows and read ill-intentions that haven't been expressed.
To reiterate my understanding of what Therise is saying here (in words I have used before);
If the CoC is good enough for poster A, it should be good enough for poster B. If poster A likes the 4e Realms and only has to observe the CoC, then poster B, who does not like the changes, should not have to observe some secondary, invisible code that he did not sign up for when he registered his account.
Correct. You're saying it better than I was able to express.
If the CoC is good enough for poster A, it should be good enough for poster B. If poster A likes the 4e Realms and only has to observe the CoC, then poster B, who does not like the changes, should not have to observe some secondary, invisible code that he did not sign up for when he registered his account.
True. Civility should be expected of everyone, regardless of position.
Mr Miscellany and his associates actively report any and every post that they feel is excessively negative. Since he is advocating additional "solutions" or whatever, clearly the existing method of reporting posts, and the Wizo's subsequent judgements on those posts, is not satisfactory for him and certain others. Therefore, they are advocating that people who do not share their opinions be forced to obey a set of rules that fall outside the CoC. If this wasn't the case, it would be good enough for them to stop at reporting posts and leave it at that.
I am not an associate of Mr Miscellany and I am not advocating that people who disagree with me should be held to a different standard than I should be held to.
But there is a problem with civility on the FR boards. Even though incivility is not technically against the CoC, it should not be tolerated. By anybody. And one of Community Management's responsibilities is to keep these boards civil.
If the CoC is good enough for poster A, it should be good enough for poster B. If poster A likes the 4e Realms and only has to observe the CoC, then poster B, who does not like the changes, should not have to observe some secondary, invisible code that he did not sign up for when he registered his account.
And I know that I (and thecasualoblivion and wrecan) are not suggesting anything different from that. Here is what we are saying (if I may be so bold as to speak for the other two).
If there is a thread where people are talking about what they like about the 4E FR, and you have a hatred of the 4E FR. There is no need for you (generic you, not specifically talking to anyone in this thread) to go in saying how the 4E FR sucks and that the changes ripped the soul out of it and it would be so much better if it had stayed the same.
The opposite holds true. If people are talking about how they do not like the 4E FR. There is no need for people to jump in and say that the 4E FR are so much simpler and less confusing.
In both examples above, the only result that jumping into the thread to post your (again, general, not specifically referring to anyone in this thread) opinion will have is to stir things up and disrupt the forum.
True. Civility should be expected of everyone, regardless of position.
I am not an associate of Mr Miscellany and I am not advocating that people who disagree with me should be held to a different standard than I should be held to.
But there is a problem with civility on the FR boards. Even though incivility is not technically against the CoC, it should not be tolerated. By anybody. And one of Community Management's responsibilities is to keep these boards civil.
Again, this is a matter of editorial content, which is the realm of Community Management and the Forum Leads. It falls to Lord Karsus, who is the Forum Lead for the Forgotten Realms forums on this.
Again, this is a matter of editorial content, which is the realm of Community Management and the Forum Leads. It falls to Lord Karsus, who is the Forum Lead for the Forgotten Realms forums on this.
And we're back to this attack on Lord Karsus again. *sigh*
I'll state again that LK does, indeed, warn people when they go over the top. I've seen it happen in the forums, and he does it in a fair and balanced way. And IMO he does not take "sides," although people have certainly tried to paint him that way. Repeatedly. And it's incredibly tiresome.
LK does, indeed, warn people when they go over the top.
I've (unfortunately) gone over the top in the past and he hasn't said anything.
I've (unfortunately) gone over the top in the past and he hasn't said anything.
Have you made a habbit of bad behaviour, enough of one to be identified as a problematic poster? I know from past discussions with you that you are no fan of LKs, but really you can't say "well, this one time I was out of line, and he he left me alone" and consider it to be indicitive of a failure on his part.
But there is a problem with civility on the FR boards. Even though incivility is not technically against the CoC, it should not be tolerated. By anybody. And one of Community Management's responsibilities is to keep these boards civil.
I have no issue with encouraging civility. However this issue seems to have only recently become about incivility. It was always more "pros are being discouraged by negativity and something should be done" etc. I have said that, in personal experience on those boards, the incivility starts with the folks being defensive. The "negative" folks discuss the Realms, whereas the people I think of as problem posters use every thread as a platform to preach about other posters and they way they allegedly conduct themselves. I have had to start using the ignore function simply because I want to read about the Realms, and not see people putting themselves up on a cross and deploring how horrible it is for them to be on these boards in every other thread. Its all so much dramatisation. I have personally been accused of "attacking" posters when I have been engaging in remarkly civil discourse. This kind of combatitive language is the chief weapon of the people who portray themselves as victims. I know of a few others who get this worse than I do; if you refuse to be mischaracterised, then you are outright accused of wrong doing for the simplest of things. It doesn't matter if person x,y or z is actually being incivil, out of line, rude, prude or anything to that effect if another poster has already decided that, no matter what, he sees certain things in the way that you conduct yourself and he is going to talk about them. Frankly, people are losing patience. If anything makes things less civil, it is the political war that certain posters are determined to wage against others. In short, certain folks have wilfully decided that there is a problem with "antis" actively and consistently victimizing "pros". These people have decided to actively react to this construction of theirs, and to "fight the good fight". The tension that this us vs. them mentality brings the boards is the root of all incivility.
That was a bit ranty of me, but bear in mind that this drama has been going on for a while now and it is incredibly tiresome for those of us who know that it is a falsehood. The emperor is not wearing any clothes, and those of us who say as much are starting to get frustrated.
If there is a thread where people are talking about what they like about the 4E FR, and you have a hatred of the 4E FR. There is no need for you (generic you, not specifically talking to anyone in this thread) to go in saying how the 4E FR sucks and that the changes ripped the soul out of it and it would be so much better if it had stayed the same.
The opposite holds true. If people are talking about how they do not like the 4E FR. There is no need for people to jump in and say that the 4E FR are so much simpler and less confusing.
OK fair enough, intentional threadcrapping is not cool. But threads change, discussions evolve. I don't see anyone feeling bad about debating people's opinions in the Unofficial Dissent thread. But, because of Mr Miscellany's PR campagin, some opinions are more ok than others to voice your disagreement with. So, if something goes against popular opinion, everyone should sit back and not discuss it no matter what it is, and we dare not disagree with the underdog? I know thats not what you are saying, but I know thats the picture that my "oppononents" in all this seem to be painting. Nevermind that some of these victimized underdogs have admitted to posting to intentionally draw a negative reaction from the community through their "controversy" (read, "bad behaviour").
Again, I know I seem very very ranty but enough is enough already. I have probably wasted more than a thosand words on this issue over the last few months. I am sick of the contruction persisting despite that. These concerns might seem legimate to folks like yourself, who actively try to make these forums a nice place for everyone. And I commend that. However, those of us with firsthand experience in this "problem", those of us who have seen this political campaign's developement over the course of the year, who know beyond a doubt from personal experience that this is all a wilfull fabrication designed as a means to push an agenda and propogate a particular vendetta, this is the single most poisoning thing on these boards and it has gotten extremly tiresome. If this nonsense doesn't stop soon, the problem might become a reality born of sheer frustration.
*sigh*
But there is a problem with civility on the FR boards. Even though incivility is not technically against the CoC, it should not be tolerated. By anybody. And one of Community Management's responsibilities is to keep these boards civil.
Exactly. Every word.
However, he cannot know that LK does not actively encourage civility via PM, regardless of the edition views of the person in question.
Actually I do know that LK has done this at least once in the past, because (as I recently remembered) he’s mentioned before that he’s tried to calm things down.
This puts a big old dent in my earlier jibe about him seeing all posts as debates waiting to happen, btw.
Clearly, and to his own admission, Mr Miscellany and his associates actively report any and every post that they feel is excessively negative.
If it breaks the CoC then yes, we do. Very aggressively, in fact. But...
Clearly Since he is advocating additional "solutions" or whatever, clearly the existing method of reporting posts, and the Wizo's subsequent judgments on those posts, is not satisfactory for him and certain others.
...we don’t believe this at all.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m reasonably happy with the WizO’s of late. My report log shows I’m batting 100% over the last four days on reported posts getting either deleted or content-edited. But even if the opposite were true it wouldn’t matter to this discussion.
This is because it’s not about what the WizO’s are doing. It’s about what the volunteer community members who have put themselves in a leadership position can do to help maintain civil dialogue and a welcoming disposition on the FR Forums.
As both wrecan and mudbunny have stated in so many words, forum tone as a function of the level of civility between forum members is a concept that can fall outside of the CoC and thus the WizO’s.
This means the ball is at least partially in Community Management’s court.
(As an aside, I’d like to thank wrecan for pointing me to the Volunteer Community Lead Program Open Discussion forum. If not for him, I’d have never figured out the sum of what CM is and what its role is on these forums.)
I want to see our Forums be more open and welcome to the new people who have found an interest in the 4E Realms. The Realms will not grow and survive without them.
If some of these people (who you can’t lump into the proactive “pro” crowd; these people are new, remember?) hold contrary opinions about the Realms and decide to share them in an appropriate thread, it shouldn’t be OK for them to be attacked on the principle that their opinion is somehow fundamentally wrong.
But that’s what I’m seeing of late. I think it’s wrong and it shouldn’t happen.
Thus there is nothing wrong with asking the VCL and our FL to consider the issue, check the thread(s) in question and see if they agree or not there’s a problem that needs addressing and then if they do, to do something about it.
Plus back then there were not many people who seemed to see my side of things except for Ubber and Mr M. Perhaps a few other folks felt like I did but did not really step in to back me up (in the beginning). I think perhaps they just did not like how I was wording my arguments and I might have been coming off as nasty and pigheaded as people I was arguing with. When I did see other people start popping up around here with similar feelings as I did I lightened up and realized how to "fix" things: Being courteous, support others, and try not to be a jerk. If pro people see this they will have a guidline on how to act, and if anti folks see this they cannot get all bent out of shape over certain commenets.
So I say just be nice to others and if you see something you don't like make a polite comment about it and if that does not work then report it to LK/WizO. Right now the OP boards might be the nicest place on the WOTC server and that is sad. ;)
Have you made a habbit of bad behaviour, enough of one to be identified as a problematic poster?
If it happens it seems to have little effect on some posters (and I'm avoiding naming names because I don't know their names. I don't go writing down every name of people who are anti-4e).
I know from past discussions with you that you are no fan of LKs
Actually I do quite enjoy his contributions when he's helping people with questions instead of taking potshots at 4e FR. I have had issues with some of his posts, and I do feel he lets the anti-people run riot a bit too much (which then leads to the pro-people also running riot until either the thread is locked or LK finally, as in it takes far too long IMO and sometimes he is even a part of the off-topic discussion, says "so, back on topic". Whether or not the pro-people instigate the same thing in 3.5e or anti-FR threads I don't know because I avoid those).
I have had to start using the ignore function simply because I want to read about the Realms, and not see people putting themselves up on a cross and deploring how horrible it is for them to be on these boards in every other thread.
We've had 2 people openly admit that they'll complain in as many threads as they can possibly find about how bad 4e FR is. I'd hardly say people are putting themselves on a cross.
I don't see anyone feeling bad about debating people's opinions in the Unofficial Dissent thread.
I avoid such threads. However I think people who are going in to debate are doing the wrong thing, unless the OP specifically opened it to such debate.
But, because of Mr Miscellany's PR campagin, some opinions are more ok than others to voice your disagreement with.
I had problems with the FR forums long before I even knew Mr Miscellany's name. So please don't try to suggest everyone's problem with the forum is simply due to being convinced by a particular poster.
So, if something goes against popular opinion
Popular opinion in the FR forums is that 4e FR sucks.
Nevermind that some of these victimized underdogs have admitted to posting to intentionally draw a negative reaction from the community through their "controversy" (read, "bad behaviour").
I don't know of any such people, but I really wish they'd cut it out as well. Civil discourse has to be on both sides.
However, those of us with firsthand experience in this "problem", those of us who have seen this political campaign's developement over the course of the year, who know beyond a doubt from personal experience that this is all a wilfull fabrication designed as a means to push an agenda and propogate a particular vendetta, this is the single most poisoning thing on these boards and it has gotten extremly tiresome. If this nonsense doesn't stop soon, the problem might become a reality born of sheer frustration.
WHAT!? I've been here less then a year and I think I lasted a month in the hostile FR forums initially before giving up on them (initially) for Eberron. So please stop trying to make this sound like some vast conspiracy. EVEN IF there is a conspiracy, not all of us who are fed up with the hostilities are a part of it and I find it offensive to have my opinion dismissed in such a manner.
If it happens it seems to have little effect on some posters (and I'm avoiding naming names because I don't know their names. I don't go writing down every name of people who are anti-4e).
Well, I can think of at least one example of a poster who toned things down after being given a talking to. However, even if I didn't, what this boils down to is that people who don't violate the CoC technically are not breaking any rules, and there is no basis to force them to obey any particular dictates. So yeah, as I have said before, if a post is bad report it. If it doesn't get moderated, then I would appreciate if people did not cause extensive derailments and public drama as they "call out" the speaker.
Actually I do quite enjoy his contributions when he's helping people with questions instead of taking potshots at 4e FR. I have had issues with some of his posts, and I do feel he lets the anti-people run riot a bit too much (which then leads to the pro-people also running riot until either the thread is locked or LK finally, as in it takes far too long IMO and sometimes he is even a part of the off-topic discussion, says "so, back on topic". Whether or not the pro-people instigate the same thing in 3.5e or anti-FR threads I don't know because I avoid those).
Everyone will always have criticism for the guy running the show. No leader ever has a 100% approval rating. So, while you may feel that he could do his job better, the fact remains that he is doing his job. And, going by his performance in terms of managing the board as well as the majority of popular opinion, he does so pretty well. You might have issues with the way he opperates, but thats unavoidable since its not possible to please everyone all of the time.
We've had 2 people openly admit that they'll complain in as many threads as they can possibly find about how bad 4e FR is. I'd hardly say people are putting themselves on a cross.
Trolling is against the CoC. I give my full support to the moderation or deletion of post which violate the CoC. So with cases like this, there's a clear cut answer. Report, and if you are particularly aggrivated, ignore. It makes my life much easier. However, as I have been told in the context of this thread, the CoC is not enough, and CM must be involved. Trolls do not fall into this jurisdiction, so I really have nothing to comment on regarding them.
[edit: I don't know which two people you speak of, though I can guess the identity of one maybe. I use the word troll as in "someone who posts to upset people and provoke a negative reaction". If this is not what said posters are doing, and they are just discussing their thoughts, the above statement does not apply)
I avoid such threads. However I think people who are going in to debate are doing the wrong thing, unless the OP specifically opened it to such debate.
My issue (not with your response, but regarding the Dissent thread) is the phenominal double standard. Mr Miscellany and his associates (I use this term to refer to the group he specified as having gotten together to report posts and for which he claimed the credit for certain temp bans) will report any post thats negative by use of the "on topic" rule. You know what, thats ok. But when certain posters will go into "negthreads" just to "fight the good fight", its annoyingly hypocritical. In one case, its said to be unjustified "derailment". In the other, its peopel talking about their "perfectly valid opinions". So, what, are the rest of us supposed to gag ourselves and swallow our own opinions, while a minority runs around with a do-whatever-you-want badge that they gained through being "oppressed".
Personally, I don't want to segragate things into pro threads and anti threads. I'd like people to accept that discussion evolve after the OP, and not to demonize people for that. But if I am going to say "you know what, I actually don't like that" andget hammered with the OFFTOPIC!!!! bomb, then I expect people to practice what they preach.
I had problems with the FR forums long before I even knew Mr Miscellany's name. So please don't try to suggest everyone's problem with the forum is simply due to being convinced by a particular poster.
Let me explain why I continue to refer to Mr Miscellany so conspiratorially. In the previous incarnation of this thread, he said that he noticed an active attempt by LK and certain of "his friends" to disscourage people who like the new Realms from posting, and to let negativety run wild. He then went on to claim that he formed a group that corresponded via email and PM to try and fight this conspiracy, and on behalf of this group he took credit for certain temporary bannings. At the time I said it was a silly conspiracy, but nevertheless he has continued to claim to speak for some nonspecific, invisible group. Therefore, I respond here as if I am talking directly to and about said group. While what I have to say might relate to presumably unaffiliated posters such as yourself, any blanket statemenets I make, including those using words like "contruction", "fabrication", "vendetta" and "agenda" are directly refering to this group. Yes, I don't like being involved in conspiratorial junk, but this is the paradigm that has been presented to me, so I will work within it.
WHAT!? I've been here less then a year and I think I lasted a month in the hostile FR forums initially before giving up on them (initially) for Eberron. So please stop trying to make this sound like some vast conspiracy. EVEN IF there is a conspiracy, not all of us who are fed up with the hostilities are a part of it and I find it offensive to have my opinion dismissed in such a manner.
As above, I am refering to a specific group I am told exists, and judging its intentions by the posting histories I have seen on these boards. I admit that up to and around the time the setting was released, there was a huge amount of anger and negativity. I will not admit that it ever became a large issue of incivility. Negativity around changes =/= a personal attack on people who like the changes.
Board vigilantism, pure and simple. Leading an organized group in PMs to target certain posts and posters, and keeping logs of his own efforts.
By his own admission.
That's not vigilantism, if the result is only that he reports posts to CS. Vigilantism would be trying to enforce the Code of Conduct through abusive posts or PMs directed at those who he should instead be reporting to the mods.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
If some of these people (who you can’t lump into the proactive “pro” crowd; these people are new, remember?) hold contrary opinions about the Realms and decide to share them in an appropriate thread, it shouldn’t be OK for them to be attacked on the principle that their opinion is somehow fundamentally wrong.
If I might rant for a second.
Please stop throwing around the word attack like pocket change.
I am sick of being told personally (by you no less) that I am attacking another poster, when I have done no such thing.
I am sick of seeing others told that they are attacking another poster, when they have done no such thing.
I am sick of these continued attempts to directly demonize people with no supportive fact.
I am not speaking for an invisible sect of people, for a theoretical group of newcomers who aren't actually members of this community, or even for the community itself (which would be highly presumptious of me). I am speaking personally, as someone who you have directly and unjustly accused of wrongdoing in the past. And though I don't speak for anyone else, I am pretty sure that there are more where I came from; people who are sick of being morally mischaracterised by you, directly and without humility.
That's not vigilantism, if the result is only that he reports posts to CS. Vigilantism would be trying to enforce the Code of Conduct through abusive posts or PMs directed at those who he should instead be reporting to the mods.
It is vigilantism, and it's sickening.
Where one or two people might independently decide to report a post for what they think is offensive, this group which targets an individual based on the directive of a self-styled leader is quite different and you know it.
Pro-4E opinions are not to be immune from criticism, and neither are anti-4E opinions or anti-3E opinions. Its the lack of respect that makes these things a problem. Personally, I can be agressive, argumentative, and a complete pain in the ass. That being said, I try to treat other people on the forums with respect. I may fall short of that occasionally, but I do try.
It is vigilantism, and it's sickening.
Where one or two people might independently decide to report a post for what they think is offensive, this group which targets an individual based on the directive of a self-styled leader is quite different and you know it.
It may surprise people to hear that I was never a part of this. I've corresponded with Mr Misc occasionally, but I've never been a part of any sort of plan, and I don't recally ever having reported a single post in the FR section which is what he referred to.
I go my own way.
Vigilantism would be trying to enforce the Code of Conduct through abusive posts or PMs directed at those who he should instead be reporting to the mods.
I’ve never done the abusive PM thing. I have in the past done the abusive posts method.
And here’s what that gets you: Flamed. Warned. Flamed some more. Then temporarily banned.
This is why doing things via this thread and CM instead is about a billion times better.
Sure the flames and personal attacks are still there but I can deal with that no problem.
The upside is there’s no warns or banns being handed out and the people from the community who lead the community and want to see it improve can come in to help direct the discussion and talk about the issues put before them.
It is vigilantism, and it's sickening.
Where one or two people might independently decide to report a post for what they think is offensive, this group which targets an individual based on the directive of a self-styled leader is quite different and you know it.
But he didn't say he was targeting individuals. He said he was targeting posts that violate the CoC, and it's absolutely legitimate (and not vigilantism) to coordinate with people to report violative posts. Sadly, the original post in which he stated what he was doing is now gone. So I think this is as far as we can take the discussion of MM's current behavior.
I have reported people I like as well as others that I do not care for much.
Fair is fair and even people that I get along with and share the same ideas with should obey the forum rules. I have seen LK warn off people that he gets along with at times and I figure he probably PM's them to tone it down as well. At least that is what I hoped happened. That is private stuff thouhg and really none of my business.
I have had people PM me and asked me to tone down my posts as well. I would look back over what I said and try and do a better job about it. When someone PMs me and calls me a hypocrite though (not saying who) that is not so nice. Too bad I do not know much about screenshots or I would have taken care of that issue as well. ;)
Things can keep getting better as long as we don't act like inconsiderate people or be overdramatic about everything.
18DELTA
LK is doing a great job as Forum Lead.
With this I agree. I think LK is doing a great job in one of the most contentious boards on the forum.
I'll state again that LK does, indeed, warn people when they go over the top. I've seen it happen in the forums, and he does it in a fair and balanced way. And IMO he does not take "sides," although people have certainly tried to paint him that way. Repeatedly. And it's incredibly tiresome.
I would like to second this. I think LK has been pretty even-handed overall, as a FL. And I'm not just saying that because I like him.
People need not only take my word for it, though, look at his posting history. The proof is in the pudding--his record speaks for itself.
I have had to start using the ignore function simply because I want to read about the Realms, and not see people putting themselves up on a cross and deploring how horrible it is for them to be on these boards in every other thread. Its all so much dramatisation. I have personally been accused of "attacking" posters when I have been engaging in remarkly civil discourse.
Seconded, on all counts. I come here to read and chat about the Realms, not to be called out by name by the same damn people over and over again (how is that not harassment?) for "attacking" people when I've done no such thing. The ignore function has made my experience here much more bearable. That said, I don't understand how it's possible to continually harass people and not at least get temporarily suspended from posting.
Actually I do quite enjoy his contributions when he's helping people with questions instead of taking potshots at 4e FR. I have had issues with some of his posts, and I do feel he lets the anti-people run riot a bit too much (which then leads to the pro-people also running riot until either the thread is locked or LK finally, as in it takes far too long IMO and sometimes he is even a part of the off-topic discussion, says "so, back on topic".
LK is one person, is a human being, has a life, and cannot be (and probably wouldn't want to be) actively keeping track of what's on the boards 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Try to avoid making multiple unanswered replies to the thread; technically, this violated the Code of Conduct (bumping), and it can spam anyone who is subscribed to the thread.
Thanks in advance!
Just a relatively minor point: If you want to reply to several posts, please use the multi-quote button (the little button with the "+" sign on it in the bottom corner) to mark the additional posts to which you wish to reply, then click "Quote" on the last reply. This will bring up all these posts in quote blocks on the reply screen.
Thanks, I didn't know how to do that before.
(snip)
So, to sum up:
1. You(and others on this thread), are claiming that the complaints of pro-4E FR fans are without merit.
2. There either isn't a problem with civility on the FR forums, or what problems exist are the fault of people complaining about a phantom problem.
Just trying to get things straight.
So, to sum up:
1. You(and others on this thread), are claiming that the complaints of pro-4E FR fans are without merit.
2. There either isn't a problem with civility on the FR forums, or what problems exist are the fault of people complaining about a phantom problem.
Just trying to get things straight.
I don't know how you get that from anything written in the post you quoted.
I don't know how you get that from anything written in the post you quoted.
I was pretty much in the same boat and was going to ask the same question, then noticed he gave himself that "and others on this thread" out and was betting he'd tell me to go back and read the whole thread. Which I ain't gonna do. :P
LK is one person, is a human being, has a life, and cannot be (and probably wouldn't want to be) actively keeping track of what's on the boards 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
He can if he's actively taking part in the offtopic discussion.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I don't know how you get that from anything written in the post you quoted.
I saw it as an affirmation and a continuation of this train of thought(found on the last three pages):
There is no problem.
No sollution is required.
Nothing the forum can do will solve a problem of which the perception is a deliberate construction.
This thread has no purpose other than to stir up trouble and to increase tension between forum-goers, as well as pot-shots and character assination.
If anything causes people to be disdainful of certain posters, it is this crusade.
The continued attempts at melodrama and mischaracterization are unappreciated.
and on the other side of the coin Anti 4E get aggressively responded to, whether or not they are calling out the "Pros" or posted by somebody with no history on the FR forums, and regardless of the intentions of whoever posted it.
In which case this will continue until certain 'vocal' individuals elect to simply ignore the thread/posts and by not continously supplying fuel to the fire or are permanently invited by WoTC to go elsewhere. Since by reading many of threads complaining about some very offensive individuals and how they continue to plague the boards via an army of 'puppets' the general opinion of 'they'll get bored and leave' I believe is an incorrect view. Unless these individuals get bored after a year or so, the amount of unseen damage they will have caused in people simply not frequenting the forums due to the written excrement that seems to continue from a relatively small number of posters.
You'll get the customers who let you know that something is wrong or that the service was unacceptable and then you'll get the customers that you never hear from, that having received unacceptable service, simply never return to your business. Word of mouth advertising is important for any business and if Consumer X tells his circle of friends of his experience and impressions, be it good or ill, they are inclined to take the person at their word. The statment of "You never get a second chance to make a first impression" is a true one. WoTC has aimed 4E at bringing a new group of consumers, many who may or may not have played DnD in the past. Coming to the forums and having to bear witness to the antics of both pro/anti and then just the "infantile" antics of some of the others will be part of the DnD Experience.
This thread serves no purpose save as yet another ground for a vocal minority of individuals who have some sort of personal agenda and/or vendettas.
(This post neither supports nor denies the claim that Cake > Pie, nor that the Cake is a Lie.)
Have you made a habbit of bad behaviour, enough of one to be identified as a problematic poster? I know from past discussions with you that you are no fan of LKs, but really you can't say "well, this one time I was out of line, and he he left me alone" and consider it to be indicitive of a failure on his part.
I have no issue with encouraging civility. However this issue seems to have only recently become about incivility. It was always more "pros are being discouraged by negativity and something should be done" etc. I have said that, in personal experience on those boards, the incivility starts with the folks being defensive. The "negative" folks discuss the Realms, whereas the people I think of as problem posters use every thread as a platform to preach about other posters and they way they allegedly conduct themselves. I have had to start using the ignore function simply because I want to read about the Realms, and not see people putting themselves up on a cross and deploring how horrible it is for them to be on these boards in every other thread. Its all so much dramatisation. I have personally been accused of "attacking" posters when I have been engaging in remarkly civil discourse. This kind of combatitive language is the chief weapon of the people who portray themselves as victims. I know of a few others who get this worse than I do; if you refuse to be mischaracterised, then you are outright accused of wrong doing for the simplest of things. It doesn't matter if person x,y or z is actually being incivil, out of line, rude, prude or anything to that effect if another poster has already decided that, no matter what, he sees certain things in the way that you conduct yourself and he is going to talk about them. Frankly, people are losing patience. If anything makes things less civil, it is the political war that certain posters are determined to wage against others. In short, certain folks have wilfully decided that there is a problem with "antis" actively and consistently victimizing "pros". These people have decided to actively react to this construction of theirs, and to "fight the good fight". The tension that this us vs. them mentality brings the boards is the root of all incivility.
That was a bit ranty of me, but bear in mind that this drama has been going on for a while now and it is incredibly tiresome for those of us who know that it is a falsehood. The emperor is not wearing any clothes, and those of us who say as much are starting to get frustrated.
OK fair enough, intentional threadcrapping is not cool. But threads change, discussions evolve. I don't see anyone feeling bad about debating people's opinions in the Unofficial Dissent thread. But, because of Mr Miscellany's PR campagin, some opinions are more ok than others to voice your disagreement with. So, if something goes against popular opinion, everyone should sit back and not discuss it no matter what it is, and we dare not disagree with the underdog? I know thats not what you are saying, but I know thats the picture that my "oppononents" in all this seem to be painting. Nevermind that some of these victimized underdogs have admitted to posting to intentionally draw a negative reaction from the community through their "controversy" (read, "bad behaviour").
Again, I know I seem very very ranty but enough is enough already. I have probably wasted more than a thosand words on this issue over the last few months. I am sick of the contruction persisting despite that. These concerns might seem legimate to folks like yourself, who actively try to make these forums a nice place for everyone. And I commend that. However, those of us with firsthand experience in this "problem", those of us who have seen this political campaign's developement over the course of the year, who know beyond a doubt from personal experience that this is all a wilfull fabrication designed as a means to push an agenda and propogate a particular vendetta, this is the single most poisoning thing on these boards and it has gotten extremly tiresome. If this nonsense doesn't stop soon, the problem might become a reality born of sheer frustration.
*sigh*
If I might rant for a second.
Please stop throwing around the word attack like pocket change.
I am sick of being told personally (by you no less) that I am attacking another poster, when I have done no such thing.
I am sick of seeing others told that they are attacking another poster, when they have done no such thing.
I am sick of these continued attempts to directly demonize people with no supportive fact.
I am not speaking for an invisible sect of people, for a theoretical group of newcomers who aren't actually members of this community, or even for the community itself (which would be highly presumptious of me). I am speaking personally, as someone who you have directly and unjustly accused of wrongdoing in the past. And though I don't speak for anyone else, I am pretty sure that there are more where I came from; people who are sick of being morally mischaracterised by you, directly and without humility.
So, to sum up:
1. You(and others on this thread), are claiming that the complaints of pro-4E FR fans are without merit.
A. You (and others on this thread), are claiming that the complaints of anti-3E FR fans are without merit.
2. There either isn't a problem with civility on the FR forums, or what problems exist are the fault of people complaining about a phantom problem.
B. There certainly is a problem with civility on the FR forums and the problem lies in the vocal minority on both sides that to all appearances would rather beat dead horses than to actually add anything useful to the forums.
If you'll read my post I neither advocate nor support either side, I merely point out that while you are dancing about pointing the finger and yelling "Help Help I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!" there is an equal number of anti 4E FR's receiving the same treatment that the pro's are. I merely pointed out that the "coin" has two sides. The rest of my post that you quoted acknowledges that a few posters are going out of their way to be as snotty and rude as possible while skating the CoC line and that new people to the forums get to bear witness to it.
If you want to complain about the tone and civility of the FR Forums I suggest you broaden your target to both sides of the equation as both sides hold equal blame.
Again this post neither supports nor opposes the claim that Cake>Pie nor the claim that the cake is a lie.
Just trying to get things straight.
Respond to the words being used. Don't rewrite them. Thanks in advance.
Congratulations! Read a few of my posts, rarely if ever are they filled with spite or derision for another poster. Being relatively new to the forums I can clearly see that there does indeed appear to be the reek of elitism and snide undertones to these forums.
My statements have been that it's both sides of the argument. Go read some of my previous posts wrecan before you elect to come to a conclusion that is erroroneous. I try to flavor my posts with good natured humor which clearly, I can assume by your interpretation, missed the mark.
Since my attempt to try to point out that it's not a one sided problem is clearly not wanted nor desired I shall not post again further upon the WoTC forums.
Thank you very much for your time.
Go read some of my previous posts wrecan before you elect to come to a conclusion that is erroroneous.
I was only remarking on the last two posts in the thread. The one where tco quotes and mischaracterizes Therise's post and the one where you in turn mischaracterize his. Maybe you were trying to be funny. Maybe you thought you could shame tco into better behavior by shoing him how it feels to be mischaracterized. Maybe you had some other purpose in mind. I don't paticularly care what your motivation was. Whatever it was, however, it's not helping to bring civility back.
Since my attempt to try to point out that it's not a one sided problem is clearly not wanted nor desired I shall not post again further upon the WoTC forums.
what? You tied to make a joke and it fell flat. That's no reason to abandon the forums! Yeesh.
Again this post neither supports nor opposes the claim that Cake>Pie nor the claim that the cake is a lie.
Cake > Pie
Unless the cake is made with nasty canned frosting, then Pie > Cake.
I've seen several posts I could have dropped a verbal bomb on, but I didn't. Likewise, people who post positive ideas about 4E or criticisms about 3E and older products aren't being challenged (again, that I can see).
Maybe that's the correlation right there: Whenever we're having it out here, things calm down on the main FR Forums.
;)
Just a relatively minor point: If you want to reply to several posts, please use the multi-quote button (the little button with the "+" sign on it in the bottom corner) to mark the additional posts to which you wish to reply, then click "Quote" on the last reply. This will bring up all these posts in quote blocks on the reply screen.
Try to avoid making multiple unanswered replies to the thread; technically, this violated the Code of Conduct (bumping), and it can spam anyone who is subscribed to the thread.
Thanks in advance!
Actually the multi quote is broken and has been for the better part of a year. As it is it can get only one post with it, but you can get a second with a regular quote.
For quoting more than two posts you need to copy and paste. Either from one window to another or use notepad to hold the posts.
Well, for good or ill, during all the back and forth on this thread, the problems I saw on the FR Forum have (for now) lessened.
...
Maybe that's the correlation right there: Whenever we're having it out here, things calm down on the main FR Forums.
A nice and convenient way to admit that you can't provide proof of all the "attacking" that you say happens, while at the same time spinning it so that it doesn't look like your case is a house of cards.
You could certainly put your talents to use as a lobbyist.
Seconded, on all counts. I come here to read and chat about the Realms, not to be called out by name by the same damn people over and over again (how is that not harassment?) for "attacking" people when I've done no such thing. The ignore function has made my experience here much more bearable. That said, I don't understand how it's possible to continually harass people and not at least get temporarily suspended from posting.
Rino gave me a thought here. I have a question that maybe Mudbunny or wrecan can answer with some insight.
Does near-constant accusation of wrongdoing, when these accusation are unjust or at least severe overreactrions, qualify as harrasment? I would certainly say it does, having been on the receiving end of this. Then it is against the CoC, is it not? Therefore, folks like myself and Rino have a legimate claim. I would appreciate your thoughts on this guys. As you can no doubt see by my post on the bottom of the last page, I am fed up with getting fingers pointed unjustly.
Does near-constant accusation of wrongdoing, when these accusation are unjust or at least severe overreactrions, qualify as harrasment?
That's a customer service isue. CM doesn't define "harrassment".
It would appear to be off-topic for the FR forum.
That's a customer service isue. CM doesn't define "harrassment".
It would appear to be off-topic for the FR forum.
Yeah I know CM doesnt define it, I was just asking for your thoughts around it. It certainly comes across as harassment when one is always accused of attacking pro 4e Realms people. The word "attack" is in itself an attack with no purpose other than to demonize the subject. You have raised concerns over the civility of the board. This is where I think that problem lies.
Rino gave me a thought here. I have a question that maybe Mudbunny or wrecan can answer with some insight.
I will try, but as wrecan said, that is more CS territory. So nothing I write below should be seen as an attempt to define WotC CS policy or as an interpretation of the CoC.
Does near-constant accusation of wrongdoing, when these accusation are unjust or at least severe overreactrions, qualify as harrasment? I would certainly say it does, having been on the receiving end of this. Then it is against the CoC, is it not? Therefore, folks like myself and Rino have a legimate claim. I would appreciate your thoughts on this guys. As you can no doubt see by my post on the bottom of the last page, I am fed up with getting fingers pointed unjustly.
If they are accusing you directly, it could be considered harassment and is something that you should report directly to the WizOs using the "Report this" button. They have the training, they have the prior decisions to base thier judgements on
If it is just general accusations, then I wouldn't worry about it. Things liek this tend to be cyclic. It was the same in 4E GD before 4E was released. Based on when you looked into the 4E Community Business forum, you would swear that the 4E Concerns and Criticisms (and now 4E General) forum was either full of "4E Haters" who were repressing those who looked forward to (or are enjoying) 4E or 4E lovers who were eagerly repressing the rights of those who had things that they didn't like about 4E.
Yeah I know CM doesnt define it, I was just asking for your thoughts around it.
My thoughts would be ill-informed. I have no inside information about how Customer Service interprets things and I've been pretty vocal that I think they are lax in certain areas.
It certainly comes across as harassment when one is always accused of attacking pro 4e Realms people.
By"one" do you mean specific attacks on you or generic attacks on an unspecified group. The latter is unlikely to be seen as harassment.
At any rate, discussions about how people are debating is off-topic. LK should feel free to request that posts be moved or threads closed when they stray from discussing the Realms.
If they are accusing you directly, it could be considered harassment and is something that you should report directly to the WizOs using the "Report this" button. They have the training, they have the prior decisions to base thier judgements on
Thank you. This is what I was asking about, and it was my initial thought. I just wanted some perspective on the matter.
By"one" do you mean specific attacks on you or generic attacks on an unspecified group. The latter is unlikely to be seen as harassment.
I mean accusations of wrong doing aimed at a specific poster, not general handwaving (though I find that tiresome, I know that doesn't qualify harrasment). At times these have been specific attacks on me. Even more often, it has been against specific others. Rino, for instance, gets it alot. There are others, though I won't mention anyone who hasn't posted here. I find this kind of harrasment of others to be only slightly less aggrivating than when it is aimed at me personally.
Thank you for your thoughts, as well.
That's a customer service isue. CM doesn't define "harrassment".
Well then, I'm certainly going to send in a customer service report about being harassed (and yes, I have been specifically targeted for harassment).
Well then, I'm certainly going to send in a customer service report about being harassed (and yes, I have been specifically targeted for harassment).
I am just using your post as a jumping-off-point Rin. I am not targetting you, or implying that you have ever done that.
I think that a big bart of the problems that exist, on the 4E FR forums, on the 4E GD forum and other places on the WotC forums is the following:
if people started their discussions from that general point of view, the general attitudes on these forums would be a lot calmer.
Well then, I'm certainly going to send in a customer service report about being harassed (and yes, I have been specifically targeted for harassment).
To ensure that CS gets all the information, you should provide links to each post in which you believe you were harassed. If you've been harassed in PMs, you should make screencaps of those PMs, store them on www.photobucket.com or a similar site, and include links to the screencaps in your report.
Provide as much detail as you can, and provide it in a factual, straightforward manner.
I am just using your post as a jumping-off-point Rin. I am not targetting you, or implying that you have ever done that.
And I appreciate that, because what I've talking about isn't merely an issue of people having disagreements with each other. It is definitely an issue of specific people, such as myself, being called out by name and targeted in a manner that could, in my opinion, be described as creepily obsessive and stalkerish.
That said, I can certainly agree with your main point.
wrecan--Thank you for the advice, I shall do as you suggest.
I stopped posting because of this kind of garbage. Both 'sides' are at fault and until we all quit acting like our way is the only right way, nothing good will come from any of this.
I don't have a problem with anyone over there. I have seen people overly aggressive and overly defensive toward me, but after talking, I repeat talking with them, we have come to an understanding. That is what should have been happening here.
Nobody is right or just in their actions on the boards lately. Everyone is taking pop-shots or going out of their way to smear the 'other' side... it is sad.
Can't we all just suck it up, bite our tongues and try to see the other 'sides' perspective before throwing our righteous indignation around like it's are birthright?
In that vain, can we also cutback on the poo slinging. I'm pro 4e and a longtime fan of the Realms. I can relate to everyone to some degree, but it seems like no one else is even trying to meet in the middle anymore.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You know what I find to be really sad... threads like this, who's intent is to get a group effort to help make the FR section more user friendly for everyone, end up devolving into a finger pointing ***** fest...
I stopped posting because of this kind of garbage. Both 'sides' are at fault and until we all quit acting like our way is the only right way, nothing good will come from any of this.
I don't have a problem with anyone over there. I have seen people overly aggressive and overly defensive toward me, but after talking, I repeat talking with them, we have come to an understanding. That is what should have been happening here.
Nobody is right or just in their actions on the boards lately. Everyone is taking pop-shots or going out of their way to smear the 'other' side... it is sad.
Can't we all just suck it up, bite our tongues and try to see the other 'sides' perspective before throwing our righteous indignation around like it's are birthright?
In that vain, can we also cutback on the poo slinging. I'm pro 4e and a longtime fan of the Realms. I can relate to everyone to some degree, but it seems like no one else is even trying to meet in the middle anymore.
In light of other responses being removed I figured I'd give this a reply.
I can appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying. However, I disagree that everyone is equally at fault, and that it is a case of intentionally not seeing the other side's perspective. There are people involved in all this who would never have been involved if they had not been specifcally provoked. Not myself, surely. I got into this willingly because back when Ubber posted the first thread, I thought not responding to it would have been a bad idea. But others, most certainly. Name calling, harrasment, bullying, these things are all happening in the name of the "solution" that particular people want.
As for righteous indignation. I've had my fair share, and I understand it is undesirable. However, when people make a case against the behaviour of others, they open up their own behaviour to scrutiny. Clearly, I am of the opinion that some of the behaviour that comes about as a response to this "problem" is more damaging than the origional "problem" itself. My participation in this issue has not been all happy-fun-nice-nice-sunshine-land. But, I consider it to be preferable to allowing certain statements, including the frequent character defamation, to go uncontested.
Meeting in the middle ground? If there is a compromise that can be met without people admitting to wrong doing where there is none, and that will stop the word-twisting and character assisination and political maneuvring, then I would be happy to hear it. However, since people admit that things are perfectly calm there, I still wonder why people complain about the origional issue.
Diplomacy works when people see what is bothering one group even ifthey do not agree with it and trying to work through it.In light of other responses being removed I figured I'd give this a reply.
I can appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying. However, I disagree that everyone is equally at fault, and that it is a case of intentionally not seeing the other side's perspective. There are people involved in all this who would never have been involved if they had not been specifcally provoked. Not myself, surely. I got into this willingly because back when Ubber posted the first thread, I thought not responding to it would have been a bad idea. But others, most certainly. Name calling, harrasment, bullying, these things are all happening in the name of the "solution" that particular people want.
As for righteous indignation. I've had my fair share, and I understand it is undesirable. However, when people make a case against the behaviour of others, they open up their own behaviour to scrutiny. Clearly, I am of the opinion that some of the behaviour that comes about as a response to this "problem" is more damaging than the origional "problem" itself. My participation in this issue has not been all happy-fun-nice-nice-sunshine-land. But, I consider it to be preferable to allowing certain statements, including the frequent character defamation, to go uncontested.
Meeting in the middle ground? If there is a compromise that can be met without people admitting to wrong doing where there is none, and that will stop the word-twisting and character assisination and political maneuvring, then I would be happy to hear it. However, since people admit that things are perfectly calm there, I still wonder why people complain about the origional issue.
I disagree with almost all of this. I disagree with who he characterizes as "most at fault", I disagree that the response to the "problem" is more damaging then the "problem" itself, I disagree with the notion of the "solution" he implies, and I certainly disagree that the FR are perfectly calm these days.
For the record, I'll restate my main complaint:
To me, the issue is respect. I have seen a profound lack of respect given to people who post pro-4E FR opinions, and a lack of respect for those same opinions. When I post complaints about the atmosphere on the FR forums, it is about this lack of respect. These are discussion forums, and things will be discussed. People WILL disagree. Still, there needs to be respect, and there has been a lack of it.
Pro-4E opinions are not to be immune from criticism, and neither are anti-4E opinions or anti-3E opinions. Its the lack of respect that makes these things a problem. Personally, I can be agressive, argumentative, and a complete pain in the ass. That being said, I try to treat other people on the forums with respect. I may fall short of that occasionally, but I do try.
I disagree that my response to my issue with the FR forums is worse than the issue. I disagree that I am more at fault than the general disrespect I have seen. I disagree that my response to and lamenting of this problem is worse than the problem itself. He seems to imply that my "solution" is for everyone to praise the 4E FR without criticism, and I have clearly stated that is not what I am after. Finally, while things are certainly better than they were, I disagree that this issue is a thing of the past.
@krownhunter07Maybe if someone is terse and impolite in one post the other side won't take the bait and try and be the better "poster".
Rauric makes a good point. I'd like to follow up with the idea that accepting other people's contrary opinions is not the same thing as having to admit one side is right and one side is wrong.
My main concern at this point is that certain people are moving right past concepts like diplomacy and the community working together to resolve its differences, and taking things to "the next level."
If those people who feel that disagreements with their positions on the FR Forums are a form of targeted harassment end up filing a claim of such to Wizards of the Coast, WotC will obviously find such claims have no merit or basis in fact. As mudbunny reminded us earlier: Disagreement with your position is not harassment or trolling.
But that does not mean there won’t be consequences.
WotC will explore the issue and very quickly determine that both “sides” are at fault and both sides are unwilling (based on statements made online, such as in this thread) to reconcile.
As a result, I am certain WotC’s response will be to temporarily or permanently shut down the Forgotten Realms forums.
This thread is titled: Discussion: Solutions for the Forgotten Realms Forum. Closing things down is a kind of solution for the FR Forums that I’m pretty sure nobody wants to see happen.
Here’s hoping people come to their senses before they take actions that could result in the FR Forums getting closed for good.
Thank you.
If people are going to disagree angrily, can we at least do so in a discussion and talk about the issues, and back off the personal attacks and politics?
And to reply in advance to accusations of hypocrisy:
This thread was to talk about issues. The issue was the lack of civility on the FR forums, and discussing how that should be dealt with, what defines incivility and inappropriate behavior, and what would be the best way to make the FR forums a better place. This is a heated discussion, and people have strong opinions. If somebody has a problem, this is the place to air it. To me, there is a difference between aggressively pressing the issue, which is what I consider my behavior in this thread, and making things personal and political.
In other words, lets keep this about the issues, and not about the people. If you have a problem with somebody's opinion, lets discuss that opinion, and not the people. I think its time to stop all this about silencing people, reporting people, and things escalating to the point where the forums are closed. If somebody goes too far, report it to CS and let the mods deal with it. It is not a healthy discussion, and it definitely isn't a good thing to have the threats and accusations flying around.
If you have something to say, keep to the topic.
Obviously more 4E talk is needed.
But I’d like to see more discussion from people who run 3E games and even 2E Realms games.
So how can we go about generating more traffic (and useful traffic at that)?
By “useful” I mean the kind that gets users to come back and participate more because they find value in the subjects discussed and in the interaction that takes place.
I think that discussing positive experiences from play in various editions of the Realms is one way to keep the lid on (and eventually removed) any remaining edition-animosity that exists, and to show people the value that all editions of the Realms have to offer.
For example: Maybe we could start a “Classic Realms Adventures: Recollections of ” thread where DMs and players that have played through anything from Bloodstone to Curse of the Azure Bonds to Four from Cormyr can come in and share their experiences. We could ask them answer questions like: Was this your first adventure? Your first time playing D&D in the Realms? How do you remember the rules affecting play? Where did this take your Realms campaign? Did your character’s die? What was your most memorable experience? What was your DM like?
What do you think?
I think we can "catch" new user traffic with a description that focuses on more than just talking about mechanics for Realms games.
The description is extremely limited (and frankly, uninviting) and should be changed to include the words "Dungeon Masters" and "players," and invite people to talk about running Realms games in all editions.
This will help reduce the number of threads that get moved as well.
FYI we’re starting to see posts that talk about converting older adventures to the new rules system (such as jaymkay22's Bloodstone Pass Campaign for 4e thread), which is a good start.
I'd like to see more of this and I think changing the Running the Realms forum description will make to make that happen.
When that atmosphere kinda got exported into the other place I went looking for friendly chatter about all editions of the Realms, and was met there with moderator reaction ranging from tacit approval to active fostering, I came back here--and have been reading and trying to make useful and interesting contributions in the last week or two. So my closest familiarity with the forums is as they are right now.
And I think the tone's pretty swell, actually. I'm a whole hearted 4E adopter, a "bought the gray box the day it came out" guy, and somebody who can't be said to have been a fan of 3.0/3.5 because I was away from the Realms and the game during its hey day and didn't know anything about it (though I've sure enjoyed buying up all those "splat" books and reading the fluffy bits).
And sure, this edition stuff has been what it's been, here and elsewhere.
But right here, right now, things seem relatively civil. There have been recent posts that stepped up to the line of incivility, but most of the stuff I've seen that's "bothered" me (and that's actually kind of a strong word) has done so because, in my opinion, it was goofy, banal, or based on readings of the new material that don't seem to be based on, y'know, having read the new material. The only time that something seemed over the top recently, it was more frat boy style posturing and vulgarity than anything else, and the mods shut it down quickly and effectively.
The only problem I personally see in the forums that might need a "solution"--and again, this is based on my vast experience of the last seven or eight days, so get out your box of Morton's Kosher--is a tendency toward off topic chatter and the undercutting of what I find to be interesting questions and conversations with what I find to be (you may not) peanut gallery wisecracks. And hey, this is the internet, I've been putting up with that for over twenty years now. Maybe there should be a topic or a thread or a thread in each topic for that kind of thing in particular, and where mods can move those side-conversations so they can continue without derailing actual Realms talk.
So, to sum up. It's clear that a lot of y'all have been going at each other for awhile now. But worries about what newcomers are likely to think about the tone of the forums as they are right now seem misplaced to me, unless they go digging for stuff to be upset about.
And looking for stuff to be upset about it is maybe not a good strategy for message boards anyway, eh? It's never been one out in the real world.
Cheers,
Christopher
Everyone is allowed their opinions of course I just thought that the FLs should be a tiny bit more impartial about things than regular posters. I could be completely wrong on the matter though. I should be sleeping and not on these boards at the moment.
I may have been wrong about the nice things I was was thinking about LK when I read his reviews about the FR books. IMO both threads are just incredible flamebait waiting to happen and he should know better. Negative Reviews about the 4EFR product from the Forum Leader just seems uneeded.
Everyone is allowed their opinions of course I just thought that the FLs should be a tiny bit more impartial about things than regular posters. I could be completely wrong on the matter though. I should be sleeping and not on these boards at the moment.
I honestly don't see what your issue with the review is mate. He tries to be impartial, give an honest opinion, and does not spin off into "4e sucks" or something. Its an evaluation of a book, not the edition. The only questionable things I see are how people choose to respond to him. Honestly, that someone chooses to get into a debate over his choice of the word "uniform" is absolutly silly. Its also annoying that people bring up the old talking points, telling him what his "problem" is which is supposedly why he doesnt like it. The same old "if you don't like it, you fail to see/realise/understand x, y, or z" nonsense. So yeah some responses are certainly borderline aggressive, but I honestly don't think you can take his book reviews and say "this is bad for the community".
Negative Reviews about the 4EFR product from the Forum Leader just seems uneeded.
Everyone is allowed their opinions of course I just thought that the FLs should be a tiny bit more impartial about things than regular posters. I could be completely wrong on the matter though. I should be sleeping and not on these boards at the moment.
Forum Leads aren't required to be impartial; he's entitled to his opinion and to posting it as he wishes, just like the rest of us. Forum Guides are the ones who are required to be impartial.
Yeah five hours of sleep stinks.Like I said I am probably wrong with that issue but there is always something about a review (by anyone) that can stir up bad blood and negativity so when I saw it I was kinda exassperated. While he posts his thoughts in a way that is logical and polite there will be a lot more one sentence replies that say "The book sucked!" I guess that is what I am dreading.
Anyway I posted that when I needed some sleep so ignore it I guess. I changed my mind about the "issue".
Hey, I just woke up.
Like I said I am probably wrong with that issue but there is always something about a review (by anyone) that can stir up bad blood and negativity so when I saw it I was kinda exassperated. While he posts his thoughts in a way that is logical and polite there will be a lot more one sentence replies that say "The book sucked!" I guess that is what I am dreading.
Anyway I posted that when I needed some sleep so ignore it I guess. I changed my mind about the "issue".
Since this thread has an inherant cloud of hostility around it, I just felt like clarfying something in case my post read as hostile in anyway (I wouldnt think it does but its worth a clarification). I in no way, shape or form had any intention for my post to come across as anything other than polite and disrespectful disagreement, and did not mean the word "issue" in a negative way at all. On account of respecting you, I am more than happy to go to pains to make sure that this is understood and not misinterpreted as hostility or disrespect. You saying "issue" like that in brackets just made me feel self-conscious about whether or not I am sounding the way I want to sound. Heh.
At the time of my posting I felt differently than I do now, for the most part.
The reason I put it in brackets was because it probably wasn't an issue at all as much as me being cranky and tired at 1AM when I first posted my comments. Again no worries and thanks for the concern. That's good times.
No worries. The angry face was because I only got 5 hours sleep due to my twins waking me up.
At the time of my posting I felt differently than I do now, for the most part.
The reason I put it in brackets was because it probably wasn't an issue at all as much as me being cranky and tired at 1AM when I first posted my comments. Again no worries and thanks for the concern. That's good times.
Posting while half-asleep tends to lead to these things. I've been there. That being said, the two threads you mentioned in your cranky rant have managed to not fall into flamewars so far, and thats a good sign for the community. A month ago, the story would have been different.
I ask because; 1) It's kinda the point of this thread & 2) this isn't (supposed to be) a one way street.
I could give a rat's *** how people feel about X,Y or Z, but I do care that everyone is treated the way they should be. This isn't a Pro or Con problem, it is a people problem... so, is there any?
Edit; Seems like the filter isn't working, so I added *'s myself.... for the kids.
In specific though, a few threads have spouted some really negative discussions about the 3E vs. 4E Edition War that have little to do with FR. I could live without that. If I want to fight with people about that, I'll go visit General Discussion.
So, aside from a lack-of-sleep-induced misunderstanding, is there any overt 'issues' the FR boards are having at this time?
I don't see anything that's particularly troublesome.
There seems to be a much better balance of opinions and viewpoints on the FR Forums as a whole, which is a nice change.
I haven't seen as many auto-negativity responses of late (the sort of, "Oh, here's another chance for me to say how much I hate the 4E Realms!" cut and paste responses that don't actually serve any purpose).
The only problem I do see is that the post count on the Running the Realms forum is low.
We ought to come up with ways to increase it.
-But one problem I have been having is that LK WON'T answer a question that I and MR. M, and Pamela have been asking about why a certain thread has been moved around and unstickied? Instead mine and Mr. M's post keep getting deleated. Nothing is against the COC in the post's. But I guess that we have posters that think LK can not be questioned about decisions that are being made about the FR Forum's. Sorry I will question LK on whats happeneing in the FR Forums. I am starting to lose confidence and faith in LK to perform his duties as Forum Lead in an unbiased manner. So he gets a vote of NO-CONFIDENCE from me at this time. No offence LK, I respect you as a poster, but you should answer the communities question's when they come up. So instead of starting a thread in the FR General Forum, I am bringing my complaint here to keep from starting a Flamefest there. Sorry I need to get this out. I am not trying to start a Flamefest here either. So how would I get some answer's to my question from Solice or other member's of Community Management? Thank You and Have A Nice Day.
David G 18DELTA
The thread in question is the excellent A Working Bibliography of the Forgotten Realms in 4E, by Christopher_Row.
This thread was stickied early on and that was totally awesome. Kudos to LK for getting that done.
But then the thread was unsticked at Karsus’ request and has since been jumped all over the FR Forums, again at Lord Karsus’ direction. I’ve linked to each of those requests in the Bibliography thread itself.
When community members posted questions on that thread to Lord Karsus as to why the thread isn’t stickied and why it’s being moved so much, Lord Karsus never responded to the community. Not once.
Because there have been so many requests, the ORCs are now coming in and making posts disappear. Apparently such discussion is now considered by the ORCS to be both a form of baiting and to be off topic (see post #45).
The thread is veering in another direction because community members are frustrated at LK’s lack of response and are trying to communicate to him about it in the thread. While we are all responsible for what we post, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if the person responsible for moving the thread around so much would speak up and explain why the moves are happening, then such “off topic” conversations would end.
Look, this thread is important. It’s a singular consolidation of all the available lore and game information for the 4E Realms. That’s a useful resource that needs to be stickied front and center on either the FR General or the Realmslore forum.
WotC doesn’t sell 3E products, 2E products or 1E products anymore.
WotC sells 4E products.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
@18Delta: You may wish to cross post your complaint to the Forum Lead Concerns and Feedback thread as well. Just be extremely careful in how you post. If an ORC even catches a whiff of something you write that could be considered baiting, they will delete your entire post.
Second, you should PM Webster with your complaint, as (if I understand this right) Lord Karsus falls under his jurisdiction (probably not the right word to use, but I trust you get my drift).
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Finally, I put forth the idea on the Bibliography thread (that later was deleted by an ORC) that either CM or CS wants to limit the number of stickied threads per forum.
If that’s true, why not put to a vote of the FR community which threads are important enough to sticky and which are not?
With respect to Lord Karsus, it’s not up to him to make the decision alone. The FR Community needs to be involved.
Now, we do have a sticky limit and I think we're already over, but there's only one sticky thread in the Realmslore so it should be fine stickied there.
As to why it's been moved so many times, that's my fault. I thought I had it in the right place the first time and tried to get it corrected. When I saw it requested again, I should have checked with LK about it, but I figured either the ORCs mis-placed it or if it was mis-directed by me again. (Lots of requests to process!
)So, don't blame LK as it's on my head. I'll get it fixed, though.
Interesting use of the word community, I think, when you and a handful of posters have been doing what you've been doing.
-If one person asks a question of the Forum Lead, then a member of the Community is asking a question. Unless that member is Pro-4E FR, or is their view important only if they want to bash the 4E Realms. Me, Pamela, and MR. M all asked pretty much the SAME question. Only mine and MR. M's question were "Reported". Its sad when posters use the COC AS A WEAPON IN THE FORUMS, ITS SICK AND ITS SORRY.
Quick question- Should the thread be in FR General or Realmslore? (My vote would be Realmslore because it deals with books that handle the lore of the Realms.)
Now, we do have a sticky limit and I think we're already over, but there's only one sticky thread in the Realmslore so it should be fine stickied there.
As to why it's been moved so many times, that's my fault. I thought I had it in the right place the first time and tried to get it corrected. When I saw it requested again, I should have checked with LK about it, but I figured either the ORCs mis-placed it or if it was mis-directed by me again. (Lots of requests to process!
So, don't blame LK as it's on my head. I'll get it fixed, though.
-OK. Thank you Webster. Now I feel much better about what is going on now. I would just like for there to be a little communication going on in the FR Forum. Again thank you Webster!
-PS. Webster in the general forums we have two ask threads when we only need one IMO. The Paul Kemp thread should be merged IMO with the thread you started. They pretty much fufill the same function. If posters have a question for Rich then address it to Rich. A question for Paul address it to paul, or BR.J. Thanks.
-PS. Umbral its not making a mountain out of a molehill when you ask a question. do you not at least want a promt answer, not get your post deleated. It makes me think: "Thou shalt not ask LK any question whats so ever, if you do your question shall get reported and then deleated by an almighty Wizo/Orc"
18DELTA
I am glad however that Webster can recognise the use of the thread. I think it is good to have a thread for 4e-specific material in easy reach in Realmslore without having to run into another forum to look things up. I have no particular interest in 3e-specific material for myself but I'd certainly support the 3e version of this thread being stickied as well if it would help smooth any friction over the matter.
We were, in fact, discussing the forum - in particular, the behavior displayed there of those who are involved in these "problems". Nashira, did you feel that it was it actually off topic? Or was it considered a violation in the CoC in some way? Not having received an e-mail warning or even seeing a note as to the specifics of the reason(s) for the deletion, it's difficult to know.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
IMO the Bibliography thread should go in the FR General forum, right at the top where users can find it.
We are in the heart of 4th Edition, so a resource like that thread should be front and center.
The thread is already mentioned in the General Forum's Forgotten Realms Links thread. It would be superfluous to have it stickied there as well.
I'd disagree, Mr Miscellany. I liked it in Realmslore, so I'd be able to have quick access to knowing what sources are available to date for 4e's new lore and history. Why go wandering off to another forum to look up sources for lore? It defeats the purpose, in my eyes.
The thread is already mentioned in the General Forum's Forgotten Realms Links thread. It would be superfluous to have it stickied there as well.
It's not really a source of "lore," though. It's just a list of everything with 4E content, which is everything that's new.
I'm not saying that it isn't valuable for what it is (basically, a list of everything new), but it's really just a list without any context or connection to (even simple descriptions) actual "lore."
If it did have even one line descriptions of the lore to be found in each source, then it would be far more valuable as a lore-pointer. But as it is, it's just a list of everything new since 4E started... and that's pretty general. Valuable in its own way, for what it is, but of limited use.
My vote: FR general forum, and NON-stickied. Save stickies for things that are more important, since we are limited in the number of stickies per forum.
-PS, well I'll be darned.
I like it! 
18DELTA
Delta, I will PM you with my reply to your now-missing post. I would like to hear what you would have said, if you will indulge me. ;)
I have to admit that it bothers me that this thread is so one-sided. Are my concerns and Therise's less valid than others? Regardless, the above issue regarding that particular thread was over-reacted to. I would like to point out that jumping to conclusions, and dramatically responding to something of which one is not certain, is by no means a good thing for the community.
Also, as much as I’d like to see the Bibliography Thread placed in the Running the Realms forum, that area is "low traffic" and #3 in the sequence of FR Forums as they are listed on the D&D Worlds index, so I don’t think as many people will see it who need to see it.
So I'm tempted to agree that Realmslore is probably the best place for it.
I think a concept people are missing is that we're going to be extremely limited in terms of new 4E FR products. If WotC sticks to their party line, it's DDI content through Online Dungeon and Dragon magazines, Living Forgotten Realms content and the novels, with no new sourcebooks.
Also, we're in 4th Edition now. The Realms Forums need to reflect as much where the Realms is headed as where it’s been. Therefore, a single, consolidated resource that points to everything “4E Realms” deserves a prominent place somewhere. If not in General, then in Realmslore.
I’d like to change my recommendation to Webster: Sticky the thread in the Realmslore section.
Why is there a limit to stickies? If there is one it should be placed at 5 IMO.
**EDIT** BRJ pretty much has his own sticky so nevermind.
I have to admit that it bothers me that this thread is so one-sided. Are my concerns and Therise's less valid than others?
It cuts both ways.
Both 18Delta and I separately (and in my case, repeatedly) posted questions to LK in the Bibliography thread that somebody else in the community thought was objectionable and so reported them. The ORC(s) who responded agreed and deleted the posts.
Does that mean mine and 18Delta’s concerns less valid than those of the people who reported us?
No, of course not.
What the Wiz...err, sorry, the ORC’s actions are showing us is that our concerns are valid (read: can be posted to the forums) so long as we don’t make posts that are directed at other users or are repeatedly off topic.
When I saw that my questions were not being answered on the Bibliography thread, I should have stopped posting there and brought the issue up here for resolution.
Fortunately 18Delta was smarter than me and did this on his own.
There's room for you and all of us to air our concerns, we just have to really try hard to stick to the issues, stay on topic and not appear to be going after each other.
There's room for you and all of us to air our concerns, we just have to really try hard to stick to the issues, stay on topic and not appear to be going after each other.
Not "appear" to do so, or "not actually do it"? There's a difference, as we all know.
Not "appear" to do so, or "not actually do it"? There's a difference, as we all know.
Indeed.
Frankly, I am frustrated by the fact that I cannot be direct in this matter without having my posts disappear into the ether. Instead, I have to talk in circles and play verbal games in order to present any manner of counter argument or related fact.
So its ok to go after the forum lead, but not the people going after the forum lead.
Its ok to question the behaviour of the forum lead, but not question the behaviour of the person(s) calling him out.
Its ok to forward conspiracy theories based on nothing more than silence (which then get disproven), but not to contradict the people forwarding the conspiracy theories, or to point out that this "accuse first, make excuses later" behaviour is problematic.
Its somewhat nauseating.
Thanks also to everyone who participated in the discussion.
Regardless of the animosity that clearly still exists, we're getting things done as a community and working together. That's a start, hey?
:D
Regardless of the animosity that clearly still exists, we're getting things done as a community and working together. That's a start, hey?
Well, you obviously got what you wanted. Frankly, I think it's a waste of a sticky.
Perhaps more importantly, please refrain from speaking for the community as a whole. Speak for yourself, not for everyone. What you want is what you want, and not necessarily what everyone wants - or even what a majority wants.
-Well the FR Forum has been pretty calm lately.
do you think it has anything to do with me pretty much abandoning the setting/boards?
Well, you obviously got what you wanted.
Ah, but not just I! More than just me wanted to see that thread find it's home at the top of one of the FR Sub Forums.
Note I was content to compromise, too.
Perhaps more importantly, please refrain from speaking for the community as a whole. Speak for yourself, not for everyone. What you want is what you want, and not necessarily what everyone wants - or even what a majority wants.
I have to be honest with you: I really don’t see where you’re coming from. Thus I’m at a loss for how to help.
Could you clarify? (Please PM me if you need to be blunt, OK?) Regardless, let’s work it out.
Well, you obviously got what you wanted. Frankly, I think it's a waste of a sticky.
Perhaps more importantly, please refrain from speaking for the community as a whole. Speak for yourself, not for everyone. What you want is what you want, and not necessarily what everyone wants - or even what a majority wants.
-The waste of a sticky is having 2 Author threads running. IMHO. They need to be combined.
-Its what I wanted, Pamela wanted it stickied also or to know what is going on with it. That thread is invaluable. Does us or me liking the 4E FR make our or my voice any less important in the FR Forum. Thats the question that needs to be answered. I get that you don't like the "New Realms". Yet alot of Posters do. I am not trying to troll you or bait you. I was just feeling like my voice was not being heard by the Forum Lead. I felt like someome was going out of their way to censor and silence my voice on the FR Forums. Sorry if I offened you or anybody else. Sometimes my emotions get the better of me. I just want to know and feel that my voice will be heard and taken into consideration. Not just those that dislike the 4E Realms. Currently I feel that is the case.
do you think it has anything to do with me pretty much abandoning the setting/boards?
-No my friend, I actually miss you!
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :coolcthul
--No my friend, I actually miss you!
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :coolcthul
well, I hang out a bit over at the Star Wars boards
well, I hang out a bit over at the Star Wars boards
-I do too. I also spent alot of time in the Realms Forum not even logged in just watch what was going on. (I also had some family issuse during that time so I figured I could use a break from the negativity). I saw some interesting things while in lurk mode. I would pop up to help other's and post, and not try and further a "Hidden Agenda" in the Forum's. ;)
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :lightbulb
;)
So how about figuring ways to increase post count on the Running the Realms forum?
;)
um....get rid of the 4th edition realms? :P
lol...that would only up the thread count on the General Forum.
yes, but if we go back in time and eliminate 4e realms, then we can all go back to 3.5e no?
yes, but if we go back in time and eliminate 4e realms, then we can all go back to 3.5e no?
:P
Time travel, as you know, is not an option. ;)
But we can still work to up the 3rd Edition and Older post count too.
One thing I've always wanted to see is a thread where Realms DMs post lists of their custom NPCs and how they used them.
Sure we get to see and talk about Realms characters, but never the DM equivalent.
Though now that I think about it I'm curious what sorts of characters the typical Realms player is cooking up.
:But we can still work to up the 3rd Edition and Older post count too.
why would I want to do that? I hope the 4e realms fails.
judging by the quality of the Campaign Book it already has
why would I want to do that? I hope the 4e realms fails.
judging by the quality of the Campaign Book it already has
LOL, says you, mister "I don't play in 4E". :P
Seriously, that's not the best way forward to up the posting traffic. Do you have any useful, positive ideas?
LOL, says you, mister "I don't play in 4E". :P
Seriously, that's not the best way forward to up the posting traffic. Do you have any useful, positive ideas?
Not really, no. I am a defeated man. My only hope is 4e realms is a big failure and they bring the timeline back and bring the back the Realms as they were.
Not really, no. I am a defeated man. My only hope is 4e realms is a big failure and they bring the timeline back and bring the back the Realms as they were.
Something to hope for, perhaps, with 5E and a new design team.
I wonder if any game company has ever reconned away an entire edition. It'd certainly be the RSE to top all RSEs.
Something to hope for, perhaps, with 5E and a new design team.
I wonder if any game company has ever reconned away an entire edition. It'd certainly be the RSE to top all RSEs.
DC Comics does it all the time
we can only hope they see the error of their ways
The reason this thread exists is, ostensibly, is because people have perceived a problem in the way that people behave on the Forgotten Realms Forums. Alligations have been made, continuously, against certain individuals. I have, on my own and not by any request or encourgament, done my best to refute what I have openly called politicizing, defamation and harrasment. I have made clear that I believe that the root of the current problem to be a specific vendetta continued by a specific poster. I have openly made it known that I consider the way in which this has been persued to be worryingly obsessive.
I have tried to be rational and friendly. I tried to talk things over in PM with a few people, and at times was able to reach an understanding, though I was most often derided and ignored. I have also, admittedly, been less friendly, and have often made my frustration clear.
This issue has gone on long enough, and it seems to have done the damage that it was intended to do. In light of that, I am done with it, and saying my final say on the matter.
Posters reading this may or may not be aware of the regrettable effect this has had. To those who are, I would like to say that I am extremely dissapointed in the members of the community who persued this agenda, as well as in community management for not taking a united front and protecting it own.
In conclusion, there is very much a problem with the forgotten Realms forum right now. That problem is that cyber-bullying, political mud-slinging, and continued harrasment of posters has been allowed to take place with zero repercussions. I would like to offer my sincere fond wishes for the members of the community who are blameless in all this, and I hope that in the future they find a way to overcome this most undersirable state of matters.
I still argue that a second forum lead would help. It's not about whether LK is able to handle the forums or not. Astrid's Parlour has two FLs in one forum and I'm sure others do too. FR has three forums to manage with one person. LK is not a fan of 4e FR; he is entitled to his opinion and to expressing it.
Therefore bring in another forum lead that is pro 4e FR and will encourage discussions in that direction.
From what I understand, it is not even the FL's job to encourage "pro-4E" (or for that matter, "anti-4E") discussions, and in any case LK is already pretty even-handed when it comes to doing his duties. If he's doing his job correctly, then what he thinks about 4E shouldn't even matter.
No. A second forum lead is not needed. This is only an issue because there are people here who, quite obviously, dislike LK, resent the fact that he's the forum lead and are trying to discredit him.
From what I understand, it is not even the FL's job to encourage "pro-4E" (or for that matter, "anti-4E") discussions, and in any case LK is already pretty even-handed when it comes to doing his duties. If he's doing his job correctly, then what he thinks about 4E shouldn't even matter.
I do not have some vendetta against LK. I just want another forum lead in place who can share my interest in 4e FR. I do not want it at the cost of someone who prefers the 3e edition.
Again, it is not about LK doing his job correctly. It is about having someone else who is pro 4e FR and can also do the job correctly. It is not even-handed to have one forum lead who clearly dislikes 4e FR and to say that it is perfectly fine. Fix the balance and make it fair.
I do not have some vendetta against LK.
Please note that I did not say you did.
Again, it is not about LK doing his job correctly. It is about having someone else who is pro 4e FR and can also do the job correctly. It is not even-handed to have one forum lead who clearly dislikes 4e FR and to say that it is perfectly fine. Fix the balance and make it fair.
I just don't see how this argument flies if the actual job duties of the Forum Lead have nothing to do with promoting 4E. And for the record, it's pretty obvious to me that LK doesn't care whether or not people like and use the new version of the Realms. He's not doing anything to "punish" people who like the setting. Therefore, I don't think it can be argued that the situation (LK as the sole FL) is an any way "unfair" to you, or people who share your opinion.
That's about all I have to say on the subject. You've made your opinion known, and with respect, so have I.
--GamerZero, from the Forum Lead programthread.
In my opinion the Forgotten Realms forums should first and foremost play host to the 4E Forgotten Realms.
Wizards of the Coast has moved to 4E, just as the main D&D forums have “moved on.” So should the Realms forums.
However, this is not how the FR Forums are structured and they are suffering for it as a result.
Currently the top half of the D&D General Forum is being dominated by 3-4 threads where the holdouts on both sides of the 3E/4E issue are still debating away, with a constant recycling of the same arguments and ideas. These statements and the debates that spawn them need to be curtailed considerably, as they are the first thing any new user will see when they drop into the FR General forum and can invite new people to “join sides” and possibly not participate in the other thread discussions.
Within them we have people once again spreading negativity, by calling out that they hope the 4E Realms dies and asking for pink slips to be issued to WotC employees. This behavior does a disservice to the FR Forums and the FR community by painting the rest of us all in a bad light. Note also that those who are spreading the negativity have already had over a year to vent and otherwise have “their say” about the changes to the Realms.
Is it any wonder that posts on the Realmslore and Running the Realms forums have slowed?
Having said the above, I’ve also been convinced by Therise’ persuasive arguments earlier in this thread that we simply can’t leave everything else pre-4E behind. This is because people still play the Realms of the 1300s. For example, I run two Realms campaigns, one in each era (and using both rules sets respectively).
An inclusive Realms community should therefore include topics and discussion ranging across both eras of the Realms such that we invite responses from any Realms players and DMs that have enjoyed the setting over the last twenty years, while still focusing primarily on building a community around the 4E Realms as a game and novel setting.
The idea would be not for one community to replace the other, but for a new community to join with the older, already established community.
It is imperative that a new Forum Lead, a new Forum Guide or even a VCL be appointed to carry forward Wizards of the Coast’ strategy of creating a new era for the Realms by shepherding the creation of a positive, game and novel oriented community on the FR Forums.
This person should be someone who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the 4E Realms, who knows a great deal about the Realms in general and who is absolutely interested in forming a new online community around it.
This person should both on their own and in close partnership with Webster/the ORCs work to curb the repetitive negativity on the FR Forums. While fan dissent and dissatisfaction with the 4E Realms should never be made to go away (on the contrary, constructive criticism and feedback should be encouraged, in a single sticky thread), the open personal attacks and pure negativity have no place on the FR Forums.
Lastly, it should be stated again that Lord Karsus has consistently and constantly worked to maintain an ordered, open posting environment. Lord Karsus has been always vigilant in watching the forums and making helpful suggestions to the ORCs to move threads where necessary so they are placed in the correct FR Forum and so can achieve the best possible response by the community.
He has been very responsive and helpful to those with questions about the 4E Realms, even though he's clearly no fan of it.
Regardless of the service level (FL, FG, VCL) of the person appointed to the second position on the FR Forums, it is my hope that Webster will make clear that this individual should expect to be mentored and guided by Lord Karsus for some time.
I do not have some vendetta against LK. I just want another forum lead in place who can share my interest in 4e FR. I do not want it at the cost of someone who prefers the 3e edition.
Again, it is not about LK doing his job correctly. It is about having someone else who is pro 4e FR and can also do the job correctly. It is not even-handed to have one forum lead who clearly dislikes 4e FR and to say that it is perfectly fine. Fix the balance and make it fair.
Oy gods, not this again.
Doing so would only increase the divide between pre-4E and 4E, it wouldn't have any effect of balancing or "fairness" as LK is doing an excellent job.
[Within them we have people once again spreading negativity, by calling out that they hope the 4E Realms dies and asking for pink slips to be issued to WotC employees. This behavior does a disservice to the FR Forums and the FR community by painting the rest of us all in a bad light. Note also that those who are spreading the negativity have already had over a year to vent and otherwise have “their say” about the changes to the Realms.
Well, as you know, I am one of the people who truly hopes that 4e Realms dies. Can't help it, its how I feel. I only mention those types of feelings in threads that talk about "Criticisms of the 4E realms" or "How would you have handled the conversion to 4E". I don't post that in other types of threads. If people have a problem with negativity, don't look at threads like that.
It seems to me that the pro 4e realms people really wanted 3 seperate boards for the express purpose of keeping the negativity to one Board, The General board, and that appears to be the case. Yet, thats the only Board that seems to get serious traffic. What does that tell you? It tells me that the decisions behind the 4e Realms were a big mistake. I believe that and will continue to say it.
It has not been a year, by the way. The 4th edition realms have been out a scant 3 months. Already, the vitriol has died quite a bit from August, IMHO. Unfortunately, so apparently has interest in the Realms.
Is it any wonder that posts on the Realmslore and Running the Realms forums have slowed?
Like I said. You guys got what you want. The bickering about the editions is at the General Boards. But now, you complain because nobody traffics the other 2 Boards?
I think we have to face the fact that the Realms are dying. The old guard have been disenfranchised and there is just nobody to replace them
This person should be someone who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the 4E Realms, who knows a great deal about the Realms in general and who is absolutely interested in forming a new online community around it.
This person should both on their own and in close partnership with Webster/the ORCs work to curb the repetitive negativity on the FR Forums. While fan dissent and dissatisfaction with the 4E Realms should never be made to go away (on the contrary, constructive criticism and feedback should be encouraged, in a single sticky thread), the open personal attacks and pure negativity have no place on the FR Forums.
Gosh... I wonder who you might possibly mean?
Someone interested in 4E who is also adept at arguing for selective censorship? That's pretty specific, right there... hm, I just don't know... oh wait... AND someone who has built a collection of people into their own mini-community that acts in concert on specific issues? Hmm...
Maybe you could tell us?
Gosh... I wonder who you might possibly mean?
Someone interested in 4E who is also adept at arguing for selective censorship? That's pretty specific, right there... hm, I just don't know... oh wait... AND someone who has built a collection of people into their own mini-community that acts in concert on specific issues? Hmm...
Maybe you could tell us?
ya think he means me?
ya think he means me?
Exactly who I had in mind. ;)
And no, Therise, I'm not interested in the position.
I'll gladly help with any 4E Realms related initiatives a new FL/FG/VCL comes up with, though, so long as they advance the building of an active, supportive and friendly 4E Realms community.
It has not been a year, by the way. The 4th edition realms have been out a scant 3 months. Already, the vitriol has died quite a bit from August, IMHO. Unfortunately, so apparently has interest in the Realms.
I meant from the perspective of being informed at Gen Con last year about the Spellplague and then seeing the reveal in Grand History of Faerûn.
And no, Therise, I'm not interested in the position.
I'll gladly help with any 4E Realms related initiatives a new FL/FG/VCL comes up with, though, so long as they advance the building of an active, supportive and friendly 4E Realms community.
Yes yes... but as the effective "party chairman" of your group, who are you suggesting for the role?
And so far as code words go, I think The Great Myth is pretty cool.
Yes yes... but as the effective "party chairman" of your group, who are you suggesting for the role?
You do realize that no "group" exists, right?
Or did you not get the memo? :P
Seriously, "we" don't exist in the sense you are assuming and "we" never did. It's like the inverse of the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, except that instead of convincing the world he didn’t exist, we (and that’s the true usage of the term, though I bet you can’t guess its meaning) convinced everyone a devil did exist.
We hoped to see the vitriol and negativity (at least initially) being directed at “we,” instead of at the Realms, and for a small time that’s what happened. Markus took the bait from Paizo and ran with it all the way back to Candlekeep, after all.
And it was nice to see a lot more people became concerned and proactive in supporting the Realms because they thought others were doing the same behind the scenes. The PMs, emails and talk about ways to improve the forums was very elevating.
But, it was a little shocking to see people stir up their feelings against the Realms for the very same reason.
And boy howdy didn’t we ever expose the raw emotions of the fan base on this thread and on the FR Forums. Damn!
But all we drew in the end were a select group of people who railed against “us” and mistook the reasoned arguments against their positions about the Realms as a form of focused harassment, simply because they believed a devil existed when one never did.
The lesson, then, is that one should never believe what they read online simply because it was written.
In that vein, (and perhaps ironically) I’d hate to see us pull off an even greater trick, and one we never intended at that.
It all depends precisely on how you manage your sense of disbelief, Therise.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And finally, a sincere apology is owed to Steve/Lord Karsus.
I had such great hopes that you would be the one to elevate the FR Forums above the negativity that was sure to come as the Realms transitioned to Fourth Edition D&D.
Looking back I realize I was entirely wrong to assume that responsibility was yours and to take my frustrations out on you month after month publicly on these forums when nothing seemed to change.
Rinonalyrna is right. That just wasn’t your job.
I hope you come to see that of late I’ve tried to focus solely on the issues and not portray you in an entirely negative light. Repeatedly I’ve made points in support of you by reminding others of all that you have done (and I’ve done the same several times by PM) to improve the FR Forums.
There is a better way of doing things. This is because I’ve learned the other feedback systems that are in place actually do work. I should never have passed them by, much less abused them.
But most of all it is because you do good for the FR Forums that I support you.
I am deeply, truly sorry for any pain and suffering I caused you and yours. I hope your absence is only temporary.
-M.
I note that you never answered my question.
I note that you never answered my question.
Damn.
This is like revealing to an audience how a magic trick works, only to have them refuse the explanation because they are convinced it was magic.
Well, if you really must have an answer, I nominate Christopher_Rowe and/or thecasualoblivion. Both are entirely independent of me and either would do quite well, IMO.
Pamela for a simple sanity check every now and again too, I should think.
-So Mr_M, that group of poters that were watching the forums was made up?
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric that is :confused
I meant from the perspective of being informed at Gen Con last year about the Spellplague and then seeing the reveal in Grand History of Faerûn.
yes, but the true depth of the hatchet job was not clear until later
Looks like things haven't changed during my forum vacation...
-Pretty much business as usual.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
We hoped to see the vitriol and negativity (at least initially) being directed at “we,” instead of at the Realms,
hmmmm......redirecting negativity from where it belonged
And it was nice to see a lot more people became concerned and proactive in supporting the Realms because they thought others were doing the same behind the scenes. The PMs, emails and talk about ways to improve the forums was very elevating.
a lot more people are supportive of the Realms? who are these people?
I am deeply, truly sorry for any pain and suffering I caused you and yours. I hope your absence is only temporary.
having "discussed" some things w/ LK, I am not so sure, but I do hope its temporary.
-So Mr_M, that group of posters that were watching the forums was made up?
Yep.
Interesting how certain people relied over and over on the assumption such a group existed as a basis for their arguments and as an excuse to hurl invective and accusations.
Also interesting to see people opt to follow the lead (so to speak) in terms of pushing for evenness and fairness on the FR Forums, without ever actually having to join a group beforehand.
But should we ever happen to get a second one, it should obviously be a person who at least gets along with the current forum lead and does not have a history of aggressively opposing him
This reads like sound advice.
However, Forum Leads don’t have to be of the same mindset and temperament in order to get along, much less to get things done.
I think what our current Forum Lead does isn't anywhere near what a Forum Lead could do to promote the FR Forums and really get them going. That's absolutely not a dig against LK, mind.
He's got a life like everyone else and we all only have so many hours in a day, right?
What I'm saying is there's room for a second Forum Lead to do more. Far, far more.
Let a second FL/FG/Scribe/VCL work on generating traffic and interfacing with the FR community, while LK continues to do what he does so well (i.e. keeping things structured and organized).
Lord Karsus is only taking a short break.
I am not so sure about that
I go on a break from all you fine, fine people and now LK is GONE!....
What happened here? I swear, silly me, thinking the kids could get along for a week or 3 whilst I moved and paned out the homefront...
Could someone be so kind as to fill me in on what I've missed?
Thanks in advance and I hope the krown can help where needed...
???
I go on a break from all you fine, fine people and now LK is GONE!....
What happened here? I swear, silly me, thinking the kids could get along for a week or 3 whilst I moved and paned out the homefront...
Could someone be so kind as to fill me in on what I've missed?
Thanks in advance and I hope the krown can help where needed...
The Realms have gone to hell in a handbasket and the forum has followed. In fact, since the change to 4e, the Realms boards have slowed considerably. Lack of interest I guess.
People have questioned LK's ability as a Forum lead, so he has left, perhaps temporarily. Many other "old guard" who have no use for the new setting have gone too I suppose.
Lack of interest I guess.
That's not why I stopped going. And I imagine a quite few others are in the same boat as I.
I've always said LK is/was doing a damn good job, I hope he can walk it off and come back to us. Is there someone(s) doing what they can on the FR forums?
Well, in light of this information, may I ask who is filling the gap right now?
I've always said LK is/was doing a damn good job, I hope he can walk it off and come back to us. Is there someone(s) doing what they can on the FR forums?
no one that I know of. It doesn't really matter anymore
no one that I know of. It doesn't really matter anymore
Wow man, any chance you might get off your soapbox this lifetime?
I rarely pay that much attention to these kind of posts but I've wasted precious time reading this one and I've got to ask why if you dislike 4e or perhaps just 4e realms so much you waste your time here? Nothing good comes from being negative or a buzz kill.
You don't like x, but other people might.
Now just in case you think I'm a FR 4e fan snapping back, I'm not, although I have given some good reviews to newbies who I think can and will enjoy what is essentially a NEW setting. I agree with you the designers royally cocked up in 4e, at least flavour wise. The only reason I picked up the books is for the mechanics. However that doesn't mean I can't contribute and thanks to writers like Brian have a say (all be it small) in what's addressed next.
I haven't really been in love with the realms since some time around the FR adventures book back in 2e, in fact I loathe many elements introduced since then. However I don't harp on them because I realise that whilst they may not work for me...
If you think FR is a dodo then come join us on the Paizo site, Golarion is a fresh new setting done with a lotta old style D&D love. From your other posts I recall reading we'd welcome you, your normally the kinda community member a board needs. Or maybe Candlekeep?
To address the point of this topic however the only way the FR boards will improve is if people stop posting negativity just because they don't like something. If you see a clearly negative and contentious topic heading avoid it, if you don't like someone's argumentative statement ignore it.
It'll take time but eventually bitterness fades and people either adapt or move on. These sort of threads well meaning or not simply agitate and delay that process.
Personally I like Lord Karsus, and don't think we really need an official 2nd forum lead to do the things Mr M has said. You want to promote 4e FR discussions and such do so, you don't need any special powers. And if people cause problems you have Karsus/webster/Orcs/CS to help out.
Wow man, any chance you might get off your soapbox this lifetime?
I rarely pay that much attention to these kind of posts but I've wasted precious time reading this one and I've got to ask why if you dislike 4e or perhaps just 4e realms so much you waste your time here? Nothing good comes from being negative or a buzz kill.
Sure it does. There is always a possibility they could correct their mistake.
And my sopabox makes me feel taller
To address the point of this topic however the only way the FR boards will improve is if people stop posting negativity just because they don't like something. If you see a clearly negative and contentious topic heading avoid it, if you don't like someone's argumentative statement ignore it.
It'll take time but eventually bitterness fades and people either adapt or move on. These sort of threads well meaning or not simply agitate and delay that process.
Anyway, the only time I post "bitterness" are on threads like those you describe. The bitterness has faded, but then so has traffic on the FR Boards truth be told
To address the point of this topic however the only way the FR boards will improve is if people stop posting negativity just because they don't like something. If you see a clearly negative and contentious topic heading avoid it, if you don't like someone's argumentative statement ignore it.
-That is so wise.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :D
-That is so wise.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :D
some men just want to watch the world burn
-That is so wise.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :D
the problem is those are the only threads will activity.
Sure it does. There is always a possibility they could correct their mistake.
And my soapbox makes me feel taller
Sorry read that and realised it sounded like I was having a go, not my intent I assure you. ;)
the problem is those are the only threads will activity.
Right, so go post something positive and useful in one of the other threads.
That's what we're getting at, see? :P
Right, so go post something positive and useful in one of the other threads.
I have nothing positive to say about the 4e realms and I have posted in some other threads but there isn't much else going on really.
thats what I'm getting at
Surely you would be better served starting a new thread on a topic that interests you, or just maintain a presence in those quieter threads encouraging their longevity and visibility.
Or worse case scenario do as I do and just avoid the sections involved for a few days, post elsewhere. You already mentioned spending time on the Star Wars boards.
You seem like an intelligent guy and surely realise that FR(4e) is not going anywhere. Looking at Wotc's current marketing strategy of three books and done, it can't fail in a significant enough way to ever see a revamp this side of a new edition.
Continuing to allow your upset, understandable as I find it, to influence you is a barren field. Nothing worthwhile will come from it.
Now enough said by me as any further comment will start to stray into the murky realms of me telling you what you should do, play or enjoy. And that is against my GOLDEN rule. ;)
With respect are you saying that because the majority of the threads are antagonistic (one side or other) you feel you have to weigh in? Given a lack of other options? I suspect I'm misreading you.
Not that I have to, no. But I have strong feelings against what they did. So if its a topic I weigh in. I am not of the opinion that if I can't say anything nice don't say it at all
Not that I have to, no. But I have strong feelings against what they did. So if its a topic I weigh in. I am not of the opinion that if I can't say anything nice don't say it at all
Of which I have the opposite opinion I'm afraid, or at least I must be constructive. ;)
Very old fashioned Welsh upbringing :D .
May I respectfully suggest we move this thread away from Merrik and on to broader subjects, lest the ORCs step in to close it?
You had some good ideas on how to move the FR Forums in a more positive way and I'd like to hear more of them if you're willing.
Arawn76, with respect to Merrik: He knows exactly what he's going. You gave it the good college try with him but you're not going to get anywhere.
May I respectfully suggest we move this thread away from Merrik and on to broader subjects, lest the ORCs step in to close it?
I agree he gave it a good college try.
What I am saying, and I think this discussion has been very on topic the whole time, is that continued bashing of 4E may, in fact, be constructive in the end. It depends on what you want to see in 4.5 D&D or even 5th edition.
Slim hopes, certainly, the more likely scenario is that WoTC abandons FR as a game world if 4th edition Realms fails, but even that to me is better than what we have now.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
-Merrick you know that if WotC was to can the Realms, that all of the lore that was produced from say 1987 would be invalid. Even the lore Ed made up after the setting was bought from him. Think about it. Yes the setting would probably revert back to Mr Greenwood, but the Realms as a whole would be pretty much unrecongnizable. Be careful of what you ask for.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
I would take that to be honest. What we have is awful right now and there is little chance it will improve, especially since they will not in all likelihood publish more sourcebooks. So I would take a chance on it.
It will not happen one way or the other because WOTC can probably still make money off of video and pc games based off the FR logo even if they do not gain new fans of the P&P version of the FR. Even the novels probably has many devoted fans that will still buy the books after the 4E. Why? RSEs evidently sell books and many fans that bought into those RSEs will buy the new stuff most likely. They apparently love change more that this supposed "old guard" whoseamabobs that people throw about. ;)
RSEs sell and are about change. They sold enough for them to keep making more. So change sells apparently. So WOTC did what they felt will sell books.
yet, they keep saying they aren't going to do them anymore, and then another RSE comes out
darn you time pg 13,
I'd say the reason that the RSEs sell is more because they are 'event' books, with the big overblown storylines that people feel that they have to buy and read coz it'll be cool.
And we're off topic.
So....what are the chances that the "Do the Realms Have a Future" thread and the "What in the Nine Hells?" thread on the FR General Forum can be merged?
I'd ask for them to be killed off, but then the amount of Realms-hate spam on them would flow back out onto other threads. It's sort of like being asked which is better to live with: One big wart or ten little ones?
There really shouldn't be Realms hate at all. I mean, if you don't like it fine, but it's not going to change the fact that the Realms have changed and this is the direction it's going in.
Thats just too simplistic. People have invested years, in some cases 20 years, in enjoying a setting they feel is destroyed. Its difficult to just say, oh well, there ya go and not be angry. There definately should be Realms hate
1-I think its very telling that the people who participate the most in the FR section and know the most and stuff arent here discussing things and there are a lot of people I dont know Ive ever seen before. Ill admit im not the smartest guy and I havent spent the most time here but I think its called "yellow journalism".
2-People shouldnt be censored. I take that kind of personally because my uncle that I never met fought in the Korean War and died so that people could not be censored. If people dont like something and they arent violating the website rules and they arent being agressive about it people have every right to say they dont like things. Most of the time from what Ive seen this is what happens. Ill use an example that I can remember. I made a thread about where to start my game. Some people gave suggestions and reasons and their opinions. Some of those opinions/resnos/suggestions were anti or pro or whatever and people debated some things. No one was hurting anyone (insulting) and I learned alot of stuff I didnt know about some things because people were talking and debating. This is what I see happening the most. Its 100% approprate. If the topic is talking about something everyone should be able to talk about if they like it or not as long as they sont violate the website rules. If we are talking about Lintan things I should be able to talk about how I dont like that Lintan was removed. I agree with that if we are talking about Dwarf things that is no time to talk about how I dont like that Lintin was removed. Most of the time what people say matches the topic like 90%. Ive seen people ask loaded questions before though. If you can say how much you like something you should be able to say how much you dont like something. 1/2 of the new FR I like and 1/2 of the new FR I dont like. What there is something I like I say it. When there is something that I dont like I say it.
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Thats just too simplistic. People have invested years, in some cases 20 years, in enjoying a setting they feel is destroyed. Its difficult to just say, oh well, there ya go and not be angry. There definately should be Realms hate
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."
On a more serious note, I can understand why losing something you love would make you angry. But that anger should be temporary, an initial reaction to change. As an entire calendar year has passed, it would be healthy for all of us to focus on the parts (and eras) of the Realms that we love the most.
The Realms writers can still benefit from our views, and a turnabout to the Pre-Spellplague Realms might occur, but whenever this happens, it will do none of us any good in the meanwhile if the only things we can say about the Realms are nasty and negative.
The best way to redirect official coverage of the Realms is to share your fanfics, campaigns, and self-made crunch related to the areas you enjoy. It will be a sign to WotC that the fans are eager enough for official fluff and crunch that they will write it themselves.
- Alter_Boy, who feels comfortable enough to post here again.
Glad you are back! I understand that people are angry, they don't need to take that anger out on those that do like the changes. As I said over at candlekeep, put your money where your mouth is, don't buy the WotC products. Don't threadcrap in the 4E FR Threads. Cant we all just get along? ;) 18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric who took his morning meds today!) :P
On a more serious note, I can understand why losing something you love would make you angry. But that anger should be temporary, an initial reaction to change. As an entire calendar year has passed, it would be healthy for all of us to focus on the parts (and eras) of the Realms that we love the most.
Well, a year has not passed. Its been only a few months since the Campaign Book was released for us to see the true extent of the damage. Certainly, the anger has passed for much of the FR Boards. Its not nearly as nasty as it was in August and Sepetember when the new books were released. There are some quips every once in awhile and a sarcastic anti-4 Gotten Realms comment or 2, but it has died down some.
-
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric who took his morning meds today!) :P
there really is no threadcrapping going on now. All the pro/con 4e stuff is really going on in threads about that subject
Well, a year has not passed. Its been only a few months since the Campaign Book was released for us to see the true extent of the damage. Certainly, the anger has passed for much of the FR Boards. Its not nearly as nasty as it was in August and Sepetember when the new books were released. There are some quips every once in awhile and a sarcastic anti-4 Gotten Realms comment or 2, but it has died down some.
That it has.
But my previous post was me wondering out loud why fans of the old Realms aren't focusing about what they love about the Realms.
One trajectory the community could have taken was to take up the mantle of support for Pre-Spellplague FR and actively promote it with fluff, crunch, and discussion. If nothing else, it would have been created something tangible for people to see and use.
But my previous post was me wondering out loud why fans of the old Realms aren't focusing about what they love about the Realms.
Because they feel betrayed. Clearly, the plan from WoTC was to attract new consumers at the risk of alienating the old. Simply put, the loyalty of the "old guard" was ignored with the new Realms. Thats been a tough pill to swallow
One trajectory the community could have taken was to take up the mantle of support for Pre-Spellplague FR and actively promote it with fluff, crunch, and discussion. If nothing else, it would have been created something tangible for people to see and use.
Thats pretty much what is going on really. At least on the Realmslore and Running the Realms boards. Even the general board.
For some reason. its being assumed on this thread that there is still a battle over on the FR Boards, but thats not really true anymore. Its no longer August over there
One trajectory the community could have taken was to take up the mantle of support for Pre-Spellplague FR and actively promote it with fluff, crunch, and discussion. If nothing else, it would have been created something tangible for people to see and use.
That's still possible, if we could find someone to promote to a position of FL/FG/VCL or Scribe.
there really is no threadcrapping going on now. All the pro/con 4e stuff is really going on in threads about that subject
-I don't know about that Merrick, me and LK had a good thread crapping session going last night. :embarrass I had to cut it short due to going to work.
Which promtly got deleated (about 6 to 8 post's). So yes the thread crapping is still going on, we still have almost every topic going off topic, and we still have people telling everybody in every thread just how bad the 4E FR really is. Does that sound about right Merrick?18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :P
Does that sound about right Merrick?
I think you are over stating some. Maybe the General Board still has thread crapping going on, but the other 2 seem relatively peaceful. And I think we can both agree its much quieter than a month or so ago
-I don't know about that Merrick, me and LK had a good thread crapping session going last night. :embarrass I had to cut it short due to going to work.
I don't know... complaining about threadcrapping, then being directly involved in it (almost with a hint that you had fun doing it), seems ironic to me. Irony as defined by a dictionary, that is, and not by Alanis Morrisette. Just sayin'. :P
Because they feel betrayed. Clearly, the plan from WoTC was to attract new consumers at the risk of alienating the old. Simply put, the loyalty of the "old guard" was ignored with the new Realms. Thats been a tough pill to swallow.
"Betrayed?" Brutus betrayed Caesar. MacBeth betrayed the King. Judas betrayed Jesus. Are your feelings for the support of the Realms strong enough that a shift in marketing is betrayal? Did WotC, TSR, or even Greenwood himself mean more to you than an entertainment source?
Mr_Miscellany: Why do we need something official? There's room for any number of people to collaborate with fan-made material, from 1 to 100. What the forums need are people contributing, not more titles.
Thank you for saying that. I agree that more titles are not necessary.
Mr_Miscellany: Why do we need something official? There's room for any number of people to collaborate with fan-made material, from 1 to 100. What the forums need are people contributing, not more titles.
Aye, we *do* need more contributions. Much more.
The question is, who's going to get the ball rolling? I doubt Lord Karsus would (swords down, Therise, that's not a personal attack against LK).
Someone from the community that's willing to spend the time and effort to interface with the community and sort of feel everyone out in terms of what they'd enjoy working on as group...that's the kind of person we need.
A Forum Guide position or Scribe or whatever would fit well. We'd need to find an active, regular contributor like Diffan or JohnLynch or even (dare I say it) MarkusTay.
Shoot, a title doesn't even have to be assinged right away. If Webster were willing to approach some people behind the scenes to get them to organizing first, we could sit back and see what results come of these flegdeling efforts.
Then if one or more people really shine, reward them for their efforts and contributions at organizing the community in a positive way.
It'd be great if someday the FR Forums were thought of as a hotbed of gaming ideas and campaign feedback for playing D&D in the Realms. I think this is one way we can get there.
"Betrayed?" Brutus betrayed Caesar. MacBeth betrayed the King. Judas betrayed Jesus. Are your feelings for the support of the Realms strong enough that a shift in marketing is betrayal? Did WotC, TSR, or even Greenwood himself mean more to you than an entertainment source?
don't belittle people for becoming emotionally invested in a setting they have enjoyed for years and years.
Instead, why not just let people post what they like, and what they are interested in? Encourage posting generally, and leave it at that.
I think Altar_Boy's ideas are probably the best way to go in terms of bringing positive change to the FR Forums.
Eventually there will be new leadership. We will simply have to grow it from within.
Someone with the time and patience to suggest/take on ideas and organise the participants so that it can come together at the end in a well thought out fan project would be cool.
Does it need to be official? I don't think so, we could always ask for volunteers and have a vote (unofficial) to choose.
Maybe have an ideas thread running along side ready for our new PM to come on board.
@Mr M - With respect Therise is right, tiresome as you may find the anti-4e rhetoric these boards are a public domain (subject to wotc of course). MerrikCale has as much right to be here as you or I regardless of his opinions and his bitterness at the changes are IMHO quite understandable. You don't have to join in his threads unless you want to and you can even ignore his posts if you don't find value in them. Arguing with him just feeds that anger and prolongs the healing process.
@Therise - These are the 4E boards were talking about, that is the current edition so it's not entirely unexpected to want a PM who'll promote that edition. We do have a previous editions board do we not? I see no reason that we can't all have fun without constant bashing of each others game choice. And besides why can't the 3.x FR fans do the same. It would be interesting to compare project choices and might get people to contribute rather than snipe at each other. Personally I'd rather we all use the same boards like adults but something about messageboards turns what I suspect are pleasant people in RL into egomaniacs.
@MerrikCale - Also with all due respect outside of these ludicrous arguments about screaming to high heaven re: 4e FR being productive you seem like a nice, well mannered individual. Do you honestly believe it's fair to attempt to tear down the choices other people make? The only people who have to listen to how much you dislike FR in 4th are the people who are its fans and come here to find a like minded community. The designers will just gloss over you because your not offering anything. There is an important difference between constructive criticism and ranting.
As I stated elsewhere FR 4e's one redeeming feature in my opinion is how bare bones it is, we have room to expand and remodel into something that we might enjoy if we work together. Only last week I was bouncing a mega campaign off of my cousin which ended with the return of Mystra/Mystryl and the seven sisters, new and improved as the Seven Scions of Mystra :D. Ending at 30th level we even tossed around ideas for one of the PC's becoming the new Azuth etc. The end result tamed the spellplague and settled the land into a more Realmsian form. No more motes!! On a side note I was thinking of having El die and the Simbul becoming the new Old Sage, mmm.
However if we can't be adults, as I stated to Therise there are previous edition boards here, why can't we make a 3.x FR community there? Or at the Piazza or Candlekeep. I'd rather we all use the same boards but....
Personally I don't like the Realms in 4th edition, I didn't like them in 3rd either but I'd rather work to make peoples games fun than harangue them for their choice in what they like. This is meant to be a community and maybe it's the old Cymro in me but communities pull together.
I think a projects manager would be a great idea.
Someone with the time and patience to suggest/take on ideas and organise the participants so that it can come together at the end in a well thought out fan project would be cool.
Does it need to be official? I don't think so, we could always ask for volunteers and have a vote (unofficial) to choose.
Maybe have an ideas thread running along side ready for our new PM to come on board.
@Mr M - With respect Therise is right, tiresome as you may find the anti-4e rhetoric these boards are a public domain (subject to wotc of course). MerrikCale has as much right to be here as you or I regardless of his opinions and his bitterness at the changes are IMHO quite understandable. You don't have to join in his threads unless you want to and you can even ignore his posts if you don't find value in them. Arguing with him just feeds that anger and prolongs the healing process.
@Therise - These are the 4E boards were talking about, that is the current edition so it's not entirely unexpected to want a PM who'll promote that edition. We do have a previous editions board do we not? I see no reason that we can't all have fun without constant bashing of each others game choice. And besides why can't the 3.x FR fans do the same. It would be interesting to compare project choices and might get people to contribute rather than snipe at each other. Personally I'd rather we all use the same boards like adults but something about messageboards turns what I suspect are pleasant people in RL into egomaniacs.
@MerrikCale - Also with all due respect outside of these ludicrous arguments about screaming to high heaven re: 4e FR being productive you seem like a nice, well mannered individual. Do you honestly believe it's fair to attempt to tear down the choices other people make? The only people who have to listen to how much you dislike FR in 4th are the people who are its fans and come here to find a like minded community. The designers will just gloss over you because your not offering anything. There is an important difference between constructive criticism and ranting.
As I stated elsewhere FR 4e's one redeeming feature in my opinion is how bare bones it is, we have room to expand and remodel into something that we might enjoy if we work together. Only last week I was bouncing a mega campaign off of my cousin which ended with the return of Mystra/Mystryl and the seven sisters, new and improved as the Seven Scions of Mystra :D. Ending at 30th level we even tossed around ideas for one of the PC's becoming the new Azuth etc. The end result tamed the spellplague and settled the land into a more Realmsian form. No more motes!! On a side note I was thinking of having El die and the Simbul becoming the new Old Sage, mmm.
However if we can't be adults, as I stated to Therise there are previous edition boards here, why can't we make a 3.x FR community there? Or at the Piazza or Candlekeep. I'd rather we all use the same boards but....
Personally I don't like the Realms in 4th edition, I didn't like them in 3rd either but I'd rather work to make peoples games fun than harangue them for their choice in what they like. This is meant to be a community and maybe it's the old Cymro in me but communities pull together.
-Well said. :D
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric)
Do you honestly believe it's fair to attempt to tear down the choices other people make? The only people who have to listen to how much you dislike FR in 4th are the people who are its fans and come here to find a like minded community. The designers will just gloss over you because your not offering anything. There is an important difference between constructive criticism and ranting.
It depends on the opinions, as you say I have a right to mine and express mine in a non-offensive manner which I have always done, I think. No one has to listen to my opinions about the realms at all. There are plenty of people here who are fans of the Realms but not the new Realms
I think Altar_Boy's ideas are probably the best way to go in terms of bringing positive change to the FR Forums.
I still have no idea what changes need to made. Whats so bad at the FR Boards now. There are a handful of edition based threads. Avoid them if you wish its easy enough. I am not sure why we are still worried about this
It depends on the opinions, as you say I have a right to mine and express mine in a non-offensive manner which I have always done, I think. No one has to listen to my opinions about the realms at all. There are plenty of people here who are fans of the Realms but not the new Realms
It is a credit to you that whilst you are pretty negative about the setting I don't recall you participating in attacks on others.
The following is a criticism on my part but I truly mean it without any intended offence;
"I cannot understand the need to become involved in a negative fashion. Surely it would be better to contribute to the lore you love than waste time on a setting you loathe."
The one is an enjoyable intellectual and imaginative exercise, the other just bitter fruit.
I'm sorry, I realize it must seem like I keep singling you out in these threads, that's not my intent I assure you. You just happen to be involved in the threads I'm reading when I'm in the mood to post.
Anyway later days
I still have no idea what changes need to made.
Not enough traffic, not enough focus on the 4E Realms and 3E Realms.
And thank you to Arawn76 for mentioning The Piazza. A very nice forum, that.
Not enough traffic, not enough focus on the 4E Realms and 3E Realms.
Yeah, but you can't force people to care about the 4E Realms. I think the biggest reason there is a huge drop in traffic is the change to the setting. A lot of people cared a good deal about the old setting but have no interest in the new. The people who like the new don't care about nearly as much as the who liked the old and not the new
It is a credit to you that whilst you are pretty negative about the setting I don't recall you participating in attacks on others.
The following is a criticism on my part but I truly mean it without any intended offence;
"I cannot understand the need to become involved in a negative fashion. Surely it would be better to contribute to the lore you love than waste time on a setting you loathe."
The one is an enjoyable intellectual and imaginative exercise, the other just bitter fruit.
I'm sorry, I realize it must seem like I keep singling you out in these threads, that's not my intent I assure you. You just happen to be involved in the threads I'm reading when I'm in the mood to post.
Anyway later days
I am not offended. But I don't want to speak for all the people who have loved the realms over the years and are now disenfranchised with the setting.
All I can say is why continue to hang around the Boards. I actually do not limit myself to negativity with reagrds to the 4e realms but when that is the topic in a particular thread I have no qualms about stating my negative feelings on it. I suppose it is hard not to state my opinion when I have a very strong feeling about it. Maybe I hope someday it will go back to the way I liked the setting. Wishful thinking- yeah- but I can still hold out hope.
But I do post nice positive posts in the Realms on occassion, but there is not that much going on there really. I also like the 4e ruleset and the Star Wars Saga edition and post there as well
Yeah, but you can't force people to care about the 4E Realms.
Who’s going to force anyone to do anything, Merrik?
I think the biggest reason there is a huge drop in traffic is the change to the setting.
The drop in traffic was already there, before the change happened. That’s why the boards were consolidated to begin with.
The size and number of forums depends on the flow of traffic. The Realms forums have the capacity to be bigger.
A lot of people cared a good deal about the old setting but have no interest in the new. The people who like the new don't care about nearly as much as the who liked the old and not the new
You’re welcome to your opinions. Considering the nature of the internet, I still don’t think a sampling of the vocal naysayers constitutes any sort of reliable sample.
I know that I don’t fit your generalizations and in my experience most gamers who have played in the Forgotten Realms but that don’t bother participating in any of the online FR Forums that exist really don’t care enough to get worked up one way or the other about the changes.
What would be a good starting point to electing a projects manager?
Obviously it would need to be someone reliable, well organised and willing to put in the time and effort.
How would we get the ball rolling on something like this?
How about something like the Open design project by Wolfgang Baur?
The fans can discuss the various options then vote for one to go forward. Depending on the type of project you could have people submit articles, art, layout ideas etc.
Maybe an FR dedicated fanzine?
The drop in traffic was already there, before the change happened. That’s why the boards were consolidated to begin with.
there was more traffic there this summer than now so I don't believe that at all
You’re welcome to your opinions. Considering the nature of the internet, I still don’t think a sampling of the vocal naysayers constitutes any sort of reliable sample.
True enough. But the Realms boards had a lot of traffic from longtime fans many of whom are not interested in the new setting. There is not of group of devoted 4e realms fans replacing them. Thats all I mean
More on topic.
What would be a good starting point to electing a projects manager?
Obviously it would need to be someone reliable, well organised and willing to put in the time and effort.
How would we get the ball rolling on something like this?
How about something like the Open design project by Wolfgang Baur?
The fans can discuss the various options then vote for one to go forward. Depending on the type of project you could have people submit articles, art, layout ideas etc.
Maybe an FR dedicated fanzine?
would these be 4e or pre-4e projects?
would these be 4e or pre-4e projects?
Why not both?
I really don't see a need to draw a line in the sand between two sides.
There are a lot of possibilities out there.
Personally I'm interested in seeing some good old fashioned realms feel to the 4e game. Like you I was disappointed in the FRCG, but I still think that some good lore and fluff can help with that. A 4e secrets of the Magister, a Lands of Intrigue or an Elminsters Ecologies. Maybe some homespun adventures in the spirit of The Haunted Halls of Eveningstar or the Dales Trilogy rather than the Delve crap we get now. Or a Powers and Pantheons, a much needed supplement in my opinion.
However why can't we have a pre-plague run as well? Soucebooks, articles and adventures designed to expand on areas left untouched or lightly detailed.
It doesn't solely have to be the 4e ruleset either, there is no reason for people not to contribute for 3.x or earlier, FOR ANY TIME PERIOD! Perhaps there are even FR fans who don't like 4e but like the direction the realms have taken.
My point is we could all be doing so much more to enhance EVERYONE'S game.
I may have got a little over excited but I think my point is clear enough.-My major problem is the bias against the 4E Realms. New posters start coming around because of the 4E Realms and get met with crap from ".05%"* of the Realms Fan Base and leave. ("Thanks Dave Saunders"*, who came via the 4E Realms looked at the 3E FRCS and decided that he liked the 3E Realms better. Cool deal I say find the Realms that appeal to you and run with them.) The only forum that doesn't see a bunch of nonsense is the Running the Realms Forum. The Realmslore gets some nonsense, mostly the novels threads, which I will not post in until I read the book.(Nowthat is.)(Due to the constant knee-jerk that certain books get I believe that the Banning of novels disscussion needs to be put back in place. I remember the Forums were a much nice place then. I was a lurker then. Maybe a novels only forum, as a compromise? But this is my opinion, and as they say...) Now the FR General Forum has more than enough nonsense going on in it, which is true of most general forums...
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric)
That was one wise lady. So was this guy;
"We were born to unite with our fellow men, and to join in community with the human race." - Cicero
People are going to express their anger and frustrations, it's for the leaders in a community to address that attitude and try to resolve the problem and redirect that energy in a positive way.
That is the solution to the Forgotten Realms Forum
"A man is only an enemy if you refuse to call him friend." - Me! :P
The Realmslore gets some nonsense, mostly the novels threads, which I will not post in until I read the book.(Nowthat is.)(Due to the constant knee-jerk that certain books get I believe that the Banning of novels disscussion needs to be put back in place. I remember the Forums were a much nice place then. I was a lurker then. Maybe a novels only forum, as a compromise? But this is my opinion, and as they say...)
I, personally and speaking for nobody else, would not be in favour of banning novels discussion. Some of us are, at this time, constrained to novels only interaction with the Realms. Banning discussion on the only way that some people can enjoy the Realms does not seem entirely logical. Especially on the Realmslore board.
I can understand more stringent measures being taken in Running the Realms and possibly, though doubtful, Realms General. But cutting discussion of a major source of new lore (it's novels and DDI from here out people) from the Realmslore board seems an... interesting decision to me.
Why not both?
no reason, just asking is all
-My major problem is the bias against the 4E Realms. New posters start coming around because of the 4E Realms and get met with crap from ".05%
you are underestimating the number of anti-4e realms people. At least in the community of those who post on the FR Boards anyway
and again, those are only on threads debating at least tangentially the editions. The Running the Realms and Realmslore boards are relatively angst-free from what I see.
@Therise - These are the 4E boards were talking about, that is the current edition so it's not entirely unexpected to want a PM who'll promote that edition. We do have a previous editions board do we not? I see no reason that we can't all have fun without constant bashing of each others game choice. And besides why can't the 3.x FR fans do the same. It would be interesting to compare project choices and might get people to contribute rather than snipe at each other. Personally I'd rather we all use the same boards like adults but something about messageboards turns what I suspect are pleasant people in RL into egomaniacs.
However if we can't be adults, as I stated to Therise there are previous edition boards here, why can't we make a 3.x FR community there? Or at the Piazza or Candlekeep. I'd rather we all use the same boards but....
Actually, I'll beg to differ with you on a core point. The Forgotten Realms boards are technically edition-free. You're correct that there is a "Previous Editions General" board, but that board is extremely general and not specific to any one setting; it's much more related to the rule-set editions, and not the settings.
That said, I agree that (generally speaking) you'll typically find more posts about the current edition than previous editions, but the boards are actually meant to be inclusive of all editions. Making a 3.5 "area" (or separating them all out into different boards, one for each edition) is highly problematic because it starts to chunk up not only the material but also the fans. One would hope, with a single board, that eventually most customers would move into the new edition. And people either will or they won't. But segregating editions would tend to isolate "groups" (such as they are, anyway) rather than bring people together. Having a 4E promoter, essentially, with a shiny title, would serve the same function... and as such I think it's a colossally bad idea.
What would be a good starting point to electing a projects manager?
Perhaps instead of electing someone right away, we could all of us submit ideas for one or more smallish projects to work on.
For example, we could pick a couple locations in the 4E Realms that could use some filling in and then proceed to come up with ideas on what we want to add.
This would be similar to how things worked on the Realms DM Exercise: Name the 13 Vindicators of the Ironfell Council thread, where we had a couple names to start with and then filled in the other council seats.
As the thread grew, Banpai added in magic items and NPCs to further flesh out the council.
So in a nutshell: We gather suggestions/ideas from the community on what parts of the Realms we want to work on, put it to a vote and proceed to work on the "winner."
From there we can ask people to contribute however they like.
What do y'all think?
Maybe an FR dedicated fanzine?
If we get good at this sort of thing, I'm totally down with this idea.
Shoot, a title doesn't even have to be assinged right away. If Webster were willing to approach some people behind the scenes to get them to organizing first, we could sit back and see what results come of these flegdeling efforts.
That's sort of what I've been doing..
A forum guide wouldn't be just for the FR area specifically, though.
What would be a good starting point to electing a projects manager?
We don't need one. I can think of individuals who have started (and continue to work on) fan projects without needing an "official title". It seems to me like this "Project Manager" idea is just a reinvented version of the "We need another Forum Lead/Forum Scribe, only one who goes around promoting 4E!" argument.
A forum guide wouldn't be just for the FR area specifically, though.
They'd have to include Eberron and the Other Worlds sections as well, right?
We don't need one.
Yes, eventually, we do.
It seems to me like this "Project Manager" idea is just a reinvented version of the "We need another Forum Lead/Forum Scribe, only one who goes around promoting 4E!" argument.
In a way that's exactly what it is.
The current Forgotten Realms should be the priority due to its fledgeling status and exclusive in-print status. Eventually someone(s) from the community should be put in place on the CM side to help make that happen. Somebody who could manage both the Realms and Eberron would be a real plus, IMO, as 4E Eberron is up next.
So in a nutshell: We gather suggestions/ideas from the community on what parts of the Realms we want to work on, put it to a vote and proceed to work on the "winner."
From there we can ask people to contribute however they like.
What do y'all think?
We simply don't need someone with a title to do this. Individuals can, and are, contributing things on their own. Some people have even worked together on various projects that are, in some respects, forum "staples" (and at various times, were stickied).
Post your ideas. They'll either become popular and "fly" of their own accord, or they won't.
The current Forgotten Realms should be the priority due to its fledgeling status and exclusive in-print status.
no they shouldn't
We simply don't need someone with a title to do this.
I'm curious what you are so deathly afraid of, Therise.
The way you advocate so aggressively against member titles of any kind, it makes me wonder why you spend none of your time advocating that all members should be stripped of all titles immediately.
no they shouldn't
Yes, absolutely they should. And as soon as possible.
Besides, the Old Realms are like a super-massive black hole that has yet to start radiating itself into non-existence. It will be a long, long time before all that lore becomes forgotten and irrelevant.
There’s no good reason for the (current) Realms to be hindered by the Old Realms mass shadow. So shine the spotlight on it I say. Bring in new users and invite them to contribute without fear of harassment or bitter negativity by the old guard.
Let’s get these projects started.
Perhaps instead of electing someone right away, we could all of us submit ideas for one or more smallish projects to work on.
For example, we could pick a couple locations in the 4E Realms that could use some filling in and then proceed to come up with ideas on what we want to add.
This would be similar to how things worked on the Realms DM Exercise: Name the 13 Vindicators of the Ironfell Council thread, where we had a couple names to start with and then filled in the other council seats.
As the thread grew, Banpai added in magic items and NPCs to further flesh out the council.
So in a nutshell: We gather suggestions/ideas from the community on what parts of the Realms we want to work on, put it to a vote and proceed to work on the "winner."
From there we can ask people to contribute however they like.
What do y'all think?
Why does there need to be a commitee to decide on what to work on? From my perspective, the Realms DM Exercise: Name the 13 Vindicators of the Ironfell Council looks to be doing fine without some (for lack of a better term) Overlord deciding what projects to approve. At least, thats the way it's coming off to me.
We simply don't need someone with a title to do this. Individuals can, and are, contributing things on their own. Some people have even worked together on various projects that are, in some respects, forum "staples" (and at various times, were stickied).
Gotta agree with you there. I for one, created a few projects to make the Realms (3.5 and 4e) better for everyone's enjoyment and don't really see a need to elect someone to say "Yay or Nay" on any current or future project.
The fact that I post an idea on the internet already makes it a "Community" project that anyone can add to.
Besides, the Old Realms are like a super-massive black hole that has yet to start radiating itself into non-existence. It will be a long, long time before all that lore becomes forgotten and irrelevant.
There’s no good reason for the (current) Realms to be hindered by the Old Realms mass shadow. So shine the spotlight on it I say. Bring in new users and invite them to contribute without fear of harassment or bitter negativity by the old guard.
Again, I'd have to disagree. As a regular poster to the FR boards, I've really only seen a decline in 3.5 Realms material on the Running the Realms section. That's probably due to the fact that 4e is the current edition and the quick release of FR support for that edition. Besides game mechanics, Lore can never become irrelevant and is probably one of the most important areas when considering the Realms for a backdrop to ANY edition.
As for bringing in new users, I say bring them in as well so they can experience the Realms in it's full spectrum reguardless of what edition they want to play. Remind them that they dont' have to memorize everything from the past 200+ years and to enjoy the experience (and yes Lore) of the previous and present. While I doubt we'll curb completly the angst, bitter negativity from the change, that should die down as long as we have respective/un-bias Forum Leads there to help (which I believe we do).
Again, and I reiterate....Can't we all just get along?
I am sure people can think of something. There are lots of DMs out there with great ideas.
Yes, absolutely they should. And as soon as possible.
The realms are a super black hole? hardly.
The realms are a super black hole? hardly.
Of course they aren't. That's silly. And just because someone likes to say that doesn't make it so.
Actually, I'll beg to differ with you on a core point. The Forgotten Realms boards are technically edition-free. You're correct that there is a "Previous Editions General" board, but that board is extremely general and not specific to any one setting; it's much more related to the rule-set editions, and not the settings.
You are right of course. My point was that if 4e was so unpalatable that there are alternatives and neutral edition (as I prefer) or not the forums are inevitably going to lean towards the newer edition. As you say below :P
That said, I agree that (generally speaking) you'll typically find more posts about the current edition than previous editions, but the boards are actually meant to be inclusive of all editions. Making a 3.5 "area" (or separating them all out into different boards, one for each edition) is highly problematic because it starts to chunk up not only the material but also the fans. One would hope, with a single board, that eventually most customers would move into the new edition. And people either will or they won't. But segregating editions would tend to isolate "groups" (such as they are, anyway) rather than bring people together.
I agree totally :D . We should be working together as a community to make everyone's game fun.
Having a 4E promoter, essentially, with a shiny title, would serve the same function... and as such I think it's a colossally bad idea.
OK I'm going to say this a number of times. NOT A 4E PROMOTER!
A Projects manager would be there as a focal point for all projects and fans regardless of edition ruleset/campaign. Every body needs a head, more than one you end up diluting your focus.
We don't need one. I can think of individuals who have started (and continue to work on) fan projects without needing an "official title". It seems to me like this "Project Manager" idea is just a reinvented version of the "We need another Forum Lead/Forum Scribe, only one who goes around promoting 4E!" argument.
WE DO NOT NEED A NEW FORUM LEAD/SCRIBE!
I don't care for the idea which is why I never weigh in on the matter. We have Lord Karsus and he does a fine job.
If it makes it easier call it a projects coordinator. I'd like to see people come together and work on stuff to enhance their games but lots of individuals do not a team make. Someone to help organise, chase and recruit and focus people is essential IMHO. Yes there are individual fan projects but lets see a community one!
If Lord Karsus wants to do it great! However since the position of coordinator has no bearing on running/leading the forum and may mean more work and also should be as edition neutral as possible I hesitated to suggest Lord Karsus.
And in response to your later post I agree it doesn't need special powers beyond those bestowed by the participants.
I believe I have some understanding of what a forum lead does ;) .
However whilst I understand the actual meaning of 'scribe', I'm a little unsure its use in relation to a forum.
Again, and I reiterate....Can't we all just get along?
To clarify things a bit: we're not suggesting an overlord so much as an organizer. Someone who can communicate actively with other people to promote projects and get others working together. Someone who can take some feedback on what people want to do and them get 'em doing it.
This wouldn't mean vetoing other people's ideas; people can still do whatever they want.
Regardless, I'd like to do something like that Realms DM Exercise again. Are there any other parts of the Realms you'd like to write about?
you are underestimating the number of anti-4e realms people. At least in the community of those who post on the FR Boards anyway
-What I am saying is that the people that post here are .05% of the Realms fanbase. There is alot more Fans out there that we will never know about.
-I also think that we as a community need to quit taking things so personally.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) ;)
I'd like to start a thread that would work for both pre and post Spellplague. I'm not a great Realmslorian, but how about a thread on a Cult of the Dragon cell in Waterdeep? The cell can exist from 1352 to the present, and posters can describe cultists, as well as give stats or describe magic items/rituals/spells they are using.
If anyone's interested, I'll start it tomorrow.
I'd like to start a thread that would work for both pre and post Spellplague. I'm not a great Realmslorian, but how about a thread on a Cult of the Dragon cell in Waterdeep? The cell can exist from 1352 to the present, and posters can describe cultists, as well as give stats or describe magic items/rituals/spells they are using.
How do you feel about small adventure hook summaries? Maybe we can gather some of these NPCs, items, rituals and so on and then throw them in at the end with some adventure hooks?
I'm already forming an idea around the Cult's first interaction with the Eminence of Aurant.
If anyone's interested, I'll start it tomorrow.
Works for me 100%!
Alright, if I start a thread that we can all share ideas on, can we stop the bickering?
I'd like to start a thread that would work for both pre and post Spellplague. I'm not a great Realmslorian, but how about a thread on a Cult of the Dragon cell in Waterdeep? The cell can exist from 1352 to the present, and posters can describe cultists, as well as give stats or describe magic items/rituals/spells they are using.
If anyone's interested, I'll start it tomorrow.
This sounds interesting. I'm not sure why you'd need to ask permission for posting it?
If anyone's interested, I'll start it tomorrow.
Just post it.
If you have an idea for a project, start it. It will either be a success, and people will jump on, or it will not, and people will not. While having the person starying it be "officially recognized" may play a small part, the overwhelming decider of whether a project is successful or not comes down to a couple of things:
- How excited/enthusiastic the OP is about the project;
- Whether the project fills a need in the community;
- Whether the project allows for other people to contribute; and
- Whether the project promises short-, medium- or long-term payoffs.
Knowing that we're not going to get any new (official) lore for the pre-Spellplague Realms is very disheartening to those of us that have decided not to make the move to 4th Edition or the new Realms.
I'm still upset about the changes that were made, both in the game and the Realms. But I'm finding that it's simply easier to let both of those go and concentrate on building the Realms in my campaign as I see fit. And I'm encourage others of like mind to do the same.
Will it effect how WotC handles these issues? I doubt it and, to be perfectly honest, I no longer care. After purchasing D&D products for the last 20+ years, I can say that the last dollar they received from me is what I paid for the 4E core books. They have now been placed in the same pile of game books I've bought through the years that, after reading through, I realized I'd never play.
In regards to the forums, I'm not sure if getting a Project Manager in place would help. If WotC is serious about not supporting any material set pre-Spellplague, why would they even set up a position to handle that on the forums? It would be counter-productive to their current business plan, wouldn't it?
Hello Diffan
Sup!
To clarify things a bit: we're not suggesting an overlord so much as an organizer. Someone who can communicate actively with other people to promote projects and get others working together. Someone who can take some feedback on what people want to do and them get 'em doing it.
This wouldn't mean vetoing other people's ideas; people can still do whatever they want.
So how would this differ from what's actually going on now? Could you give me an example how an organizer would promote the thread.... NPC 4e Characters or Homebrew Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. I'm trying to get an idea of how someone with this title could benefit the community is all.
Regardless, I'd like to do something like that Realms DM Exercise again. Are there any other parts of the Realms you'd like to write about?
Then I applaud your effort and if the thread is to my liking I'll participate. As to your question, and I'm guessing it's in reguards to 4e, then maybe some additional information on the Western Heartlands of Faerun as well as more information on powerful evil organizations that are still around (ie. Eldreth Veluuthra, Zhentarim, Red Wizards, etc) as well as powerful good organizations that still exist and thrive (ie. any from the Champions of Valor supplement). That is something I'd like to see and use in future 4e Realms campaigns.
Knowing that we're not going to get any new (official) lore for the pre-Spellplague Realms is very disheartening to those of us that have decided not to make the move to 4th Edition or the new Realms.
I'm still upset about the changes that were made, both in the game and the Realms. But I'm finding that it's simply easier to let both of those go and concentrate on building the Realms in my campaign as I see fit. And I'm encourage others of like mind to do the same.
Though I understand your plight, I'd think you'd be somewhat relieved that you no longer have to spend $$ on supplements that no longer reguard your area of play. Now, you can take the Realms in any direction you want without the bothersome worry of canon or authors messing up various areas of Faerun.
From my own perspective, I don't think 3.5 could've possibly provided more material (or crunch) than it already has within that rule system. Anything more would've just "broke" the game further. If you intended to look for more Lore (fluff) in your Realms games with additional supplements, then I can see your anger but I'd hardly think more timeline changes and RSE's can be seen as a good thing. The most they could've done was explore Kara-Tur, The Border Kingdoms, and Maztica and then what? For me, 4e is a breath of fresh air and I can always visit my older supplements.
In regards to the forums, I'm not sure if getting a Project Manager in place would help. If WotC is serious about not supporting any material set pre-Spellplague, why would they even set up a position to handle that on the forums? It would be counter-productive to their current business plan, wouldn't it?
If it's a position with no real "authority" when it comes to legal/admin stuff, then I don't think WotC would care all that much. If someone wants to take it upon him/herself to review, group, consolidate,...whatever ideas on the boards, then more power to them as long as it doens't violate the CoC and still allows posters to do what they will. And in the end, I don't think it should be edition specific to begin with.
If you intended to look for more Lore (fluff) in your Realms games with additional supplements, then I can see your anger but I'd hardly think more timeline changes and RSE's can be seen as a good thing. The most they could've done was explore Kara-Tur, The Border Kingdoms, and Maztica and then what?
I don't agree that what you mentioned was "the most they could've done" in terms of exploring the Realms, but I do agree with you that the lack of more supplements doesn't have to be seen as a bad thing. Also, Ed Greenwood is still answering questions about the pre-Spellplague Realms.
I don't agree that what you mentioned was "the most they could've done" in terms of exploring the Realms, but I do agree with you that the lack of more supplements doesn't have to be seen as a bad thing. Also, Ed Greenwood is still answering questions about the pre-Spellplague Realms.
I believe it's the most they could've done and seemed "new" in reguards to the 1372 to 1375 timeline. After that, I believe it would've just been reporting on new happenings after 1375 due to the progress of the years (for which I think they should've speeded up) in addition with the canon of writer's plots and storylines. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but I feel it would have gotten stale.
18DELTA
My problem with Lord_Karsus...
Please see my response to this in the other thread you posted this in.
You expected wrong.
The Forum Lead is not a moderator (he has no power to personally delete posts/threads), and it's true that he can't "control people." If you are annoyed with someone, either PM that particular person who is annoying you and work things out with them, or alert the moderators/Customer Service. LK was just being honest with you.
In that case I apologize to him for thinking that he was brushing me off. I thought the titles let those people have more "power" like editing and deleting and things like that. My point about people being disruptive on purpose about making threads and retaliation threads and copies and everything remains thought. People have to stop doing that. Like I said I don't post here everyday. I wish I had the time to. I just found about about the subscription option, so I wont forget about the threads I created asking questions but it has happened in the past when new topics appeared and pushed the old ones back. When it is new conversations that is one thing and is fine and I dont have problems with that. That's life thats how it goes. When it is copy and pasting or "answering" threads or whatever then it's not.
My point about people being disruptive on purpose about making threads and retaliation threads and copies and everything remains though.
That's fine with me--I don't disagree with you on that.
Let us try to stop the edition wars and nerd rage ok? This is a plea to both "sides".
My bad, I was thinking of the Legacy forums. Still, the Previous Edition forums are not about settings, but the rules-set. Since the Realms forums are about setting, they are technically supposed to be 'edition-free'.
There is a previous edition section for people who refuse to use 4e... I don't see why anyone who wants nothing to do with the new realms would waste time trolling just to post negative remarks, report pro 4e FR posts and derail threads.
The FR forums are not edition specific, therefore users can discuss realms topics related to 4e, 3e, 2e, or even 1e (although I don't believe the realms existed in 1e iirc). The only forums that are edition specific are the 4e forums (which are all labeled 4e and listed under the D&D Fundementals category) and the Previous edition forums (which are all located under the Previous Editions category).
Maybe because the previous edition forums have been locked?
My bad, I was thinking of the Legacy forums. Still, the Previous Edition forums are not about settings, but the rules-set. Since the Realms forums are about setting, they are technically supposed to be 'edition-free'.
The previous edition forums have not been locked... looks like you already caught that. They have been condensed ever since the 4e switch.
The FR forums are not edition specific, therefore users can discuss realms topics related to 4e, 3e, 2e, or even 1e ...
Absolutely correct. The FR forums have never been edition specific.
(although I don't believe the realms existed in 1e iirc).
FWIW, the "gray box" Realms are 1st edition, published in 1986. But we had sneak peeks of the Realms in print even before this, in Dragon Magazine (e.g. Ed Greenwood's "Pages from the Mages" articles and so forth...).
The only forums that are edition specific are the 4e forums (which are all labeled 4e and listed under the D&D Fundementals category) and the Previous edition forums (which are all located under the Previous Editions category).
Also of note, the "Previous Editions" category is extremely generic and largely limited to "crunch" rule sets and not settings specifically.
The previous edition forums have not been locked... looks like you already caught that. They have been condensed ever since the 4e switch.
Yep.
Since the Realms forums are about setting, they are technically supposed to be 'edition-free'.
To the extent that we're talking about Realmslore, sure.
From a gaming perspective the Realms Forums are 4E Forums first, with 3E rules material a distant second (with some 3E stuff still going strong in some instances).
Looking ahead, I don't think it's a good idea for the Realms Forums to be first and foremost a means of "preserving" the old lore and information. That's just irrelevant, dead weight that pulls the focus away from the setting as it exists now.
However, if novel discussions continue to progress without disruption and those people who are new to the setting and/or want to learn more about prior lore can do so without edition war disruption, then I think we will see a merging of the new Realmslore (such as it is) with the older material.
What I’d like to see is more discussion devoted to the current era, with an emphasis on filling in the gaps in the new content.
Looking ahead, I don't think it's a good idea for the Realms Forums to be first and foremost a means of "preserving" the old lore and information. That's just irrelevant, dead weight that pulls the focus away from the setting as it exists now.
Personally, I'd like to think that all past Realms history and lore, along the lines of what's featured in Brian R. James' Grand History of the Realms will continue to remain excellent resource material for years to come. Discussion of the historical events of the Realms has been around since the Realms came out, not only for campaign ideas, historical links, and enrichment of peoples' games, but also simply for pure interest and enjoyment. The Realmslore forums (here, and in other websites) generally encourage the preservation of older lore for everyone's use. I'm sorry that you see it as a "dead weight" that needs to be overcome in some way, given that the older lore of a setting is the thing IMO that defines and enriches a setting and makes it unique.
Looking ahead, I don't think it's a good idea for the Realms Forums to be first and foremost a means of "preserving" the old lore and information. That's just irrelevant, dead weight that pulls the focus away from the setting as it exists now.
I think it should be pointed out that WotC used people's love of the FR to sell a lot of books that had more lore than mechanics, not to mention the fiction sold.
I spent literally hundreds of dollars on FR splatbooks alone. I am appreciative that they are not letting me drop completely on my face with respect to what I have invested in the setting. This does not even count time and creative investment.
It is a long term investment aimed at not losing longstanding customers of WotC to other brands.
The Realmslore forums (here, and in other websites) generally encourage the preservation of older lore for everyone's use. I'm sorry that you see it as a "dead weight" that needs to be overcome in some way, given that the older lore of a setting is the thing IMO that defines and enriches a setting and makes it unique.
I don’t begrudge you your opinion about the importance of setting lore. I think it’s important too, but for somewhat different reasons.
The older lore of the setting is great and all, but -by itself- it’s not the thing that’s best about the Realms.
To me it’s really no more interesting that reading a history book with fantasy elements thrown in. It’s good at first, but then it just becomes tedious and boring as all hell.
And when you’re trying to put a Realms game together, you need lots of sources of good ideas, not necessarily lots of lore. Which is to say too much of the later gets in the way of finding the former.
Good Realmslore is in my opinion the stuff that makes DMs think and ask questions. If I may use the classic example: good Realmslore opens three doors for every door it shuts.
Good Realmslore is the stuff that fosters online communication between DMs who like to work the lore into their games and see where those open doors might lead them and their campaigns.
So while I agree with you that the setting lore is what defines the setting and makes it unique, I don’t agree that this is what’s best about it. It’s only because the lore serves as the impetus for countless heroic adventures and stories that have and continue to be played out on gaming tables around the world that it has any real, lasting value.
And it’s this aspect of the lore that, in my entirely not so humble opinion, is what the FR Forums should focus on first and foremost.
...
The older lore of the setting is great and all, but -by itself- it’s not the thing that’s best about the Realms.
To me it’s really no more interesting that reading a history book with fantasy elements thrown in. It’s good at first, but then it just becomes tedious and boring as all hell.
...
I'm sorry that's how you feel about history, lore, and historical novels.
From my perspective as a history lover, it's a genuine shame, really. I wonder - you must never have played or enjoyed a WWI- or WWII-related game? I've always enjoyed things like Axis & Allies, or even better games that have those historical elements thrown in. Call of Cthulhu set in the 1940s... huge fun. Once I played a Resistance fighter/spy set in a WWII roleplaying game. Having a detailed Realms is just as fun to me, and offers hundreds of ideas and quick campaign hooks that my players have always enjoyed figuring out because they also love history and the various bits of lore they've picked up.
Good Realmslore is the stuff that fosters online communication between DMs who like to work the lore into their games and see where those open doors might lead them and their campaigns.
And players? And readers? Where does this set of statements leave them with respect to lore?
...
And it’s this aspect of the lore that, in my entirely not so humble opinion, is what the FR Forums should focus on first and foremost.
In which case, is there any chance that we can have a Realms(non-game)lore board?
Surely isn't it better to deal with campaign-lore in Running the Realms and canonical-lore in Realmslore and not subordinate the primary focus of all three of the FR boards? That strikes me as a more exclusive move than inclusive.
In which case, is there any chance that we can have a Realms(non-game)lore board?
It's called Candlekeep. We'll keep a light on for ya. ;)
It's called Candlekeep. We'll keep a light on for ya. ;)
Already there, sir, though I tend to keep fairly quiet (unless you count threads about Ed's KoMD books.... or Filfaeril Obarskyr
)I just wondered if those discussions could be held here too. You know, on the site of the company that actually produced/produces them. If only to give a variety of opinions.
From a gaming perspective the Realms Forums are 4E Forums first, with 3E rules material a distant second
Thats only if people want to talk about the 4e realms. If they want to talk 3d edition more than by all means why not
And players? And readers? Where does this set of statements leave them with respect to lore?
Readers? I suppose in a secondary position, at best.
Players? In a good spot. The lore of the setting does wonders for character creation and building solid character backgrounds that help work the players into the setting.
In which case, is there any chance that we can have a Realms(non-game)lore board?
Agreed. Tho as it stands now the closest we have is the FR General Board (you know, where all the arguments are at ;) ).
Surely isn't it better to deal with campaign-lore in Running the Realms and canonical-lore in Realmslore.
Yes and no.
Campaign-lore and “canon” Realmslore are essentially the same. People’s campaigns are set in the Realms, are thus “of” the Realms and built on what the setting lore has to offer.
I think it’s important to remember that DMs who like running Realms games are just as much fans of the setting lore as those people who have a deep appreciation for the setting but don’t themselves play D&D (or do play D&D, but not in the Realms). Realms DMs read the novels too.
My fear is that continued thinking of setting lore and campaign lore as separate will continue to promote a divisive “this is how the Realms is” mindset.
Typcasting all lore as set in stone and assuming all other users of these forums are supposed to think that way isn’t good for building on the Realms and treating it as a source of support and ideas for playing D&D in the Realms.
That kind of thinking is in my opinion chiefly an artifact of these forums and is long overdue to be done away with.
Some of the best lore discussions I’ve ever read where the ones where people weren’t solely focusing on known canon lore, but were exploring it in detail in order to extrapolate possibilities for their campaigns and for “what might be” in the Realms in general.
I think there’s a unifying force in that sort of activity that can bring Realmsfans of all types together.
I’ve seen hints of this happening over the years on these forums, but we’ve never quite had the right forum structure to make it happen regularly.
Thank you for reading.
Having said that, we can't ignore the fact that 4e is the current edition and new players are more likely to come on board with 4th editioin than they are with 2nd. If anything people will be more intrested in the current situation with the Realms as that's what's being put out and supported. By the same token, the Realms are rich in history that shouldn't be ignored.
I've been kicking around the idea on starting a series of threads- one for 4e players who play the 4e realms, one for 4e players who play the 3e/previous realms, one for 3e players who play 4e Realms and one for 3e players who play 3e realms.
I'm not sure how well that would work. The idea is to post what you like in the thread that applies to you. No going to the 4e realms boards and saying what's wrong with them for example.
I’ve seen hints of this happening over the years on these forums, but we’ve never quite had the right forum structure to make it happen regularly.
Any suggestions on how the structure should be?
Bah, let’s have at it.
Let me say this: The forum descriptions and functions, especially for the “Running the Realms” section, suck. That’s no dig against LK, mind. It’s just that (for example) segregating the DMing/Playing section of the FR Forums and limiting it to mechanics talk only is a hideously poor way of doing things.
The setting is about lore. Mechanics are important. But with the simplifications wrought by 4E this is much less so.
The RtR description needs to be changed to encourage talk about the mechanics and the setting, but in a manner commensurate with DMs talking to DMs and players to players.
This isn't the same thing as one DM asking another for lore information. It's about how you take that lore and build it into your game. It's about how a player works the setting background into his character's history for the benefit of him/herself and the other players.
I think that's one way to encourage people to integrate more, by opening the forums up a bit and making them less content restrictive.
I wonder - you must never have played or enjoyed a WWI- or WWII-related game?
Never have.
Though I do enjoy reading WWII history books and "what if" novels that ponder questions like what might have happened if the Allied Invasion of Normandy had failed.
Paul Westermyer liked history. You know Paul?
Iluvrien, you should feel free to discuss Realmslore (even without regards to a game) to your heart's content--that's what a lot of people do.
Was there someone telling Iluv that it wasn't OK to do that?
I think that's one way to encourage people to integrate more, by opening the forums up a bit and making them less content restrictive.
How exactly are they content restrictive now?
I mean, quite frankly, if you got your way and the forums focused solely on 4E Realms and eliminated all criticism... THAT would be restrictive.
Never have.
Well, that's unfortunate. Really.
Though I do enjoy reading WWII history books and "what if" novels that ponder questions like what might have happened if the Allied Invasion of Normandy had failed.
Paul Westermyer liked history. You know Paul?
Uhm... huh? Oh good grief... are you still trying to figure out who I am IRL? I've told you several times you'll never figure it out.
How exactly are they content restrictive now?
The overall structure of the forums, as well as the “implied intent” of the Running the Realms section (as it is explained in its forum description), as I stated above.
Technically there’s nothing preventing Realms DMs from doing the sorts of things I’d like to see more of. As I said before that kind of talk can and does happen sometimes.
It’s just that the forum description does exactly zero to promote that kind of interaction and I think that’s a terrible waste.
One idea I have is for the FR Forums to be geared towards gaming talk, with a single sub-forum left over for novel discussion and lore discussion.
Basically, fold novel talk and “canon” Realmslore talk from the various editions into one sub forum and make it the last of the group. Add a blurb that players and DMs can get “official” lore answers there too from our friendly local Realmslore experts. Throw in LK’s name for good measure.
Then, promote Running the Realms to the top of the list and change the description to encourage lore talk as it relates to DMs running campaigns and players building characters, as well as talk of how to integrate 4E and the previous D&D rules sets into campaigns to better bring the Realms to life at the gaming table. Encourage people to share their Realms gaming experiences, their NPCs and characters and what they’ve done to shape the Realms around their home D&D campaigns.
This would leave us with two forums (as the Realmslore forum would split into the two forums as I've proposed them) and would kill the FR General Forum.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
...It’s just that the forum description does exactly zero to promote that kind of interaction and I think that’s a terrible waste.
Changing the descriptors and moving things around structurally... I really just don't believe that would increase posts or draw in new posters. At least, you've a long way to go in trying to convincing me of this, because many many people simply don't read those descriptors that you'd love to change. And there's no way you can state that "official" answers from experts will exist in certain forums. For one thing, even really good Realmslorists can be wrong, or be missing a key piece of lore, or it might just end up being that "expert's" opinion. Furthermore, there are times when people think they're experts and they're really not, or various longtimers might wander away for a while. You can't guarantee the authenticity of information, or accuracy, or even that old timers will be online at the time questions are asked. That's why it's a Realmslore discussion, not at all the same as "Answers from Ed" or "Info from Designer ABC".
Which is to say your, "the answers people get may not be accurate so it has no value" argument doesn't hold any water. At all.
And yes, people do read the forum descriptions. If the descriptions didn't have value or purpose, you wouldn't see them included with the sub-forum titles.
Simple.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I have been thinking on some of these posts and hoped to share my thoughts and ask some questions. (Of course, anyone else should feel free to respond as well.
)Take this for instance:
The RtR description needs to be changed to encourage talk about the mechanics and the setting, but in a manner commensurate with DMs talking to DMs and players to players.
First, why should DMs be encouraged to only talk to DMs and players talking only to players?
Orchestrating a campaign is a complex task. It seems to me to be very beneficial to hear the possible 'takes' on how players may view things.
Also, I believe most DMs like to play and vice versa. I would suggest that both sides have great experience in each classification: play and DM.
Since this would include setting as well as mechanics, are there not countless players on the net who would possess vast FR setting knowledge that they would be happy to share with DMs?
About this:
This isn't the same thing as one DM asking another for lore information. It's about how you take that lore and build it into your game. It's about how a player works the setting background into his character's history for the benefit of him/herself and the other players.
Why would that not fit perfectly well into the Realmslore subforum? If a DM wishes to start a lore specific thread focusing on how to integrate it into his campaign and wishes it to be kept closely to that topic, then the simple solution is to explicitly include it in a well thought OP. (I have found that when looking for specific types of responses, actually placing a request defining an expected response format in the OP can be beneficial...) By including this in the Realmslore section, the thread is placed in a forum where all the lore 'experts' visit and will see it. If you wished to place it in the RtR subforum, I again believe that a well worded OP stating a specific request on how a DM can integrate these aspects into a campaign would be sufficient to stay in the RtR forum. (It sounds to me like you wish it to be in the RtR subforum with the Realmslore posters responding.
) If the focus is more on lore and setting than integration (all of which should be determined by the OP) then Realmslore is more appropriate in my opinion.On this:
I think that's one way to encourage people to integrate more, by opening the forums up a bit and making them less content restrictive.
Perhaps I am missing something here.
How would allowing more lore discussion in the RtR lead to more integration?
As it currently stands, a DM can place such campaign lore integration questions in the Realmslore forum. (My above discussion on how to word the OP was to explain how it is [b]possible[b] to put such a thing in the RtR subforum.) If such a thread were placed in the Realmslore where the majority of posters could view it and respond, wouldn't that be more conducive to people integrating?
Also, this quote:
... but in a manner commensurate with DMs talking to DMs and players to players.
Again, this appears to imply the exact opposite of integrating those who post in the FR forums. It implies that players should talk to players and that DMs should talk to DMs.
Am I missing something?
Finally:
Then, promote Running the Realms to the top of the list and change the description to encourage lore talk as it relates to DMs running campaigns and players building characters, as well as talk of how to integrate 4E and the previous D&D rules sets into campaigns to better bring the Realms to life at the gaming table. Encourage people to share their Realms gaming experiences, their NPCs and characters and what they’ve done to shape the Realms around their home D&D campaigns.
This would leave us with two forums (as the Realmslore forum would split into the two forums as I've proposed them) and would kill the FR General Forum
First, the traffic involved means that three rather than two forums are necessary. Dropping to two will not work. Threads where people are looking for answers will be bumped off the front page quickly and never gain traction.
So, again, how will splitting Realmslore into a forum for players and a forum for DMs because they are discussing different aspects of the [b]same material result in [m]more integration of the forum users? I do not see it that way.
What am I missing?
I think some of my problem goes to this also:
Basically, fold novel talk and “canon” Realmslore talk from the various editions into one sub forum and make it the last of the group. Add a blurb that players and DMs can get “official” lore answers there too from our friendly local Realmslore experts. Throw in LK’s name for good measure.
I'm not sure exactly how many forums you are talking about and titles/descriptions for each. In another quote, it appeared to ask for the Realmslore to be split into two: one for players and one for DMs. Could you give me an enumerated list with a short description of each? It could be how you would wish it to appear on the D&D forum page.
Also, think about what stating that 'official' answers can be found implies. It appears that you take great issue with what the current descriptions imply, so shouldn't we scrutinize the alternative possibilities just as closely? (Note: I am going to work on the assumption that the idea quoted is merely a 'starting point' and not a demand for such. That is why I ask for an example.)
Perhaps with a couple of explicit examples given, we may all see that we are not so far apart in our desires for the FR forums.
Seems like you're just countering in order to argue.
I assure you that this is not the case.
Which is to say your, "the answers people get may not be accurate so it has no value" argument doesn't hold any water. At all.
Actually, it is very important. You want it changed so that it says "hey, come here to get official answers on lore!" (essentially). You have always disliked the fact that Realmslorists sometimes offer their opinions as fact (and I agree, some do). But now, since it's NOT official and it still is a discussion, ultimately we have to learn and recognize that everyone is offering their opinions, their take, their understanding of the lore.
If you want official answers, you'd need to drop the posts down to authors and designers responding to questions, and no one else offering their opinions. That's why your idea is ... inappropriate. It would drop the post count, or people would get into more fights about Realmslorists' opinions.
It's just not a very good idea. I'm sorry, but I'm giving my honest opinion and my reasoning.
And yes, people do read the forum descriptions. If the descriptions didn't have value or purpose, you wouldn't see them included with the sub-forum titles.
Simple.
The very high number of moved threads is direct evidence against this assertion.
Hello Iluvrien, Readers? I suppose in a secondary position, at best.
Ah, well let us just say that this is indeed illuminating. I personally believe that all who enjoy the Realms should have equal position regardless of the way in which they enjoy it.
Players? In a good spot. The lore of the setting does wonders for character creation and building solid character backgrounds that help work the players into the setting.
I had wondered, as you hadn't mentioned them in the quoted passage. I do agree on this point though, I have designed several possible characters (including that Eldath Worshipper I described a while ago) for use in the Realms... now I just need a game in which to use them.
Agreed. Tho as it stands now the closest we have is the FR General Board (you know, where all the arguments are at ;) ).
Yes and no.
Campaign-lore and “canon” Realmslore are essentially the same. People’s campaigns are set in the Realms, are thus “of” the Realms and built on what the setting lore has to offer.
I have lumped these two together because they address a central point here, and that is that discussions featuring campaign-lore and "canon" Realmslore are not essentially the same. As you have pointed out on several occasions in the past one of the greatest boons of the newest incarnation of the Realms is that DMs now feel like the have the freedom to alter things as and when they will (I am intentionally not addressing our old friend the Perception argument on this one). This means that although campaign-lore and canon-lore discussion may proceed from the same basis (published material and discussions about possibilities) there are features of campaign-lore discussions that cannot, by definition, reflect canon-lore. In this case I am referring to such gems as "Well in My Realms (tm) I killed off " or "In My Realms fought etc.." when an opposing view has already been published.
On that basis why not keep canon-lore discussion to Realmslore but open up RtR to allow for the discussion, development and integration of campaign-lore? That way in Realmslore people (players, DMs, readers) can establish (and develop) the base, but ideas specific to one campaign (or a group of them) can be developed on RtR. Wouldn't that allow for the best of both worlds? A live and let live, if you like.
I think it’s important to remember that DMs who like running Realms games are just as much fans of the setting lore as those people who have a deep appreciation for the setting but don’t themselves play D&D (or do play D&D, but not in the Realms). Realms DMs read the novels too.
My apologies but this has not been my experience on these boards. The FR boards are rife with examples of people using the novels as that-week's-whipping-boy. I have read on several occasions the posts of people, quite often who say they are DMs, who have either blamed the novels for the downfall of the setting during 3E or, in fact, for having driven them away from running games in the Realms at all during that period... coming back now that the air has cleared, if you will pardon the parlance.
Some of the best lore discussions I’ve ever read where the ones where people weren’t solely focusing on known canon lore, but were exploring it in detail in order to extrapolate possibilities for their campaigns and for “what might be” in the Realms in general.
I think there’s a unifying force in that sort of activity that can bring Realmsfans of all types together.
Which is a game-centric point of view. A reader of the Realms can enjoy possibilities, certainly, but for them the Realms might tend to represent a TV series (or novel series ;)) more than a lego box. By which I mean to say that a reader may enjoy filling in the blanks left by authors, sourcebooks articles they might not be so enthused about a discussion starting "So, assuming was hit by a deific sneeze and wiped off the map..."
There is a difference between open to possibilities, and enjoying rewriting half the books you just finished reading.
Iluvrien, you should feel free to discuss Realmslore (even without regards to a game) to your heart's content--that's what a lot of people do.
Thank you, dear lady. As usual, I appreciate the support.
Was there someone telling Iluv that it wasn't OK to do that?
Nice abbreviation. Certainly not in so many words, although I do notice that I have been put in my place as far as your vision of the boards is concerned. ("Second at best")
Thank you, dear lady. As usual, I appreciate the support.
You're very welcome.
First, no worries RE: your Thesis. You’ve mentioned to me before it’s a bear and a time-eater, so we’ll give you absolutely as much time as you need to respond.
On that basis why not keep canon-lore discussion to Realmslore but open up RtR to allow for the discussion, development and integration of campaign-lore? That way in Realmslore people (players, DMs, readers) can establish (and develop) the base, but ideas specific to one campaign (or a group of them) can be developed on RtR. Wouldn't that allow for the best of both worlds? A live and let live, if you like.
I think that's a great idea.
There will be overlap in terms of topics that might pop up on RtR that -with slight wording changes- could appear on regular Realmslore, but I think with judicious moderation and time people will figure it out.
And just think: All the "Game Stats for Moondblades?" questions can go on RtR. ;)
My apologies but this has not been my experience on these boards. The FR boards are rife with examples of people using the novels as that-week's-whipping-boy.
You’re right, people have complained (and with good reason). However, that doesn’t mean there exists no group of fans who are DMs and novel readers that enjoy the lore.
Here’s where I think an emphasis on opening up discussion for campaigns will help, because those Realms DMs who do share a low opinion of the lore and novels can rub shoulders with those DMs that don’t have that opinion.
Which is a game-centric point of view. A reader of the Realms can enjoy possibilities, certainly, but for them the Realms might tend to represent a TV series (or novel series ;)) more than a lego box. By which I mean to say that a reader may enjoy filling in the blanks left by authors, sourcebooks articles they might not be so enthused about a discussion starting "So, assuming was hit by a deific sneeze and wiped off the map..."
Come now, you’re just being facetious here.
Hypotheticals are not just about grand, sweeping changes. My point was that lore discussions can and often do stick to “what is known,” with hypothesizing occurring within those strict boundaries.
I think you’re missing just how exacting Realms DMs are and can be about their lore.
Nice abbreviation. Certainly not in so many words, although I do notice that I have been put in my place as far as your vision of the boards is concerned. ("Second at best")
I hope you understand that I’m not talking about you, but about the structure of the forums and what segment(s) of the fan base they should be geared towards.
It’s my opinion they are lopsided, poorly managed and poorly arranged. But that’s just my opinion. It can be changed.
In that vein, I’d like to see the FR General Forum deleted (but save the Ask the Authors threads and so on) and leave us with just Realmslore and RtR below it.
You do realize what a colossally bad idea that is right? Using the numbers that Lord_Karsus publishes in the past 4 weeks general has an average of 17.25 posts, lore has 18.25 posts and running has 6.25. Put those together and that is 30.5 to 6.25. Thats almost a ratio of 5:1.
This is mostly due to where they are in relation to each other, what content can and should go where and with the lack of proper detail on the explanation of the threads.
Changing it to allow what Mr. M wants would reduce the forums, while combining the aspects which helps people with Lore and RP'ing.
I'm not saying that is the right move, just trying to clarify why he wants the change.
Hope that helps you understand.
I think the issue is that the running the realms section is often overlooked. By putting it above, changing the text in the title area and/or joining the two forums, it would allow it to be used more and increase the number of active posters in that area.
I know I'll use it more when I have a game...
My point -and it's a good one- is that the structure of the FR Forums is upside down. Here we are on a D&D website, but somehow RtR is sitting at the bottom of the three FR Forums. Not only that but the description for the forum is mechanics only, which is a huge waste. DMing in the Realms involves more than just "mechanical aspects."
In my opinion RtR needs to be at or near the top. Realmslore could be above it (though I don't think it should) and the General Forum eliminated.
Another possibility would be to fold FR General into Eberron General. Just make a combined worlds General Forum where people can gripe and moan, and leave the other two FR Forums for talking about all phases of D&D play in the Realms and chatting about Realmslore.
There was no vote. WotC reduced the forums, then put in place a set of guidelines that would dictate how many forums could be added back in, based off of forum traffic in each area.
Exactly why there wasn't a vote. The numbers speak for themselves.
My point -and it's a good one- is that the structure of the FR Forums is upside down. Here we are on a D&D website, but somehow RtR is sitting at the bottom of the three FR Forums. Not only that but the description for the forum is mechanics only, which is a huge waste. DMing in the Realms involves more than just "mechanical aspects."
I honestly don't think the position in which RtR is listed is going to help numbers. I try to post there and create threads that benefit the FR community more so than I do in other sections but I don't think the community wants FR mechanics more so than the lore of previous and current editions.
Reguardless of the fact that its on a D&D website (well, more like Hasbro games) there are various reasons people post on here that aren't mechanically related. I agree that DMing is more than just "mechanical aspects", but if you want flavor, backstory, history....lore than Realmslore is where you go. If you want to discuss a novel or "who would win: Drizzt vs. Elminster 4e?" than FR: General is the place to put it.
Another possibility would be to fold FR General into Eberron General. Just make a combined worlds General Forum where people can gripe and moan, and leave the other two FR Forums for talking about all phases of D&D play in the Realms and chatting about Realmslore.
Ugh, I don't think this is a good idea. Clumping all the General stuff into one massive blob of campaign-different goo would not be good. What happens when Eberron gets its release and theres a huge rise in their numbers. And then Dragonlance, followed by Darksun? Your saying one General Forum for all these campaigns is going to make things better? I don't see it.
I do like your hunger for the FR-boards to do well, as do I, but we're already the most popular campaign in the D&D Worlds section. I think our numbers compared to other settings is great and we're all doing a pretty good job.
Ugh, I don't think this is a good idea. Clumping all the General stuff into one massive blob of campaign-different goo would not be good. What happens when Eberron gets its release and theres a huge rise in their numbers. And then Dragonlance, followed by Darksun? Your saying one General Forum for all these campaigns is going to make things better? I don't see it.
I do like your hunger for the FR-boards to do well, as do I, but we're already the most popular campaign in the D&D Worlds section. I think our numbers compared to other settings is great and we're all doing a pretty good job.
Not too mention, where do you stop? Should we also roll in Star Wars, D20 Modern and Magic: The Gathering? They are all products of Wizards...
Ugh, I don't think this is a good idea. Clumping all the General stuff into one massive blob of campaign-different goo would not be good.
It'd be horrible. It's definitely something we don't need.
I honestly don't think the position in which RtR is listed is going to help numbers. I try to post there and create threads that benefit the FR community more so than I do in other sections but I don't think the community wants FR mechanics more so than the lore of previous and current editions.
I don’t think they want pure mechanics more than lore-related talk either, which is partly the point I’ve been trying to make ever since the forum reorg took place.
Yet that’s how the FR Forums are set up. By themselves (i.e. their descriptions) they do almost nothing to encourage Realms DMs and players to interact and exchange ideas. This is because they limit discussion to either mechanics talk (useful in some instances, but it’s not like there aren’t umpteen million D&D sub forums in which you can talk mechanics already) or fact-based lore chat.
What I’m getting at is that the whole business of being a Realms DM (and sometimes even a player) isn’t just “know the mechanics, check your Realms facts, then play.” It’s far different than that.
So, give me a RtR forum that encourages the sort of thought processes Realms DMs naturally go through when building their Realms campaigns and adventures.
Give me a forum that pushes Realms DMs and players to come up with and share their ideas for new Realmslore and Realms-flavored character options (Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies), magic items, rituals, encounters, monsters and adventure plots.
Give me a RtR Forum that collects and submits the best of these ideas on a regular basis to the DDI team for inclusion in future Dragon and Dungeon articles. That I think would be a big motivator for fans of all stripes (including you, Illuvrien) to participate.
WotC has already lost Gleemax, but that doesn’t mean they can’t turn the World Forums into a place similar to what Gleemax was supposed to be in terms of community interaction, organization, idea sharing and future DDI content.
Ugh, I don't think this is a good idea. Clumping all the General stuff into one massive blob of campaign-different goo would not be good. What happens when Eberron gets its release and there’s a huge rise in their numbers. And then Dragonlance, followed by Darksun?
I admit it’s not the best idea, but man I bet it’d sure focus all the complaining into exactly one forum. What a gift that’d be. ;)
First, no worries RE: your Thesis. You’ve mentioned to me before it’s a bear and a time-eater, so we’ll give you absolutely as much time as you need to respond.
Thanks, the grace period is appreciated. This thing has gone from hard but interesting scholarly work… to a knock-down-drag-out-no-holds-barred-barney that will have one of two results: Me or It.
I think that's a great idea.
There will be overlap in terms of topics that might pop up on RtR that -with slight wording changes- could appear on regular Realmslore, but I think with judicious moderation and time people will figure it out.
I would agree here. So why not highlight this proposition to the denizens of the FR boards (who may not be aware of this discussion) see if there is much in the way of support for it, and then present that evidence to the Powers on the basis that it might assist the running of those forums? I would do it myself but, well, if I posted then enough people would be saying “Who is this fool?” to detract from the point… especially on RtR.
You’re right, people have complained (and with good reason). However, that doesn’t mean there exists no group of fans who are DMs and novel readers that enjoy the lore.
I never said the group didn’t exist, I just said my experience of the boards (i.e. the people who take time to post on the subject) mostly do so to grouse about them. Even on the basis that this sample is somewhat self-selecting as the group of “DMs who are posting about novels on the Realmslore and General boards”, I still have not gained the impression that the group you describe are either numerous… or willing to post.
Here’s where I think an emphasis on opening up discussion for campaigns will help, because those Realms DMs who do share a low opinion of the lore and novels can rub shoulders with those DMs that don’t have that opinion.
All hail that idea!
Come now, you’re just being facetious here.
I may have been exaggerating a little (with, perhaps, a touch of wry amusement and possibly asperity at some of the discussions you and I both know have gone on with regards to such things) but I certainly wasn’t trying for facetious. Given the (occasionally annoying) diversity of the fanbase, what do you think the odds are that suggested modification of any magnitude change will be in contravention of someones personal preference?
That is one reason I suggested the two sections and more importantly the dividing line. If you are in RtR, for example, then the rules and basis for discussion is clear and so you can’t whinge about a change made if something comes up, as it is the section where campaign-lore is emphasized.
Hypotheticals are not just about grand, sweeping changes. My point was that lore discussions can and often do stick to “what is known,” with hypothesizing occurring within those strict boundaries.
I think you’re missing just how exacting Realms DMs are and can be about their lore.
No, hypotheticals aren’t just about those, but you admirably illustrated the point why there should be a division between the two types of discussion. Also, I might point in the direction of a few posts here and there where DMs can be seen to have complained, sometimes vociferously and at length about those boundaries, strict or otherwise.
I hope you understand that I’m not talking about you, but about the structure of the forums and what segment(s) of the fan base they should be geared towards.
Which, although it is not directed at me personally still affects my personal usage of those forums. See where I am going with this?
In that vein, I’d like to see the FR General Forum deleted (but save the Ask the Authors threads and so on) and leave us with just Realmslore and RtR below it.
Not unless, as others have pointed out, the balance of posting either shifts or is forced to shift dramatically. Why not re-purpose RtR and then see what happens to the posting numbers so that, if needed, General can go if it falls below the posting limit criteria.
Yet that’s how the FR Forums are set up. By themselves (i.e. their descriptions) they do almost nothing to encourage Realms DMs and players to interact and exchange ideas.
Actually, they do encourage the interaction and exchange of ideas. That's the whole point of "Running the Realms". After all, it's not just entitled "Mechanics of Running the Realms," but "Running the Realms". The only thing preventing interaction as you describe is, well, interest and the ability to generate ideas to share.
This is because they limit discussion to either mechanics talk (useful in some instances, but it’s not like there aren’t umpteen million D&D sub forums in which you can talk mechanics already) or fact-based lore chat.
There's a whole separate forum that's devoted to 4E ruleset mechanics. Nothing about "Running the Realms" limits the discussion there to "only Realms mechanics and nothing else" except one's personal view.
Frankly, why not just try posting your own ideas and see what comes of them? People will either be interested or they won't, but I highly doubt anyone would attack you for posting an idea you have from your campaigns. It's very important IMO to post the kinds of things you want to see, as it encourages others to not only respond but also do the same in creating new posts. That's what shapes a forum more than any brief forum descriptor that perhaps only a few people will glance at.
What I’m getting at is that the whole business of being a Realms DM (and sometimes even a player) isn’t just “know the mechanics, check your Realms facts, then play.” It’s far different than that.
Actually, with respect to what you're saying directly above, 4E Realms was made precisely because the designers wanted a new Realms that was far easier to play. The guidebooks and sourcebooks encourage cross-use of mechanics and flavor from other worlds. It was changed because (from what we're told) people complained about the difficulty of all that lore and "feel" that people just couldn't seem to get right and declared such uniqueness as an impediment to play. And I seem to remember you championing that cause, which makes your statement above a little strange.
Another possibility would be to fold FR General into Eberron General. Just make a combined worlds General Forum where people can gripe and moan, and leave the other two FR Forums for talking about all phases of D&D play in the Realms and chatting about Realmslore.
Although this is certainly in line with your continued agenda to gather up and exile anyone with a negative opinion, it's inappropriate for both world forums.
Avoiding the baiting gets easier if you put frequent baiters on your ignore list. If you know that you'll never agree with them, then there's nothing you're missing from ignoring their posts.
Perhaps the FR boards are a bit different than the GD board, but I always hated putting someone on ignore...especially since everyone else that disagrees with said poster quotes them ad nauseum.
Please get the thread back on topic. Thank you.
For me it's not so much ignoring the frequent baiters (something I've tried to do in this thread, for example), it's checking the posts from the people who do it, reporting their statements, and then seeing the ORCs do exactly zero about it.
I've had that happen every now and then. If someone takes the bait and violates the code of conduct in response you can mention it with the post number when you report that violation as well.
That will usually result in the original bait being moderated. Also just because the post wasn't altered it doesn't mean that the moderator took on action.
If you know that you'll never agree with them, then there's nothing you're missing from ignoring their posts.
I am more than a little loath to use this criterion to decide who should be on my ignore list. For example, and I think he would agree, Mr Misc and I agree and almost nothing. Ever. Yet we remain civil. I believe it is important to have discussions especially between people who have fundamentally different views because otherwise it isn't a discussion, it is an echo box.
So I, for one, would like to see a decent seperation between "disagreeing" and "baiting/trolling" because for me one has nothing to do with the other.
So I, for one, would like to see a decent seperation between "disagreeing" and "baiting/trolling" because for me one has nothing to do with the other.
That would be a wonderful thing...
I am more than a little loath to use this criterion to decide who should be on my ignore list. For example, and I think he would agree, Mr Misc and I agree and almost nothing. Ever. Yet we remain civil. I believe it is important to have discussions especially between people who have fundamentally different views because otherwise it isn't a discussion, it is an echo box.
So I, for one, would like to see a decent seperation between "disagreeing" and "baiting/trolling" because for me one has nothing to do with the other.
My apologies, I should have been a little clearer. I've only used the Ignore List on persons that disagree by saying "U R such an idoit" type of arguments. As an example, Rauric and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I don't put him on the ignore list because he's able to express those opinions in a non-derogatory fashion.