Personally I'm just glad the whole discussion seems to be trapped in the General Discussion Forum. That way if I want to talk about the game I can go to a specific forum and leave that one alone.
If someone posts something reactionary and dumb without lurking first to find out that what they said has been covered ad nauseum, then they deserve what they get.
Because, obviously anyone who doesn't lke the system is having a knee-jerk reation and is un-intelligent as well.
This is exactly the type of comment the OP is talking about. Believe it or not it is very possible to not like the game after playing it. And people who feel that way have just as much right to post their opinions as those who love the game and sing it's praises ad nauseum.
If someone posts something reactionary and dumb without lurking first to find out that what they said has been covered ad nauseum, then they deserve what they get.
It's bad enough that most refuse to search for similar threads first, but it's extra special when the 4e detractors start yet another thread just to say something exceptionally stupid like "I haven't read any of the 4e books yet & I never will, but I hate 4e & I think it's like..."
Because, obviously anyone who doesn't lke the system is having a knee-jerk reation and is un-intelligent as well.
Considering many of them have been singing the same tune since last August or so when the books were still months away & a whole slew of others have signed up only recently just to complain about 4e, I'd say the shoe fits. Hating something you haven't yet experienced seems pretty un-intelligent to me, & as for the recent additions, why sign up just to complain, when you could be playing whatever edition you prefer?
Because, obviously anyone who doesn't lke the system is having a knee-jerk reation and is un-intelligent as well.
This is exactly the type of comment the OP is talking about. Believe it or not it is very possible to not like the game after playing it. And people who feel that way have just as much right to post their opinions as those who love the game and sing it's praises ad nauseum.
I think what DCAnderson is talking about is the recent rash of People with a June/July 2008 join date that have the same issues that all the most notorious 4th ed bashers, and strangely enough they all seem to use very similar wording for their arguments. Now i always try to take these people with a grain of salt, and take their word that they are not trying to start a flame war. But after two or three posts that are clearly intended to rile the 4th ed "fanboys" what do you think is going to happen?
I have no problem with people having a favorite system, one way or the other.. but keep in mind that a lot of these people are coming into the 4th ed forums to post what basically amounts to an mantra about how 4th ed is no longer D&D to them etc etc.. it is getting beyond old and i can certainly understand why some of the 4th ed fans are getting more and more defensive with their positions on the game. Especially when it seems a lot of these posts like to passively attack either the intelligence or integrity of the 4th ed fans.
Considering many of them have been singing the same tune since last August or so when the books were still months away & a whole slew of others have signed up only recently just to complain about 4e, I'd say the shoe fits.
Just as many have been singing praises since last August when the books were still months away. Is one somehow more rational than the other, just because you happen to agree? I think not.
Hating something you haven't yet experienced seems pretty un-intelligent to me, & as for the recent additions, why sign up just to complain, when you could be playing whatever edition you prefer?
Loving something you haven't experianced yet is just as un-intelligent.
The recent additions have plenty of ground to stand on. WotC is no longer supporting their prefered system. I'd be upset too.
Outlaw68: There's plenty of passive-agressive posting going on with both sides. DCAndersons post is a prime example. 4e has been out a month, it's still new. Give the 3.x fans some time and they will move on. The do have reason to be upset, however.
If someone posts something reactionary and dumb without lurking first to find out that what they said has been covered ad nauseum, then they deserve what they get.
Exactly. I had one fanboy say (in the same thread) that 4.0 was better because it had better detailed rules for helping PCs do what they want without a DM having to make it up. Then later said that lack rules on creating spells was better because you can make it up.
Talk about reactionary & dumb!
This is probably a defense mechanism from all the attacks 4e got by die hard 3rd ed players, but the majority of them are moving on. If a player cant come and give a reasonable opinion of why they dont like the game then how will WotC ever know what to improve? Already in this very thread I see attacks on 3e players intelligence and fingers pointed, and nobody said anything bad about 4e yet. Even players like me who got the books, tried them out, and made a judgement based on actual game experience have gotten flamed just for having the nerve to question the almighty new system.
But to be fair,
Indeed, Over the last year, I have staunchly taken a middle ground stance. Not wanting to judge the game before playing it, but anytime I criticized aspects of the game as they were reveled... Well, I'm glad I have thick skin.
In my experience, the anti 4e crowd are sometimes loud, arrogant and yes, repetative but the 4e fans can get down-right hostile and mean.
4ed killed my cat
Sorry, that was probobaly me. Folks just wouldn't stop talking about it...
I've had no issues with 4E myself, so I might come off as a fanboy. But really, I just like the ease of it, and things that could bother other people really don't concern me (such as lack of mechanics for how to run the rest of the economy. I just don't care how it works, I only care how the PCs work).
Mostly I have been getting more abbrasive lately due to impatience. Seeing the same things, over and over and over again as if they're new bugs me. A lot. Lack of reading comprehension, it shows. Which in turn is a lack of respect for what other people have written, for the effort they have put in.
If you really don't like the game and have given it a fair shake and you still have some complaints, chances are they've been made and we don't care anymore. As I said earlier, this is dying down, and that's a good thing. And some people bring up legitimate new concerns and get shouted at. But this is after months of idiocy being spewed (again, recognizing that the idiocy was equal opportunity).
These are the 4E forums. It's past time that certain of the trolls left or were banned. Legitimate concerns shouldn't be shouted down, it's true. But so many that people post claiming that they are legit just really arent't, or have been posted so many times already.
...as for the recent additions, why sign up just to complain, when you could be playing whatever edition you prefer?
On this point, I'd wager to say that the times one could be posting do not overlap with the times one could be playing. I imagine a lot of people post from work (like I'm doing right now). Few, if any, of them could play in the same time slot.
In short, i'd say it is possible to both play the game you like and complain about the one you don't. :P
Mostly I have been getting more abbrasive lately due to impatience. Seeing the same things, over and over and over again as if they're new bugs me. A lot. Lack of reading comprehension, it shows. Which in turn is a lack of respect for what other people have written, for the effort they have put in.
.
I think this is the kind of generalization I was talking about. Anti 4ers have poor reading comprehension? Come on. Both sides are repeating themselves, because it takes forever to search for similar posts. If you have seen it before, just leave it alone and move on.
Anyone else think we should rename the megathread to "All Your Flames Are Belong to Us"? No? It's just me? Ok.
I think this is the kind of generalization I was talking about. Anti 4ers have poor reading comprehension? Come on. Both sides are repeating themselves, because it takes forever to search for similar posts. If you have seen it before, just leave it alone and move on.
Not all, but enough. And I keep admiting that the pro-side is guilty of the same thing. It is all very silly.
When I encounter something that is a legitimate complaint or question, I do try to answer the question. But thanks to all the hatred towards the system, I find myself answering in a more abbrasive manner than I usually would.
Part of it is how the question is framed/phrased. A good example is the thread on 4E archery being broken. Well... from a mechanics standpoint, hell no. Realistically, yes. It is not accurate. The original poster came on and complained about how ridiculous the ranges are. This annoyed me, because of course they're ridiculous. So are many of the conceits of the system.
A more constructive way (in my opinion) to post it would have been to say, "Hey. I do archery, the ranges are ridiculous. How would you suggest expanding the rules to accomodate longer ranges?" Now, in discussion, that's what the OP was really after. But by not actually asking for suggestions first, it gets my dander up because I find the complaint incorrect and so similar to the illegitimate complaints.
If you are showing up just to complain, I have no tolerance. If you are showing up because you don't like this aspect and want to talk about it (maybe come up with a homebrew fix), that's really cool. No problem with that.
Considering many of them have been singing the same tune since last August or so when the books were still months away
Clearly, what I anticipated I might not like about the edition couldn't actually turn out to be true, could it? I mean, that would mean...that I thought I might not like something, but decided to tried it first, and I WAS RIGHT? What kind of witchcraft sorcery devil work is THAT?!
I was posting my thoughts on the thread "4e less magical?" The OP asked for our thoughts, and in turn, we either agreed or disagreed; I agreed, trying to remain respectful and clearly stating my opinions as such. Another poster felt it necessary to bust my balls, saying I should stick to the 3.5 boards.
I could understand this reaction if I was blatantly thread dumping but that was not the case. Anyone who acts !shocked! at an opinion is just being silly (at best). Likewise, if you can't post a thought without batiting or flamming, I have absolutely no desire to engage in debate or arguement. Have a nice day, and all that jazz ;).
That's what's so annoying about this latest, and long running, edition war: The "shove off!" attitude; despite my best efforts, it really gets under my skin sometimes. I play 4e on occassion, and even though it's not my favorite system, I have as much right to express opinions as anyone else (on these boards, not 3.5, which I prefer but doesn't apply here).
We all have thoughts and opinions, and almost no one ever agrees completely; unfortunately not everyone understands and respects this. Maybe they get off on the idea of an edition !WAR!. I don't know, and don't really give a damn at this point.
/rant (as they say ;))
If someone posts something reactionary and dumb without lurking first to find out that what they said has been covered ad nauseum, then they deserve what they get.
NO. Every person has the right to post what they think, no matter how many times it has been said before.
If there are people that cannot cope with that, then maybe online forums or any social activity that contains discussion is not right for them.
If someone new signs up today why making them feel unwelcome because they say something that has been said before or ask a question that has been answered before.
Yes they could search if/when the search feature is working or whatever.
They are not required to do so prior to posting as the forums do not make you use the search before posting.
No forums user is required to view every thread, nor to respond to them.
If you are tired of reading threads on Subject A then just don't read them any more.
NO. Every person has the right to post what they think, no matter how many times it has been said before.
So long as the proper title is given (or tags) so I can determine what it is and not touch it with a 10 foot pool unless I want to.
NO. Every person has the right to post what they think, no matter how many times it has been said before.
We want everyone to feel free to post what they think. In fact, we want to encourage everyone to do that, regardess of what their stance is on one of our products.
However, we also need everyone to feel free to have forum discussions without disruption. This means that not every thread is the place for people to say how much they love or hate a product.
While there doesn't have to be a single thread for every possible topic, we do have to take some efforts to make sure the entire front page of our forums isn't lined with threads talking about the same topic. This isn't good for a number of reasons, including the fact that it drowns out other conversation, and spreads meaningful discussion on a topic in multiple places making it hard for someone to view all discussion on that subject.
Our VCLs have been doing a fantastic job of using their best judgment in how these types of threads should be handled. It will never be perfect, but overall I am very pleased with how positive and contructive everyone in the community has been, given the significance of the 4E release on our hobby.
Does the not wanting disruption include merging threads needlessly to dirupt users ability to continue a conversation without losing all continuity due to lack of software capabilities to udnerstand anything other than timestamps regarding readability and order of posts?
(See Megathread)
I agree with the intent of the OP. You don't have to attack every thread that says something to try to be some defender, but you should be allowed to voice your opinion in any thread even if it repeats what you have said before in a civil manner.
The problem lies in the authority of a thread creator in that no matter what the thread creators intent a CM user can deem an entire thread to be closed because of persons who have derailed it rather than properly removing the posts that are off-topic, or splitting the off-topic posts to a new thread and seeing if the new thread has any content worthy of its own topic.
Maybe some sort of guideline to Thread creators rights with a given thread could be provided for users to know just what right a thread creator has when that thread is created to maintain the topic the creator intends and what recourse could be had to prevent derailement. Not punishment for others ans threads are oft to go off-topic, but how to split them into their own threads and such if need be to allow for both the original topic to exist and its spin-off topic to have its own thread to not further derail the original thread?
And people just need to stop attacking other people for a difference of opinon as well.
Se wrcan and the other FL or VCLs recent discussion about what to be done when a forum is covered with tis frontpage having many similar topics in regards to the megathread.
Popular concensus states that it would be appropriate to create a forum for product reviews to prevent congestion in the General Discussion forum rather than continue to lump threads into one collosal pile of who knows what.
@rentauri :
I don't mind several posts on the same topic. Odds are two different people are very liekly to create a thread with the same topic at the same time. That is just a fact about the internet and how many people use it, so it is truely unavoidable, and best when the topic title best identifies itself rather than spamming with catch phrases or keywords.
Thus as much as I hate them, every thread with "peach" in it at least tells you something about it. Enough for me to be able to avoid them because I don't care most of hte time as it is not my game and the place of the groups within the persons game to decide if it is right or not to "peach" it.
Because, if you go Serious. Business for a game....
Also, both sides have the right to debate in a respectfull and constructive manner, present oposite points...
Because the name and general feel of the OP is that he want not to hear the opposite side...
This means that not every thread is the place for people to say how much they love or hate a product.
QFT.
We just need to get this idea going over on the FR Forums a bit more and we'll be good to go.
However, we also need everyone to feel free to have forum discussions without disruption. This means that not every thread is the place for people to say how much they love or hate a product.
Perhaps its time you actually read whats happening on the general boards...the pro side is literally chasing away anyone who doesn't think that the devs are gods, WotC is the best thing ever, and speaking against 4e is some kind of blasphemy. At the best of times the commons responses to anything that isn't: "And I liked it!" is: "Shut up and go away", "I didn't notice that, you're not playing it right, go try again." or "You're disrupting our circle jerk **** off."
While there doesn't have to be a single thread for every possible topic, we do have to take some efforts to make sure the entire front page of our forums isn't lined with threads talking about the same topic. This isn't good for a number of reasons, including the fact that it drowns out other conversation, and spreads meaningful discussion on a topic in multiple places making it hard for someone to view all discussion on that subject.
If one topic is filling up the entire front page of a general discussion area, that's probably a good indication that people want to discuss that topic, don'tcha think? Instead of alienating people with a mega-thread that has been compared to the borg, wouldn't it make more sense to create a sub forum so people can discuss that topic, and not drown out everything else? It made sense 8 months ago, what happened now?
Our VCLs have been doing a fantastic job of using their best judgment in how these types of threads should be handled.
Huh? Were have you been? Your VCLs are rude and condescending. You can't talk to them, or suggest anything, unless it's something they think is best anyways, other wise they'll shout you down, and call you names. Then tell you you're the one being rude. As for, how they're handling the threads, the most kind word I think of to describe the job their doing is incompetence. Total, utter incompetence. The job they are doing is half-assed, biased and inconsistent, on a good day. In reality they are little more then yes-people for WotC and the fakeness shines through, which in all honesty is driving away most of the people whom have been here for years. And I'm not the only one who feels this way either...
It will never be perfect,
It was pretty darn close about 2 years or so ago. It had some problems, but nothing like this...It wasn't broken, why did you "fix" it?
but overall I am very pleased with how positive and constructive everyone in the community has been, given the significance of the 4E release on our hobby.
.....To which community are you referring? If it is this one, then my god man, do you even bother reading this boards...with your eyes open? The community is tearing itself apart. You have: a roaming band of fanboys attacking everyone who isn't singing "I love 4e", a group of VCLs who are not much more then a school yard gang of bullies, who break the CoC more times then I can count and who are among the rudest posters on these boards, posters crying out for easy simple fixes to many of the problems are told to sit down and shut up by everyone with any authority to actually do anything, then in the next sentence being told, "we want your feed back", moderation is bad comedy, and a mass migration of your veteran posters to other message boards. On top of all that the problems that you had before WotC decided to do a great re-org of the place are still here. And thats when the boards are even up!
4ed killed my cat
3.5 ran over my dog, Youtubed it, and PMed me a link!
In all seriousness, though, when a thread turns into an argument between 4E supporters and detractors, I stop reading it. As an experienced DM and player through the last 4(.5) editions of D&D, I'm not going to learn anything I don't already know from such an argument, and I'm not going to be swayed by it. Since there's no gain for me in reading such a thread, it becomes of no value to me. Mind, I'm not saying that such an argument is valueless -- just that since my mind is made up, it has no value to me personally.
Loving something you haven't experianced yet is just as un-intelligent.
The difference is that the 4E "fanboys" as you put it, have now experienced the game. Some hater just outright refuse to try the system. It really is irrational.
The recent additions have plenty of ground to stand on. WotC is no longer supporting their prefered system. I'd be upset too.
And those 70+ splatbooks only provide what, 3, 4 games at the most, right?
There's plenty of passive-agressive posting going on with both sides. DCAndersons post is a prime example. 4e has been out a month, it's still new. Give the 3.x fans some time and they will move on. The do have reason to be upset, however.
The fact is, most of the trolls seem to have moved on. They have actually went back to the 3.5 forums to enjoy themselves, and I'm glad. This entire thread is only fanning a fire which everyone thought was dying.
Also, refering to anyone who defends 4E as a fanboy is a bit insulting. I defend 4E, and yet also enjoy 3.5.
In all seriousness, though, when a thread turns into an argument between 4E supporters and detractors, I stop reading it.
That's what's great about the General Forum, many threads there devolve into that where as the specific forums actually discuss the specific topic. I guess thats the point of the General Forum, point all the crap there.
The difference is that the 4E "fanboys" as you put it, have now experienced the game. Some hater just outright refuse to try the system. It really is irrational.
And those 70+ splatbooks only provide what, 3, 4 games at the most, right?
The fact is, most of the trolls seem to have moved on. They have actually went back to the 3.5 forums to enjoy themselves, and I'm glad. This entire thread is only fanning a fire which everyone thought was dying.
Also, refering to anyone who defends 4E as a fanboy is a bit insulting. I defend 4E, and yet also enjoy 3.5.
Well, first off; the post you are quoting refers to reactions before 4e was released. So, having played the game is not a consideration.
Many of those 70+ splatbooks desperately need errata, which they will never see because 3.5 is not being supported.
Finally, if you check the bolded sections of your post, I'd like you to please show me where I called anyone a fanboy... Yeah, good luck with that. Seems to me you're doing a fine job of keeping the trolling alive and well.
Many of those 70+ splatbooks desperately need errata, which they will never see because 3.5 is not being supported.
To bad. I got books from games that died and needed errata to but its not going to happen maybe one of the other companies that are picking up 3.5 can work it somehow.
Part of it is how the question is framed/phrased. A good example is the thread on 4E archery being broken. Well... from a mechanics standpoint, hell no. Realistically, yes. It is not accurate. The original poster came on and complained about how ridiculous the ranges are. This annoyed me, because of course they're ridiculous. So are many of the conceits of the system.
A more constructive way (in my opinion) to post it would have been to say, "Hey. I do archery, the ranges are ridiculous. How would you suggest expanding the rules to accomodate longer ranges?" Now, in discussion, that's what the OP was really after. But by not actually asking for suggestions first, it gets my dander up because I find the complaint incorrect and so similar to the illegitimate complaints.
Yah, this makes a big difference. I've seen plenty of people bring up legitimate complaints without being "attacked". The ones who get attacked are the ones who make their complaint in the form of an attack to begin with.
One good example I can think of is the thread awhile back about the lack of a good index in the PHB. The OP could have just said the index was lacking and that was a problem, instead he titled the post as "Does WotC hire EDITORS for their books?" or something like that.
The other big thread I can think of is the one titled "Answer the Haters: 4e and roleplaying". First off it has "haters" in the title, so it's allready anticipating a fight, and it is in the form of a "challenge" to the people who like 4e.
"Does WotC hire EDITORS for their books?"
How much are those who went in and attacked getting paid by WotC?
Better yet, is it the users of the forums job to defend WotC or the game?
It seems like a complaint about WotC was taken personal by people in that thread. Why?
-Fanyboys are suck ups.
Well this is very possible in that they are let roam free and attacking any view that shines darkness on anyting about the new edition.
-4th edition players own the forums.
WotC or their hosting serivce owns the serivers. No real ideea except for the servers are located in Renton, so it could be a local company that provides hosting space and WotC rents the "rack" or actually owns the equipment. Let WotC do its own house cleaning. Severak threads in the 4th edition areas have nothing to do with 4th edition. DM Advice and Player Advice have many threads that are NOT edition specific.
If a thread is directed at some choice made by WotC, how can any forum user that is not an employ of WotC "feel" anything about it enouhg to need to defend WotC?
Even the employees need to stop "feeling" so much about it. This is a risk in the publish business that some people will not like what you put out. Such is true of any service industry and the people should have been aware of that when they took the jobs.
Dave Noonan, and Mike Mearls have been praised and hammered for the video podcast.
Mike just kept moving along and made a blogpost about "System Shock" in 4th edition.
They must have read the 4 threads about the podcast and are probably taking ideas from it from the users on how to better any future ones, but they are not attacking the users for having an opinion that says the video podcast was less than perfect. They like WotC_DM take the criticism quietly or step in to say something to help people understand what is going on with their projects.
Personally which I will repeat here for clarification sake of my view....I think dave and Mike are doing a great job maintaining the same presence and appearance on the forums as before the video podcast which is mostly jsut posting to their blogs without interacting with the community. I hated the podcast as any kind of reference to ANY D&D edition due to the production values of it, and still think they are doing well on the forums.
James Wyatt is taking the "4E = WOW" well. He "attacks" right back any idea differeing from his, but not the other users.
That is where the problem comes into play. The "fanboys" aren't attacking the ideas, but the users in trying to defend WotC. I think they should take the stance of the WotC personnel and follow their example. Well maybe not the Devs as they hide from us users in their ~blogs~ and don't converse, but like WotC_DM who jumps in to to have his project (DDI) attacked and keeps coming back providing answers.
If It weren't for WotC_DM I am sure there would not be the calm there is now with the delay of DDI.
I bet he is a whole lot more invested in 4th edition that the "fanboys" that run around trying to run people away from the forums.
same as going to the Martha Stewart fansite and starting a thread about how annoying Martha Stewart fans are.
I shouldnt have to read that I'm "annoying" upon entering the forums to a game that im a fan of.
It's immature at best, and harrassment at worst.
Well, first off; the post you are quoting refers to reactions before 4e was released. So, having played the game is not a consideration.
Except it is now. The fact that trolls and haters still refuse to play it even though it's avalible now.
Many of those 70+ splatbooks desperately need errata, which they will never see because 3.5 is not being supported.
Because it's so difficult to house rule it the way that you want
Finally, if you check the bolded sections of your post, I'd like you to please show me where I called anyone a fanboy... Yeah, good luck with that.
It seems I've made a mistake. It happens. No one is perfect.
Seems to me you're doing a fine job of keeping the trolling alive and well.
As are you my friend. As are you.
.Except it is now. The fact that trolls and haters still refuse to play it even though it's avalible now.
That is a small minority of the people who don't like 4E. Most of us gave is a shot and even continue to play.
Look, I know you guys like the game, and that is cool. But has only been out for about a month, and people are still posting their reactions. Could you guys please stop telling others their opinions about the game are factually incorrect? If someone posts something blatantly false about the rules, fine call them out. But if someone says I think it is too much like WoW, or I don't like the powers system, could you tone the nerd rage down a notch, and allow for differences in taste?
"1. If you have five dollars and 4E has five dollars, 4E has more money than you.
2. There is no 'ctrl' button on 4E's computer. 4E is always in control.
3. Apple pays 4E 99 cents every time it listens to a song.
4. 4E can sneeze with its eyes open.
5. 4E can eat just one Lay's potato chip.
6. 4E destroyed the periodic table, because it only recognizes the element of surprise.
7. 4E can kill two stones with one bird."
Do you recognize the Quote in bold LFH. It's yours from the off topic forum. The mocking tone of your post is the sort of thing that annoys and does nothing but fan the flames of the thankfully now dying Great Edition War of '08. If you wish to have an intelligent disscusion and have your opinion taken seriously stop posting threads like the one above. Post's like the one above although probably intended to be funny are why it's so hard to give credence to some of the poster's who have issues with 4e.
To be honest I have seen one too many 4e post where the issue in question has been explained with all logic and accuracy and still they continue to attempt to drive at a point that through all tests of logic and evidence has been disproven. And still they argue.
If you have a valid point I am more than willing to listen and discuss said viewpoints and opinions, but don't make an inflammitory post such as the one in bold then add a post about how the anti 4e crowd can't get a fair shake. I'm not being mean or angry or any such thing but this is the sort of posting that does not lead to any sort of contructive discussion. And please both sides have the good graces to admit that you are wrong when you are.
I speak for noone but myself.
"1. If you have five dollars and 4E has five dollars, 4E has more money than you.
2. There is no 'ctrl' button on 4E's computer. 4E is always in control.
3. Apple pays 4E 99 cents every time it listens to a song.
4. 4E can sneeze with its eyes open.
5. 4E can eat just one Lay's potato chip.
6. 4E destroyed the periodic table, because it only recognizes the element of surprise.
7. 4E can kill two stones with one bird."
Do you recognize the Quote in bold LFH. It's yours from the off topic forum. The mocking tone of your post is the sort of thing that annoys and does nothing but fan the flames of the thankfully now dying Great Edition War of '08. If you wish to have an intelligent disscusion and have your opinion taken seriously stop posting threads like the one above. Post's like the one above although probably intended to be funny are why it's so hard to give credence to some of the poster's who have issues with 4e.
To be honest I have seen one too many 4e post where the issue in question has been explained with all logic and accuracy and still they continue to attempt to drive at a point that through all tests of logic and evidence has been disproven. And still they argue.
If you have a valid point I am more than willing to listen and discuss said viewpoints and opinions, but don't make an inflammitory post such as the one in bold then add a post about how the anti 4e crowd can't get a fair shake. I'm not being mean or angry or any such thing but this is the sort of posting that does not lead to any sort of contructive discussion. And please both sides have the good graces to admit that you are wrong when you are.
I speak for noone but myself.
The whole point of that post was how outrageous the 4E fanboys are in their zeal. Hey I am just as guilty as anyone else here of overreacting. But it is mostly in response to excessive hostility when I voice my opinion on the game.
As a 4e fanboy btw I do find your post funny. Some folks are pretty vehement about there love for 4e and we kinda need to chuckle at ourselves sometimes and both sides need to stop taking things so seriously. We are a bunch of people pretending to be dwarves, elves, and humans after all.
I can't stand to read half the threads here. Self important shrieking d-bags kill my enthusiasm rather quickly, and the same tired arguments get repeated again and again. I see very little real discussion going on around here.
In the General Forum or the rest of them?
The difference is that the 4E "fanboys" as you put it, have now experienced the game. Some hater just outright refuse to try the system. It really is irrational.
I've played a LOT of 4E games since it came out. Seven different campaigns and three to four games in most of those.
I still assert that 4E is what the WOTC "designers" (It's an insult to the good game designers out there to call them that) wrote on their notebooks during WoW raids.
Players are artificially forced into a 'role' (MMO class) and aren't allowed much creative freedom. Less so than even being allowed to pick from three talent trees. Even in WoW you had three types of your class to choose from, in 4E it's at most, two.
So far no matter who chooses what, I have seen each Paladin plays the same, each Cleric plays the same, each Warlord plays the same. They better get more splat books out in a hurry (an expansion with more classes) before the faithful start seeing just how restricting these 'roles' are.
I can't stand to read half the threads here. Self important shrieking d-bags kill my enthusiasm rather quickly, and the same tired arguments get repeated again and again. I see very little real discussion going on around here.
As opposed to the brainless WOTC fanboys that can't tell shovelware even if they kneel down in front of the designer and suck it from the source?
Anti 4th posters can be annoying.
Either side can attack the other ad nauseam without really listening. Because one side does it doesn't make it right for the other to do the same. In fact there is a fallacy for trying to pass this behavior off as right because some else does it, it's call a tu quoque also known as a "you too fallacy" or "two wrongs fallacy".
Personally the most annoying posts to me are the ones that say that they haven't read and will not read the rules for 4th and then spout off all the things that they have heard is wrong with it (read as "rumors"). As it is it is possible to arrive at the right answer in this manner, but it is highly unlikely to do so.
Its threads like this that make visting the WotC boards such a painful experience (i really should have known better than to click on this link but i guess im a masochist). Ill be glad when the "edition wars" die down and we can actually discuss the game on its own terms instead of wading through the crapfest.
Then I suggest you not read threads like these. As for myself, it is the fire of the 4E fanboys, and their inability to let people have their own opinions on the new system, that make these boards a pain to visit.
Then I suggest you not read threads like these.
The problem is that these threads are everywhere through out the forum. Its difficult to go to any of the sub-boards and not run into people thread-crapping when people just want to talk about the rules. I understand that you dont like to swim, but please dont come over and crap in the pool i swim in just to be spiteful.
Ill be glad when the "edition wars" die down
These edition wars you hate are interest. If these 'die down' so will interest in the game.
It's better to be spoken of unkindly than not spoken of at all.
As for myself, it is the fire of the 4E fanboys, and their inability to let people have their own opinions on the new system, that make these boards a pain to visit.
God, no kidding! Just today S/O started a thread asking for peoples opinions on 4E and as soon as I said what I thought about playing it, I got jumped by two kids that were lurking. When I challenged one for trying to start an argument with me he ran off to hide behind his mommy's skirt.
God, no kidding! Just today S/O started a thread asking for peoples opinions on 4E and as soon as I said what I thought about playing it, I got jumped by two kids that were lurking. When I challenged one for trying to start an argument with me he ran off to hide behind his mommy's skirt.
Thats because he is weak and inferior to you, Kursk!
These edition wars you hate are interest. If these 'die down' so will interest in the game.
It's better to be spoken of unkindly than not spoken of at all.
After 3E had been out for awhile the "edition wars" that arrose during its release had died down far below the levels they are now, yet the game was incredibly popular. You dont need a bunch of people talking trash on a message board in order to have something be popular since complaining on the internet does very little to actually sell books. Im sure that eventually all these folks who come here just to shake their fists at the sky and cry out will get tired of it, only to move along like they did last edition. Its only a matter of time before the nerd rage on all sides of this matter comes down a few notches.
After 3E had been out for awhile the "edition wars" that arrose [sic] during its release had died down far below the levels they are now, yet the game was incredibly popular.
Exactly! 3.5 was very popular. 4E doesn't have that. No argument, no game.
God, no kidding! Just today S/O started a thread asking for peoples opinions on 4E and as soon as I said what I thought about playing it, I got jumped by two kids that were lurking. When I challenged one for trying to start an argument with me he ran off to hide behind his mommy's skirt.
The internet is one of the few place where you don't have to run and hide behind mommy's skirt; relative anonymity brings protection, comfort, and safety of its own kind.
Which might explain why people don't often say, "Yo Momma!" on the internet ;).
Idiots on the anti side are annoying D-Bags who need to be fired...........out of a cannon into the sun.
Seriously, it's there for that way; and while I see antis trashing 4th ed in the current edition's place, had anyone see pros on the previous eds. place doing the opposite?
If you don't want to see gushing over 4th ed., go to the previous editions section.
Seriously, it's there for that way; and while I see antis trashing 4th ed in the current edition's place, had anyone see pros on the previous eds. place doing the opposite?
The thing your just not getting is that the battle is over...you won. Those who prefer 3.x are posting on the 3.x boards, and well like mots of the senseble poeple around here they are leaving in droves.
The poeple who come on here now and say I hate 4e cuase it's the divil and I don't want to read it, are trolls...SO STOP FEEDING THEM! No seriousely, when you come onto a thread to call them names and tell them to **** off, all your doing is giving them what they want. Which encourages them to post more stupidity, with the added benefit (for them) of making you look like an overreacting R-tard.
Unforchunately thats not the worst negative aspect of your over zealouseness. Suppose the poster is being seriouse, and posting what they feel is a legitimate issue. (This of course discludes people who aren't arsed to try the game, See my trolling comment) To them you're coming in way over the top and acting like an over zealouse *******.
In either event your the one who looks like a smack tard, and your doing far more harm then good. If you maybe get over your self-consciouseness, and just have fun with the game, and not worry about what over poeple think about it things would get a lot better around here.
Bluntly, there are many things I dislike about 4E. But the attitude of the 4E "fans" is the single thing I've gotten to dislike the most in these forums.
I did not win, or wanted to win. I wanted quietness and good-spirited debates. I didn't mind realy which edition you wanted in your homes.
But... We got trolls who never get banned and endless fanraging. And the FR place will see that TWICE anew, as the books are coming starting august...
Fanboyism swings both ways, again.
Also, a note was missed - the 'Avengers' thing was actualy not serious, a mockery of such fanboyism.
When so-called "4E Avengers" start posting four or five paragraphs worth of content that basically boils down to "WAAAH! The anti-4E people don't belong here! This is a place for 4E lovers only!", when the OP is just asking for help on how to enjoy 4E better, it's a problem.
Bluntly, there are many things I dislike about 4E. But the attitude of the 4E "fans" is the single thing I've gotten to dislike the most in these forums.
Here is an example of someone starting a thread with genuine concerns about 4E, and the responses he gets:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1060226
Note the general civility of the thread. Also notice that the only 'attitude' comments in the thread are coming from someone who doesn't like 4E.
Also, a note was missed - the 'Avengers' thing was actualy not serious, a mockery of such fanboyism.
The 4vengers are definitely a mockery.
So, yes, 4E and WoW are going to have similarities. It's outright impossible for them not to without changing the game to become DnD Modern or DnD Future.
Here is an example of someone starting a thread with genuine concerns about 4E, and the responses he gets:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1060226
Note the general civility of the thread. Also notice that the only 'attitude' comments in the thread are coming from someone who doesn't like 4E.
Yeah. And the "attitude" poster's opening statement is "I made these exact same comments and got flamed for it by rabid fanboys".
This seems to be more a case of the zealousness of 4E fanboys creating enemies they wouldn't have had if they hadn't acted like a bunch of bullies.
To be perfectly fair, anyone who compares 4E to WoW is showing an amount of ignorance that deserves a massive amount of flames.
The point is that the basic binding legal document of the forums - the CoC - explicitly states that [b]all members should be free from flaming regardless of their opinion[/b].
Just because you don't agree with them, or just because you think they're stupid, does not give you the right to flame them.
This is something that 4E Avengers are not capable of understanding.
I've played a LOT of 4E games since it came out. Seven different campaigns and three to four games in most of those.
I still assert that 4E is what the WOTC "designers" (It's an insult to the good game designers out there to call them that) wrote on their notebooks during WoW raids.
Ok, I'll bite. I don't think 4E is anything like WoW, but let us, for a moment assume it is.
Why is that a bad thing?
WoW has over 9,000,000 players (as of 2007 I think), Blizzard collect £8.99 (that's my crazy currency, no idea how many dollars they collect from each American, but let's assume it's the same) from each player each month. That's a lot of money. And yet, somehow, clearly, the game is a steaming pile of horsecrap? I fail to understand this logic.
Players are artificially forced into a 'role' (MMO class) and aren't allowed much creative freedom. Less so than even being allowed to pick from three talent trees. Even in WoW you had three types of your class to choose from, in 4E it's at most, two.
D&D has always had roles. They were just never given names before. Now that that aspect of the game has been simplified a bit does not mean that you aren't allowed to be creative. Parties in 3.X "needed" a defender (fighter/paladin), a healer (cleric/paladin), a damage dealer (which usually ended up being a sorcerer), a trap finding guy (rogue) etc. You weren't forced to play a certain class, it just made your party more versitile to do so.
So far no matter who chooses what, I have seen each Paladin plays the same, each Cleric plays the same, each Warlord plays the same. They better get more splat books out in a hurry (an expansion with more classes) before the faithful start seeing just how restricting these 'roles' are.
The same was true in 3.5, the only difference now is the powers make characters different, while in 3.5, it was the skills you bought. The reason each paladin felt different was that you roleplayed it differently. I played a Warlock once who was afraid of fire. Yes, some of his powers did in fact burn the opponent with fire, so I simply played that every time he did that, he had to move 3 squares away from the flaming opponent or lose a movement action on his next turn. I am pretty much 100% certain that I'm the first person to do that, and d'you know what? My Warlock was unique because of it.
You say that each paladin, for example, is "the same", but to be fair, that's probably because you went into the game thinking that. Roleplaying, style of armour, choice of weapon, personallity, attitude, alignment in 4th edition and choice of powers make each paladin feel different. I know, because we have 2 Rangers in my party, and neither of us feels like the others character at any point, because we roleplay more than we see number and stats on a page.
These edition wars you hate are interest. If these 'die down' so will interest in the game.
It's better to be spoken of unkindly than not spoken of at all.
Wrong. There's more interest in my area for 4th edition in the last 4 weeks than there have been for 3.5 in the last year and a half. There is a lot of "good" interest for the game.
It just feels like there is more hate coming from the 4E fanboys, since they shout down anyone who disagrees with them. It is just an echo chamber here.
It feels like there is the same amount of hate coming from the 3.5 "fanboys" as you put it, since all they do in come to the 4th edition forums, and basically whine about how their chosen edition only has 70 or so splatbooks (and lets face it, millions of game ideas), how 4th edition is so bad (which it's not, if you consider sales) and that 3.5 is a much better system (their opinion, which does not stop mine from being as valid as theirs).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People need to go to the forums where the edition they want to play is seen in a good light. The 3.5 "fanboys", as you put it, and the trolls can go back to the 3.5 forums, but where can the pro 4E people go? This is the forum for their chosen edition and yet threads like this pop up, marking anyone who has ever tried to defend 4E from a n idiotic troll as a "fanboy"? That's insulting in itself. (And I've actually said it to the right person this time I hope).
When so-called "4E Avengers" start posting four or five paragraphs worth of content that basically boils down to "WAAAH! The anti-4E people don't belong here! This is a place for 4E lovers only!", when the OP is just asking for help on how to enjoy 4E better, it's a problem.
If you don't like 4E there is nothing anyone can say that will suddenly make you like it (other than, possibly, "IMMA CUT YOU B***H!"). This forum isn't for 4E lovers, but it's certainly not for 4E haters. You don't see any Pro 4E people wondering into the 3.5 forums and spouting off about how much they hate that system do you? No, you don't. So why can it work in reverse?
Bluntly, there are many things I dislike about 4E. But the attitude of the 4E "fans" is the single thing I've gotten to dislike the most in these forums.
There are a number of things that I dislike as well, but the main thing is the attitude of haters who hang around here for... Well they do it to umm... Ehh... Err... You know what? I have no idea why the 4E haters continue to hanf around here. Would one of you care to enlighten me?
The point is that the basic binding legal document of the forums - the CoC - explicitly states that [b]all members should be free from flaming regardless of their opinion[/b].
Just because you don't agree with them, or just because you think they're stupid, does not give you the right to flame them.
This is something that 4E Avengers are not capable of understanding.
No matter which side you're looking at, both sides have people who have failed to grasp it. The 3.5E supporters flame because they see their beloved edition falling by the wayside and the 4E people flame because they're tired of seeing stupid challenges, nonsensical arguments, complete misunderstanding of the system basics, and comparisons that have no validity in any honest discussion of the issue.
Guess what? Change 3.5E to 3E and 4E to 3.5E in the above and you'll have the same thing that happened when 3.5E was released. It's just the same pattern that has been on these forums for a long time and will likely be on them for far longer.
As for the opinion: I'm sorry, but claiming that 4E is based off of WoW fails so hard under a basic examination that it's obvious trolling. And, guess what? Trolling is also against those same rules. Which means that the people who post it are already in violation of those rules. The fact such posts are not dealt with as deserved merely shows that it's okay to get away with certain infractions of the rules, which is why I support flaming those people.
WoW has over 9,000,000 players (as of 2007 I think), Blizzard collect £8.99 (that's my crazy currency, no idea how many dollars they collect from each American, but let's assume it's the same) from each player each month. That's a lot of money. And yet, somehow, clearly, the game is a steaming pile of horsecrap? I fail to understand this logic.
Amount of money made is not equal to good & high quality. Meth dealers bring in more $ that WoW. And meth is a stinking pile of horse crap. So, by your logic, Meth is a wonderful thing with lots of users. Good logic.
Maybe debate isn't for you?
This forum isn't for 4E lovers, but it's certainly not for 4E haters. You don't see any Pro 4E people wondering into the 3.5 forums and spouting off about how much they hate that system do you? No, you don't. So why can it work in reverse?
There is a small flaw there. WotC could care less what happens in regards to 3.5 forums that include all older editions. They only need to moderate for CoC violations not explain rules or anything like that anymore.
If someone wishes to discuss a problem they have with the new edition then if belongs in the new edition forum. They may not be a "hater" but jsut s disgruntled customer.
Since it is claimed that WotC personnel read the forums and Customer Service (WizOs) are very active on the forums, then it would stand to reason that the forums for 4th act as a line of communication to the people making the game. So those discussing the newest edition have to accept that function of the forums.
Also there is another simple rule/law to understand even for those who love every part of 4th and may not want to hear anybody saying anything about it that they dislike.
You can please some of the people all of the time,
all of the people some of the time,
but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
So even people that may like the new edition a bit may have problems with it they wish to express and/or discuss.
As for the opinion: I'm sorry, but claiming that 4E is based off of WoW fails so hard under a basic examination that it's obvious trolling. And, guess what? Trolling is also against those same rules. Which means that the people who post it are already in violation of those rules.
Okay, wait, let me clean up my coffee I just spit up... Okay, so you think a comparison of two game systems is inaccurate and thus anyone who posts saying they agree with that analogy is trolling?
Okay, wait, let me clean up my coffee I just spit up... Okay, so you think a comparison of two game systems is inaccurate and thus anyone who posts saying they agree with that analogy is trolling?
Congrats. You get my daily Fail Award. Feel free to display it proudly in your signature.
Actually, the reason why the comparison fails is because it's impossible not to find similarities. Why? Because Blizzard has been stealing ideas, concepts, and even classes from DnD for years. The entire Warcraft franchise is made of concepts stolen from DnD and Warhammer. The WoW Night Elves were admitted by them to be based on the drow, and you can see a lot of DnD influences and ideas implemented throughout the entire game, as well as a lot of ones from Warhammer.
So, yes, 4E is going to seem similar to WoW. So is every edition of DnD that isn't set in a modern or futuristic setting. And you can bet that the moment they change settings, Blizzard will probably steal that as well.
Congrats. You get my daily Fail Award. Feel free to display it proudly in your signature.
No, problem. As long as in your infinite wisdom, you don't think I'm trolling when making analogies you don't agree with.
Yeah. And the "attitude" poster's opening statement is "I made these exact same comments and got flamed for it by rabid fanboys".
Interesting then, isn't it, that he claims he made the exact same comments and got flamed, and yet the poster in this thread who made those 'exact same comments' is getting legitimate and reasonable replies?
Don't worry, WotC is not sending in the brown shirts to take your precious from you.
And I see a lot of 1st ed book avatars around here. What's the chance you guys are still playing that version you apparently pine for so greatly?
I am amused that you swing both ways lol.
No, problem. As long as in your infinite wisdom, you don't think I'm trolling when making analogies you don't agree with.
XD
Nah. If you're disagreeing with me, that's one thing. I'm evil, so it's only natural to disagree with me on some issues. Active trolling is another.
It doesn't swing both ways i am afraid. Most 3.5 fans would concede that there were issues with certain aspects of the system.
I am amused that you swing both ways lol.
At the time of release, most 3.5E fans wouldn't admit there were any faults to the system when arguing with 3E fans. However, among themselves, they griped about some faults that came into play.
You see the same issue going on with 4E, if you look carefully.
At the time of release, most 3.5E fans wouldn't admit there were any faults to the system when arguing with 3E fans. However, among themselves, they griped about some faults that came into play.
You see the same issue going on with 4E, if you look carefully.
Unfortunately, i missed that whole shindig. If it was anything like the current edition shift i shudder to think.....
I'm sure there will be issues with 4e, but there's no need to throw it in people's faces. Especially if you're never going to play with them nor play that edition of the game.
I also suggest folks make use of the ignore user feature. It's there for a reason.
Unfortunately, i missed that whole shindig. If it was anything like the current edition shift i shudder to think.....
It was worse. That's all I will say on it.
I also suggest folks make use of the ignore user feature. It's there for a reason.
I find it to be a sad, sad day when that is the suggested method of dealing with others. "If you don't like it, ignore it" should never be an advised solution to any problem. Yet, more and more, I see that as the method people advise in internet communities.
I find it to be a sad, sad day when that is the suggested method of dealing with others. "If you don't like it, ignore it" should never be an advised solution to any problem. Yet, more and more, I see that as the method people advise in internet communities.
Ignore is great. I've got 38 people on ignore right now thanks to the edition wars. :D Albeit a lot of them are the same user, but ah well.
I find it to be a sad, sad day when that is the suggested method of dealing with others. "If you don't like it, ignore it" should never be an advised solution to any problem. Yet, more and more, I see that as the method people advise in internet communities.
Then what's the alternative? Full blown Code of Conduct violations until everyone is banned or leaves in disgust?
I mean, I never liked psionics, but I also didn't go to the psionics board to cause problems. What's the expected result of someone going to a board where people like something only to trash it? The only point would be to poke people with sticks and get them mad, while I would sit back and laugh. How many times do you see "Don't feed the trolls?" posted? When does that ever work? The ignore feature is there, it should be used.
Some folks have actual concerns about 4e. There are other folks who are very helpful and want to explain things. They get labeled as "fanboys". Meanwhile the folks that want their concerns addressed get chased off because some people they will probably never ever meet, much less get the chance to play ANY version of D&D is trying to get them on their "side".
Someone never intending to play 4e or making intentional inflammatory statements isn't trying to be a part of the community.
This isn't permission for folks who like 4e to jump down people's throats about playing 4e. Some people that had concerns tried it, and they didn't like it. That's fine. So is discussing various faults of the game, as that is the only way to find solutions and fixes for the game.
But the key here is to discuss and work through the issues, not just rant about them. "4e sux!" is NOT a discussion. "I want gnomes to be a core race" can start a discussion.
But as I stated, there are people who aren't interested in fixes to the game. They just want to poke people with sharp sticks and laugh about it. Nor is it cool to spread blatant lies in order to get a reaction from the community. "There is no roleplaying in 4e" would be an example, as the 4e DMG is FILLED with discussions on roleplaying. How to do it, how to make it work, character backgrounds and so on.
I don't see the so called "fanboys" going to the previous edition board to cause problems.
I think the first step in toning things down a bit is to stop the name calling. No more "haters" and "Fanboys".
They are not numerous, but very "loud". They may be helpful to some, but to new posters they make sure to jump to the defense of WotC and 4th edition by the old provebial way...the best defense is a good offense.
Granted some of those "new" posters on the subject of 4th are old forums members that are new to 4th, but it doesn't matter.
Maybe a way to help with toning down the labels would be to add a new filter to the forums and block 4venger(s) so people cannot even post it and all existances of the term are ****'d out. An any other lobael that people have adopted to group themselves as though on some side of a war?
Ignore is great. I've got 38 people on ignore right now thanks to the edition wars. :D Albeit a lot of them are the same user, but ah well.
Heh. I'm not arguing against the use of it, but the advising of it. Honestly, I find that it makes for a very bad community where people are outright advised to ignore anything they disagree with heavily. If that were the human solution to everything, a lot of human society wouldn't function.
Then what's the alternative? Full blown Code of Conduct violations until everyone is banned or leaves in disgust?
Amazingly, that's never happened in a lot of communities that don't have the ignore feature. Why? Because lacking it forces them to deal with the problem. The ignore function is simply a way of trying to solve a problem by putting your hands over your ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when it's advised as a way to deal with disagreements.
I mean, I never liked psionics, but I also didn't go to the psionics board to cause problems. What's the expected result of someone going to a board where people like something only to trash it? The only point would be to poke people with sticks and get them mad, while I would sit back and laugh. How many times do you see "Don't feed the trolls?" posted? When does that ever work? The ignore feature is there, it should be used.
The ignore feature doesn't stop trolls either. What do you think they do when ignored? Go away? No, they roll a new account and, if necessary, bypass a certain banning function (method removed by myself on consideration that some may try it after I emntion it). Ignoring them is just another form of giving them attention, as either way it proves to them that they've gotten your attention and gotten you reacting enough to do something. If they really want to have fun, what they do is create five accounts, then troll with four and do attacks on their own accounts with one of them. Then they let the reactions of people take over and instant flame war.
If you want to combat trolling, you have a set of moderators who know what they're doing, including at least one who has a program that can sniff through that certain method. Set it up right and you can block someone no matter what IP they use until they change computers (note that some also use multiple computers, but they're not exactly difficult to deal with either).
Some folks have actual concerns about 4e. There are other folks who are very helpful and want to explain things. They get labeled as "fanboys". Meanwhile the folks that want their concerns addressed get chased off because some people they will probably never ever meet, much less get the chance to play ANY version of D&D is trying to get them on their "side".
And you're saying they're not fanboys? Everyone on this forum that posts is a fanboy to some degree. We're all here because we like DnD. The difference is sometimes the edition that we like. While some attempt to use the term in a derogatory manner, they forget that they are also people to whom the term applies, just in a different way. While I agree that the term is being misused, I would like to point out that these forums have other words that have more derogatory meanings that could stand getting banned first. But, you can't ban them for other reasons.
Someone never intending to play 4e or making intentional inflammatory statements isn't trying to be a part of the community.
Asking people to use the ignore feature or stop using certain terms won't make those people go away. Considering how easy it is to create a new account, they'll just keep trying until they get a reaction. Want to stop it? Then deal with them or wait for them to get bored and go away.
This isn't permission for folks who like 4e to jump down people's throats about playing 4e. Some people that had concerns tried it, and they didn't like it. That's fine. So is discussing various faults of the game, as that is the only way to find solutions and fixes for the game.
But the key here is to discuss and work through the issues, not just rant about them. "4e sux!" is NOT a discussion. "I want gnomes to be a core race" can start a discussion.
Nice, but all depends on how it's worded as well. "4E sux," followed by a legitimate list of problems with the game combined with issues about playstyle of the poster, can be a very legitimate discussion... while half of the threads I've seen on "I want gnomes to be a core race" honestly should be deleted as a waste of time due to a combination of whining and lack of actual intent to discuss. Most people simply jump the gun and assume too quick.
But as I stated, there are people who aren't interested in fixes to the game. They just want to poke people with sharp sticks and laugh about it. Nor is it cool to spread blatant lies in order to get a reaction from the community. "There is no roleplaying in 4e" would be an example, as the 4e DMG is FILLED with discussions on roleplaying. How to do it, how to make it work, character backgrounds and so on.
There is an actual, legitimate concern about that. One I've made it a point to shoot down as often as I can, but I have to admit it is a legitimate concern just the same. The issue is that 4E removed a lot of the pointless skills that aided in RP. Before, you rolled a die or set of dice and reacted to them to see how well your RP worked on something. Now, you're actually up against the pure judgement of the DM on those items and your own RP skill. Admittedly, some people don't have the RP skill to pull off the backgrounds they want, thus being possibly hampered in their RP as a result whereas, before, they had a saving grace in the die roll.
I think the first step in toning things down a bit is to stop the name calling. No more "haters" and "Fanboys".
In my experience: Nope. That merely means that people will shift to being more snide and using other ways of insulting each other. In fact, I remember plenty of heated discussions that mods on these forums had to intervene in where there was no name calling at all. Unfortunately, the only ways I see to deal with it are either bans of the main ones causing the problems or simply waiting it out while this cools down.
The reason why I make those statements is patterns of interaction. I've found that, despite how much humanity likes to pride itself in being intelligent, you really can predict the actions of humans in the same manner you can predict the actions of other animals. Humans are, by choice, creatures of habit. They will, in given situations, react in certain ways. Unconciously, groups of people who think alike also fall into habits, such as the habit of every DnD edition coming with an edition fight, certain sequences in how it progresses, and the eventual forces conversion of most of those who complained. The key to breaking this habit is to introduce variables into the equation that are outside the norm for the pattern.
Question is, how do you break the pattern and still make it so that it seems like the new edition is openly something exciting? The answer might be open beta testing. Let players download and test certain mechanics months before the actual edition is released. Even if all they're doing is playing around with things you changed anyway, allowing them to do feedback on problems with it and areas of improvement gives the illusion that the entire community is helping to build the next edition. If you do that with the more extreme changes, then there may be a lot less bickering when the actual edition rolls out, as by that point a lot of players will already be familiar with it and even have the feeling they helped shape how it evolved. And then everyone who wants to complain about the new editions gets to hear, "you had your chance to help shape the current edition of DnD." The tradeoff of this is all of the excess free marketting that WotC gets from doing this.
As for the current problem: Go after the trouble makers. Keep an eye out and notice which topics seem to look like they're intended to cause flames. Then just openly ban those particular ones on a temporary basis. People will get the hint pretty quickly. I know if I notice the rules say to avoid talking about WoW and several topics get closed with strong mod comments about it, I certain dodge them. With the idea that there's more of a result than simply getting ignored or starting a flame war, there should be an improvement in posts. A good example of intentional trolling is the DnD = WoW argument.
I'm still using both 3.5 and 4.0, and all I got to say is that the 4.0 General board is virtually unusable due to all the "I hate 4.0!" crap threads on it.
Some people have no perspective. Too young. Get off my lawn!!!
I find it to be a sad, sad day when that is the suggested method of dealing with others. "If you don't like it, ignore it" should never be an advised solution to any problem. Yet, more and more, I see that as the method people advise in internet communities.
It's not surprising that that is what is being advised. It's the modus operandi for community management, or community leads...that is when they're not wearing their snarky hats and looking for someone to brow beat.
that is when they're not wearing their snarky hats and looking for someone to brow beat.
Could you give an actual example of this?
Could you give an actual example of this?
GZ v Autumn
GZ v Autumn
Ok, that doesn't tell me anything.
Ok, that doesn't tell me anything.
I think that means Gamer_Zer0 vs WizO_Autumn.
I think that means Gamer_Zer0 vs WizO_Autumn.
Lets not bring that up. Bad juju.
Lets not bring that up. Bad juju.
ok.
I don't see the so called "fanboys" going to the previous edition board to cause problems.
Not really. It's just that less people "take the bait" in the old edition forums.
I think the first step in toning things down a bit is to stop the name calling. No more "haters" and "Fanboys".
When some are pretty much self-proclaiming themselves to be fanboys, name-calling is inevitable.
I've read this thread and people are saying that it is annoying to see either side start yet another thread, yet I can't find one that cleary identifies itself as an opinion thread. So before I start yet another of these thread, can someone direct me to one.
So outside of this edition war, where would one post their opinion/review of this new edition?
I've read this thread and people are saying that it is annoying to see either side start yet another thread, yet I can't find one that cleary identifies itself as an opinion thread. So before I start yet another of these thread, can someone direct me to one.
There are lots of opinion threads. I wouldn't advise starting one unless your opinion is EXTREMELY pro 4.0.
There are lots of opinion threads. I wouldn't advise starting one unless your opinion is EXTREMELY pro 4.0.
I just wouldn't recommend starting a thread AT ALL. There are more than enough from either side. Post it in the first impressions thread, that's where it belongs.
There are lots of opinion threads. I wouldn't advise starting one unless your opinion is EXTREMELY pro 4.0.
This thing swing both ways.
Plus, as DC said.
But to be fair, it's anyone given right to come speak up about what they like/dislike about the new system, or any product for that matter, as long as they arent flat out attacking anyone here or blatantly misinterrpreting the rules for the sake of their own argument. If they are trying to complain about something that has been proven false on many counts, then fine, shoot em down. But I have seen a lot of genuine posts simply stating "Hey, I tried it, it doesnt play the way I wanted it to, I dont like it. Moving on..." and have seen said person get flamed to death by 4e fans with itchy trigger-fingers. Its like you're not allowed to have any kind of negative opinion of 4e witout getting shot down, ripped apart, and interrogated. Doesnt matter what game it is, people should be allowed to at least give their opinions.
This is probably a defense mechanism from all the attacks 4e got by die hard 3rd ed players, but the majority of them are moving on. If a player cant come and give a reasonable opinion of why they dont like the game then how will WotC ever know what to improve? Already in this very thread I see attacks on 3e players intelligence and fingers pointed, and nobody said anything bad about 4e yet. Even players like me who got the books, tried them out, and made a judgement based on actual game experience have gotten flamed just for having the nerve to question the almighty new system.
Yep, the main problem that official wotc staff is supporting the 4ed fans by repetously deleting all intelligent and constructive but still negative critics about the 4thed. I myself posted about 5 quiet long posts about all my good and bad opinion about the 4thed. All gone now, and i am gonetired writing them again and again. So any1 seeing through the forums see only tat 3rd "anacronics" shouting bloody spit on the new edition, and there is no real intelligent criticism. There is lots of good stuff in the new ed and still has a lot of serious problems, but the problematic stuff is somehow seems smothered up by wotc, which is the worst behavior because its supporting the flame of battle between the eds, which is a pointless one. There will always be people who wanna stick with old stuff... there is lot of people out there still playing the first edition of the game.
I see the main problem is that 4th ed is made to be an action based wargame with a hint of rpg in there. It looks like an MMO offline. Fights are great fun, and a good simulation with a bunch unrealistic elements, but they are just for making mor fun and action. So thats good. My main problem is that charcters and their abilities are streamlined, which is a good thing but also "straightlined" which makes them less variable and customizable. I am looking forward for accessories solving that, hich is a good business strategy, although can quiet upsetting for funs urging for game material info. The worst change about the new edition for me is 2 things firstly the chang in the magic system which I think changed some of the good thing of dnd's magic ways and still got all the worst aspects. But that can be changed in the future by some products similar to 3.5 ed's Unearthed Arcana maybe. The second and most problematic thing is multiclassing (or the lack of it?). It kills a player's all effort towards making a unique and interesting character. I shockedly see posts that arguing about the 3.5 's customizability, that their players made weird combinations and seeking power maxing through it. Man, if you are a DM, then you need to regulate your campaign. There always be weird players and strange rules, and simply limiting the game and possibilites are not a solution at all. And the way things changing upsets me a bit, because it seems that the most popular RPG ever, which made a base for all the MMO's and CRPG games seems that it wants to resemble these games which is a weird turnabout. I played the D&D minis, its a lot of fun, but I played D&D for a very different reason. And the difference between these to different things are seems to fade away which can be only a bad thing for the real "roleplaying game" which is not a way identical with the term "Action based tactical wargame in a medieval fantasy setting". And I see that the sockdolager for the 4th ed's succes is the hugeselling rate, which blinds the guys at wotc and makes them think that they invented the "Spanish Wax". Which is an illusion because think about that game which has a 30 years of succes and the most huge fanbase of all of the RPG's ever made. And not to mention that this was the very first one! So every fan expected to buy the new release, even if they don't know anything about it.
The basic problem is if you don't believe 4E is perfect and without sin, the 4E inquisition comes after. If you notice similarities between WoW (without even saying that is a bad thing) and 4E in terms of mechanics, the 4E crowd comes at you with a bunch of specious talk about WoW being based on D&D anyways, so 4E is ultimiately just borrowing from itself (clearly people are talking about the powers, the healing surges and the roles when they make this observation anyways). The 4E crowd wont even acknowledge that these are ultimately subjective opinions that people should be free to have. It is as if I walked into their forum said "Gee I don't really like the color yellow, its too bright for my tastes", and they respond by saying "How dare you! Prove that it is too bright! Show me evidence of its brightness! How could anyone believe it is brighter than red or green! I am going to invent a fallacy to show you how wrong you are! Bow down and worship the color yellow!"
I am feeling the same... and worst it is hardly supported by staff of wotc. When I heard that there will be a new edition I looked forward it. WOTC started to announce things that suggested finally they go to that direction when they making their developments based on the needs of the people who actually play the game, so they are sensible to players' opinions. It turned about that they don't... I can say the example by the opinions of my playing group only... and they just don't like the new edition... they are ok with the changes in the combat system, they don't care about the new fewer alignments, or healing surges... they only see that they can't convert they favourite characters to the new system (without limiting them, simplifying and just couldn't be the same). And it is not just about the converion or compatibility... it's about that they can't make interesting characters, all chars just feel like another fighter, or another rogue of the thousands.. just like in a CRPG. My group is playing together since 12 years, and almost every member plays RPGs more than 15 years ago. Almost all of us take place as DM's as well, and we have all our running games as a gamemaster. 3 of us have characters being played years ago and I myself has a char which I made 15 years ago and I am still playing with it (of course in an Epic campaign..) and he survived 1st and 2nd AD&D... finally got really unique in 3rd and became really powerful with Epic Rules in 3.5ed. Now should he became a mere wizard with almost only combat powers and without hint of any unique flavor...? Also when advancing they character have a very straight path only with no real choices in abilities and powers without having the char just silly or underpowered. They feel that all characters are limited to its combat role in the group and forced to be specialized and generalized.
I just wouldn't recommend starting a thread AT ALL. There are more than enough from either side. Post it in the first impressions thread, that's where it belongs.
Yup. nobody ever post a new thread because there is already one for any topic that may want to be discussed, so if you want to post a new thread fo to another forum because this one doesn't allow that nonsense.
Frankly, as someone who is a fan of 4E I find it embarrassing.
The basic problem is if you don't believe 4E is perfect and without sin, the 4E inquisition comes after.
As I have already shown earlier in this thread, this is not true. Reasonable and constructive criticism will be met with reasonable and constructive replies. Pointless and ill mannered criticism will be met with pointless and ill mannered replies (although even then, some of the people you call fanboys will still attempt to be reasonable and polite).
I have to say that at this point the insults, juvenile behavior, and nastiness in the forums is coming more from the pro-4E crowd than anyone else (as opposed to a couple month ago or more, where it was the anti-4E group).
Frankly, as someone who is a fan of 4E I find it embarrassing.
Yep, but I think that the juvenile and sometimes imbecile stuff comes because they ARE Juvenile... and most of them is a WOW subsciber too
But to be serious, it seems that they searching for a fanbase of young bloody-bills... and they seemes to succeed. The good thing that they might learn that the term RPG is not equivalent of the term Hank'nSlash action game... which can be a good thing because RPGs can establish a new fanbase not only sour old guys like me.... no, really Im a just 28 :P
As I have already shown earlier in this thread, this is not true. Reasonable and constructive criticism will be met with reasonable and constructive replies. Pointless and ill mannered criticism will be met with pointless and ill mannered replies (although even then, some of the people you call fanboys will still attempt to be reasonable and polite).
The problem is that Reasonable and constructive criticism is being deleted after a couple of days....
As I have already shown earlier in this thread, this is not true. Reasonable and constructive criticism will be met with reasonable and constructive replies. Pointless and ill mannered criticism will be met with pointless and ill mannered replies (although even then, some of the people you call fanboys will still attempt to be reasonable and polite).
Then we disagree what constitutes reasonable and constructive crititcism. Because every thread I have read where someone says I don't enjoy 4e because of X, results in the OP being flamed. I suggest you look at the pro 4e posts more critically.
Then we disagree what constitutes reasonable and constructive crititcism. Because every thread I have read where someone says I don't enjoy 4e because of X, results in the OP being flamed. I suggest you look at the pro 4e posts more critically.
Yeah, this is true. But not everyone flames them. It's a usual group of suspects that jumps in to flame. There are actually people who try to post constructive answers to the criticisms.
Then we disagree what constitutes reasonable and constructive crititcism. Because every thread I have read where someone says I don't enjoy 4e because of X, results in the OP being flamed. I suggest you look at the pro 4e posts more critically.
And once again, this was clearly not the case in the thread I linked to a day or two ago. The only one that was being cantankerous was someone who disliked 4E. If you like, I can find you more threads like this.
I suspect you are only looking at the threads where you know there will be arguments and spats, and avoiding the ones which will be mostly reasoned and constructive.
When 4E was just released, people who enjoyed 4E were in this forum complaining that their threads were constantly being disrupted by anti-4E people.
And now we have anti-4E people complaining about how pro-4E people are disrupting their threads.
The solution now is the same as the solution I gave back then.
- Don't respond to the people attempting to disrupt your thread.
- Disagreement is not disruption.
- If someone is threadcrapping[2], report the post.
- Respond to posts where people make intelligent arguments that allow for further discussion.
[1] Ironic, Karma biting you on the butt funny.
[2] Threadcrapping is going into a thread on topic A, and then deliberately posting something that does not further the discussion. For example: In a thread on the skill system is inadequate for your campaign style, looking for ideas on how to modify it:
OPThe players in my group like RPing the down time, and find that the current skill system is simply not detailed enough to cover the things (crafting, jobs, etc) that they want to do. Does anyone have any crafting/professions skill systems that they have created that I could use??
[Response 1]I am playing a similar campaign, and my players are loving the freedom of the new skill system. They have not had a problem just writing their skill backgrounds in their backgrounds and going from there. Here is the way that we do it...
[Response 2]Have you tried adding in skill system A8 from The Big Book of Skill Systems by Wierd Guys Press.
[Response 3]The skill system in 4E rocks!!
Response 3 is threadcrapping. You can report it and, as long as you include enough detail so that the WizO getting the report knows that it is threadcrapping, they should do something. If you just report it, the WizO may not be able to determine *why* it is threadcrapping.
Note that disagreement with the topic of a thread, and doing so in a manner that is polite, and allows for further discussion is not threadcrapping nor is it disruption.
I'm sorry, but claiming that 4E is based off of WoW fails so hard under a basic examination that it's obvious trolling.
You saying that something is trolling doesn't make it so. Regardless of what you think of the opinion expressed.
To be perfectly fair, anyone who compares 4E to WoW is showing an amount of ignorance that deserves a massive amount of flames.
You saying flaming is acceptable doesn't make it so. Regardless of what you think of the opinion expressed.
It feels like there is the same amount of hate coming from the 3.5 "fanboys" as you put it, since all they do in come to the 4th edition forums, and basically whine about how their chosen edition only has 70 or so splatbooks (and lets face it, millions of game ideas), how 4th edition is so bad (which it's not, if you consider sales) and that 3.5 is a much better system (their opinion, which does not stop mine from being as valid as theirs).
OK sure, there are people who say things along the lines of "4th edition is disgusting I will never touch the books or read them lolzlolzlolz grrrr watch me foam at the mouth". But I don't care about them. I don't advocate their defense. Nor is that the intent of the OP.
However, as a person who actually owns the new books, it is my right as a customer of WotC to express my opinion of things as long as I don't violate the CoC. And, as is my right, there may be things about the new system which I find questionable, or not understand. Now, when you have a raging pack of flamethirsty "Avengers" running around, shoving the perfectness of 4E down your throat (having started doing so before the edition was released) and (this is really what irkes me) posting "witty" one liners about the person's intellegence, almost always followed by the following smiley "
" then that is a problem for the forum.The WoW thing is a whole other issue. Sure, saying 4E = WoW is silly. However, as someone who has played WoW, the similarities are obvious. This isn't a bad thing, I play WoW for a reason (which is that I enjoy it) and I know that WoW was based on D&D, so I don't mind any similiarites. However, according to "Avenger" dogma, the fact that I can see similiarities between these two fantasy games I play makes me a class A moron who is too inept to tie his own shoes, let alone be allowed on a forum. In fact, according to Avenger dogma, it is surprising that I have even the most basic ability to type, because, *clearly*, anyone who sees any similarities between the new edition and wow is too stupid to exist.
Luckily for me, I, despite being too stupid to exist, know enough about the drama to avoid posting anything involving WoW. However, it still makes me livid, purely on principle, when I see some clown using a reference to WoW as a launching pad to start a flame war and/or make snide comments about the other poster's mental capacity. What really bothers me though is that this is tolerated. Saying "4E=WoW", while clearly ill advised, is not against the CoC. Calling other posters stupid, or insinuating such, is.
When some are pretty much self-proclaiming themselves to be fanboys, name-calling is inevitable.
This. I don't condone name calling, but when you have a subset of people who proudly proclaim their 4E Avenger status in their sigs, then it comes into the picture regardless.
The basic problem is if you don't believe 4E is perfect and without sin, the 4E inquisition comes after. If you notice similarities between WoW (without even saying that is a bad thing) and 4E in terms of mechanics, the 4E crowd comes at you with a bunch of specious talk about WoW being based on D&D anyways, so 4E is ultimiately just borrowing from itself (clearly people are talking about the powers, the healing surges and the roles when they make this observation anyways). The 4E crowd wont even acknowledge that these are ultimately subjective opinions that people should be free to have. It is as if I walked into their forum said "Gee I don't really like the color yellow, its too bright for my tastes", and they respond by saying "How dare you! Prove that it is too bright! Show me evidence of its brightness! How could anyone believe it is brighter than red or green! I am going to invent a fallacy to show you how wrong you are! Bow down and worship the color yellow!"
This. Lordflashheart earns a cookie.
And now we have anti-4E people complaining about how pro-4E people are disrupting their threads.
No, you have reasonable, moderate people complaining about how overzealous pro-4E people are disrupting their threads. The OP made it quite clear that he wan't supporting the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books" movement.
The WoW thing is a whole other issue. Sure, saying 4E = WoW is silly. However, as someone who has played WoW, the similarities are obvious.
This is an excellent point. The automatic flame of anyone who brings up WoW or MMOs is ridiculous. The influence been commented upon by every person, without exception, who I've played 4E with. They're not commenting on them in a negative way either. Just noting the influence. It's so self-evident to me that I expect it to be part of an initial impression to 4E by someone who has ever played an MMO.
That said, trying to say 4E is equivalent to WoW or any other MMO is nonsense. There are clearly influences - didn't the Devs even say as much? They'd be foolish not to look around at what is happening in the genre and take inspiration and ideas from it.
People who want nothing more than to flame use any raising of the MMO topic as a mere excuse to flame. That's my view.
No, you have reasonable, moderate people complaining about how overzealous pro-4E people are disrupting their threads.
Please give me examples of reasonable, moderate threads that are being disrupted by pro-4E people.
The OP made it quite clear that he wan't supporting the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books" movement.
Where?
As I have already shown earlier in this thread, this is not true. Reasonable and constructive criticism will be met with reasonable and constructive replies. Pointless and ill mannered criticism will be met with pointless and ill mannered replies (although even then, some of the people you call fanboys will still attempt to be reasonable and polite).
I'm just gonna bounce off of this quote with a few ramblings of my own:
In most cases this holds true: If you state something clearly as your thought/opinion that yes, you can normally expect reasonable and constructive replies in return.
It's not true here however. Most of the time we try to put on an air of "intellectual superiority" (especially when fighting). In truth however, we are all a bunch of rude, inconsiderate, loud-mouthed jerks (why deny it?).
The internet is an excellent place to show of our Big Brain (after all, who's gonna know any different?). It's an even better place to pick a fight with another Brainiac. "You're so smart, prove it!" As in any fight, less brain, more brawn, then becomes the order of the day. Either that, or run, Forrest, run! (which isn't likely to occur on the internet); we're all relatively anonymous here, no need to run and hide behind mommy's skirt ;).
I get the juvenile, playground bully, attitude, I really do. It's the internet, I expect nothing more. Still, if we are as *smart* as we say we are, the thing to do would be to act like adults (at least some of us are). I ain't holding my breath though.
Please give me examples of reasonable, moderate threads that are being disrupted by pro-4E people.
It was (un)surprisingly easy to find one.
Step 1 - I open a thread I havent looked at before
Umbral; "Hmm, ok, the guy is saying that there are some things he would like to keep from 3.5, and he would like to discuss as much... Possibly interesting, I have had similiar thoughts about maybe wanting to keep some things... Lets read further..."
Step 2 - Read the first response to thread
Umbral; "Oh look, its some guy being abrasive and posting dismissivly. How nice."
Step 3 - Stop Reading
Umbral; "This has put me off the thread now. I am going to stop reading now, since I know if I read further I will get involved which I don't want to do. Maybe I will just avoid the forums in general, since they are so nasty nowadays..."
And there you have it. Simple three step example of how someone who isn't a h4ter can be put off the forums. I didn't even have to look for a whole minute.
[edit: and look, I succomb to the temptation to look a bit further in the thread, and yes, it was derailed with plenty of "grrr, your 3.5 (insert 3.5 feature here, alignment in this case) is crap, regardless of how you think or feel" style posts.
Where?
If you look at the very origional post...
But has only been out for about a month, and people are still posting their reactions.
This is clearly in reference to people who have bought the 4E books, therefore excluding the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books movement" I mentioned.
I shouldn't find this funny, but it is.
When 4E was just released, people who enjoyed 4E were in this forum complaining that their threads were constantly being disrupted by anti-4E people.
And now we have anti-4E people complaining about how pro-4E people are disrupting their threads.
Or how funny is it that someone saying that not everything in 4E is automatically anti-4E?
There have been new forums users that get attacked for stating something that has been said before.
Well they tried to search for a similar topic using probably search the thread title, but there was no thread with that title so they started a new one figuring it had not been mentioned before.
Then people tell them to search for previous threads created about the topic after they already said they have done so.
BUT WAIT! Why were they unable to find the older thread on the topic? Because the thread was more than likely folded into the megathread so it is impossible to find a thread created on a particular topic because everything has been folded into one giant mass thread that combines 400 different topics.
So those pro-4E are allowed to roam around trying to run people off because they didn't read the entirety of the 100 or so pages of some megathread to know if other threads had been folded into it, and if they tried to they may have gotten very confused because of the number of threads in there with post out of order so you can never tell what is going on.
Very good of a person in CM to state that someone mentioning a single problem they may have with 4th and not worshipping every last piece of it as anti-4E.
Again a very welcome atmosphere these forums give.
Or how funny is it that someone saying that not everything in 4E is automatically anti-4E?
I am not sure that you read and understood the rest of my posts. It should have been pretty clear that it is an "ironic" funny that i am getting at, not a laugh-out-loud funny.
There have been new forums users that get attacked for stating something that has been said before.
That is not a problem with being pro-4E or anti-4E. That is a problem with people (that are attacking the new forum poster) that are being morons.
This has nothing to do with the mega-thread, so I am not sure why you are trying to make a connection.
Very good of a person in CM to state that someone mentioning a single problem they may have with 4th and not worshipping every last piece of it as anti-4E.
Who is this person in CM that said this?
I'm just gonna bounce off of this quote with a few ramblings of my own:
In most cases this holds true: If you state something clearly as your thought/opinion that yes, you can normally expect reasonable and constructive replies in return.
I'm just gonna bounce off of this quote with a few ramblings of my own:
ANYTHING said by someone on any forum ever unless they are part of the administration or creator or legal owner of the thing being discussed IS an opinion.
You never have to state it as such because it is inherent.
The OP then came on and called the first replier a "dick" and a "mindless slave".
The person came back on, did not respond in kind, and made more constructive suggestions. Shortly after that someone else came in with a substantive defense of the nine alignments and it all turned into a pretty stereotypical alignment debate.
But that thread isn't a very good example of someone pro-4E derailing a constructive criticism of 4th. If anything he responded to the criticism in a specific and non-insulting productive manner.
Here are some more threads where specific criticisms of 4th did not devolve into flamefests.
[thread=1060649]Dex to Damage with Bows[/thread]
[thread=1055414]4e and Role-Playing[/thread], notwithstanding being a Psychotic_Robot thread, started out quite productive for a few pages, anyway, at least until P_R responded to the thread and made it clear he wasn't actually going to listen to any of the productive suggestions. At that point it turned into a flame war.
[thread=1056963]4th edition less magical?[/thread] was a specific complaint about the flavor of magic, which was, of all things, threadcapped by an anti-4E poster in the second post, with the "if we wanted a tabletop mmo, we'd use the WoW tabletop RPG", which sadly derailed the entire thread into the old "4th edition = WoW" arguments, and which wasn't a part of the OP. Notwithstanding that, several people did make attempts to make productive responses to the OP, though often with snide comments directed at the second poster.
Those are the active threads critical of specific aspects of 4th that I now see in the General Forum. I don't see much evidence of "4E Avengers" threadcapping them. But it is admittedly a small sample.
This is clearly in reference to people who have bought the 4E books
That's not clear to me. It seemed to me he was saying that people upset about the change can't be expected to have gotten over it after a month. Such people may or may not have bought the books, so I don't see how that statement says anything one way or another about the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books movement"
That's not clear to me. It seemed to me he was saying that people upset about the change can't be expected to have gotten over it after a month. Such people may or may not have bought the books, so I don't see how that statement says anything one way or another about the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books movement"
I had people who read the books and played in mind. People who don't bother to try something out, obviously have nothing to base their opinions on (like people who hate a movie they have never seen, or people who condemn RPGs while never having played them. I believe I clarified this in a later post, but I could be wrong.
I'm just gonna bounce off of this quote with a few ramblings of my own:
ANYTHING said by someone on any forum ever unless they are part of the administration or creator or legal owner of the thing being discussed IS an opinion.
You never have to state it as such because it is inherent.
I agree (on the inherent part, but it's not always recognized). However, in my experience, it's still best to state your opinions and thoughts up front, as such. Then you can honestly say, "Hey, I tried!"
That is not a problem with being pro-4E or anti-4E. That is a problem with people (that are attacking the new forum poster) that are being morons.
This has nothing to do with the mega-thread, so I am not sure why you are trying to make a connection.
The last thing I will leave for the C&C for CM thread if/when my subscriptions return again for the 2nd time.
For these two....
Yes some people thing they have superiority from having seniority on a forum. Sadly after decades this can not be ended because of how the rest of the world treats it as true. Schmucks will be schmucks. But it doesn't deny the fact that there are those attacking new posters because the post does not fully agree with every little aspect of 4th edition.
I think the megathread is involved here. Think if those threads had not been folded. A new user could have easily read a few threads and saw that someone else had already mentioned something that they are repeating. Without those threads being individual and independent the "fanboys" can run around saying a thread doesn't have a right to exist due to the precedent set by the megathread feeling empowered by it. This goes true as well when a good thread is closed because ANY opposing side comes in and causes havoc to derail or start a flame war. The thread creator is punished by having the topic removed from allowance because of the people that come in and destroy it. A problem with moderation still that adds to the problem.
Like I have said about D&D, it goes the same with forums. Everything is not independent from other things, and the megathread tries to prove that, but fails in that it does so in the wrong way.
Little things add up and compound larger issues into bigger problems.
4th edition itself was created with the goal of removing the little problems that add up to make bigger problems. Thus R&D was asked to decide how some forums would be handled, thus we have role-based forums.....
All these things meld together into the problems being had with "fanboys". There actions are condoned by WotC because of the megathread, and the way moderation would closed a thread because of those who derail it or start a flamewar in it.
If you always look forward when driving, then you wont see the careening truck that smashes into you on the driver side of your car. You have to look all around to really see what is going on.
People who don't bother to try something out, obviously have nothing to base their opinions on (like people who hate a movie they have never seen, or people who condemn RPGs while never having played them. I believe I clarified this in a later post, but I could be wrong.
Hogwash!
I haven't seen many B&W movies and don't like them. I base this on the poor quality image of moving greyscale images.
When it is remade or colorized then it might be a movie worth watching. It is called personal preference and no one has a right to belittle anothers opinion because the criteria it is based on it different from their own.
People who don't want to be playing some sit around the table telling stories game has every right not to like them, but none to tell others they don't have the right to like them.
Hogwash!
I haven't seen many B&W movies and don't like them. I base this on the poor quality image of moving greyscale images.
But there is a big difference in making a prior judgement on a type of film (B&W movies, based on your example) where the experience is mostly passive, and a game with rules, where it is interactive, and the reactions of the other peopl atround the table have a very large influence on how you feel about the game.
It is called personal preference and no one has a right to belittle anothers opinion because the criteria it is based on it different from their own.
Belittle, no. Everyone's opinion is their own, and they have every right to hold their opinion.
However, that old line about everyones opinion being equal??
They aren't.
It was (un)surprisingly easy to find one.
Then you should give me the link to the one you found, because the thread in this link does not show a pro-4E poster starting a flame war.
This is clearly in reference to people who have bought the 4E books, therefore excluding the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books movement" I mentioned.
Your reaching to try to find an example in the statement you showed would do Reed Richards proud.
Hogwash!
I haven't seen many B&W movies and don't like them. I base this on the poor quality image of moving greyscale images.
When it is remade or colorized then it might be a movie worth watching. It is called personal preference and no one has a right to belittle anothers opinion because the criteria it is based on it different from their own.
People who don't want to be playing some sit around the table telling stories game has every right not to like them, but none to tell others they don't have the right to like them.
I just don't think a persons opinion about black and white movies has as much weight if they haven't seen any. You must at least have seen some if you feel the picture quality isn't as good. Even then, that is more a comment on the image quality than the quality of the movies themselves. Also, the image quality is sometimes better. There is a lot you can do with black and white that you can't with color. A well shot black and white movie can sometimes look better than a color film.
I didn't say they don't have a right to an opinion. Just that their opinion comes out of ignorance. I don't mind people having any opinion they want, but you should at least try something, or learn more about it, before saying you don't like it.
This is not intended to be snarky in any way, but I didn't see that the [thread=1060140]thread you selected[/thread] was derailed by a so-called avenger. He mostly agreed witht he OP, except he disagreed on three points. He didn't agree that the old alignment system was perfect, he suggested rituals to solve the OP's issue with lacking more non-combat spells, and he suggested an alternative solution to the OP's TWF. I didn't see that as being threadcapping in any way. Brusque, perhaps, but not insulting or derailing.
The OP then came on and called the first replier a "dick" and a "mindless slave".
Surely, the OP's reaction was less than charming, but it was in reaction to what I'd call "hostile formatting" [edit: and, to be honest, would his first reaction to this post have included the "dick" or "mindless slave to change" part if it were not the case that he had been or had seen the 4venger crusade in action? I'm guessing not. "Mindless slave to change" wouldn't have come up otherwise. Not defending his response, but saying that its indicitive of something] Regardless, I think the point stands. As for you not finding it insulting, then its a matter of opinion. He says he would like to keep the 3.5 Alignments sytem. Reading the thread, the first thing I see is someone posting dissmisivly of the OPs opinion, implying:
A) The OP's opinion is factually incorrect. "this is untrue. It didn't work perfectly, hence it was changed." Sure the OP was making a statement not everyone would agree with, but the "no you're just wrong" mentality is one of my primary issues.
B) The OP is ignorant. "Do you know why it was nixed?" Asking a question without providing any discussion, when combined with his dismissive posting, gives me this implication.
and then, just being snarky; "Ummm... Rituals... wow."
Perhaps not the best example, but it was literally the first thread I opened and bam, there in front of me was a "no you are wrong" response to someone preferring something from an older edition. Which I felt tied to the OPs statement here that the "tellling someone their opinion is factually incorrect" is getting old.
[thread=1056963]4th edition less magical?[/thread] was a specific complaint about the flavor of magic, which was, of all things, threadcapped by an anti-4E poster in the second post, with the "if we wanted a tabletop mmo, we'd use the WoW tabletop RPG", which sadly derailed the entire thread into the old "4th edition = WoW" arguments, and which wasn't a part of the OP. Notwithstanding that, several people did make attempts to make productive responses to the OP, though often with snide comments directed at the second poster.
Yes, I'm not going to argue with the fact that there's a lot of anti 4E posting getting in the way. But frankly thats not what Im posting here about. I disagree with the "us or them" style assertion that we have to tolerate one of the two extremes. I'm not advocating h4ters here. I find 4venger's just as detestable, however, because their baiting is tolerated, and their posts are rarely, if ever in my experience, moderated.
That's not clear to me. It seemed to me he was saying that people upset about the change can't be expected to have gotten over it after a month. Such people may or may not have bought the books, so I don't see how that statement says anything one way or another about the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books movement"
I had people who read the books and played in mind. People who don't bother to try something out, obviously have nothing to base their opinions on (like people who hate a movie they have never seen, or people who condemn RPGs while never having played them. I believe I clarified this in a later post, but I could be wrong.
Well there you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. Seems my initial reading of his tone was the correct one.
I must admit I find it disturbing that people read the OP's statement and then immediatly chose to believe that its a defense of h4tred.
Then you should give me the link to the one you found, because the thread in this link does not show a pro-4E poster starting a flame war.
You did not ask me for a thread erupting in a flame war. You asked me for a thread being disrupted. Which is what I gave you.
Your sarcasm is, of course, absolutly charming.
Your reaching to try to find an example in the statement you showed would do Reed Richards proud.
A) I don't see how this relates to the part of my post you quoted above this.
B) I wasn't "reaching". It was literally the first thread I looked in when you asked (if you choose to believe I looked long and hard for that in an incredible act of reaching, then go ahead I care not), and there, right in front of me, was something I would consider disruption.
C) What, exactly, is the point of this oh so charming pop culture reference of yours, if not to be snarky?
OK sure, there are people who say things along the lines of "4th edition is disgusting I will never touch the books or read them lolzlolzlolz grrrr watch me foam at the mouth". But I don't care about them. I don't advocate their defense. Nor is that the intent of the OP.
One problem I have seen is that the ...egregious... posters on both sides sometimes come in, crap on a thread, the posts get deleted and then it looks like the other side started flaming when they really didn't.
Now, when you have a raging pack of flamethirsty "Avengers" running around, shoving the perfectness of 4E down your throat (having started doing so before the edition was released) and (this is really what irkes me) posting "witty" one liners about the person's intellegence, almost always followed by the following smiley "
Being married to one 4e Avenger I have to respectfully disagree with you. They do not all think 4e is perfect and several have posted their personal opinions of 4e in several places on the forums (not perfect). However, getting called stupid and a troll for presenting possible options on how to work something out within the 4e framework gets old fast. The 4e less Magical thread is a perfect example. Several posters got flamed for suggesting that people make their own rituals.
Frankly the two most abrasive pro-4e posters I have seen aren't 4e avengers.
Hating something you haven't yet experienced seems pretty un-intelligent to me, & as for the recent additions, why sign up just to complain, when you could be playing whatever edition you prefer?
So you have to bathe in a pile of **** and take a hundred deep breaths to find out you dont like that? For me abandoning ALL traditions of D&D has been the major factor in hating it (and that trend was obvious before the books hit the shelf), but even when I tried to give it the benefit of a doubt and buy the three core books I had to put down the PHB after a few minutes and abandon the idea.
The PHB is designed very ugly (and thats what I do for a living, so I have an idea of what works and what doesnt) and is a hard to read book because its all chopped up. But maybe that is needed with todays kiddies who are the marketing target for the game and who have an attention span of 30 seconds. None of the computer kiddies probably have the stomach to read a book anymore and 4th edition helps that loss of human skills along just fine.
Frankly the two most abrasive pro-4e posters I have seen aren't 4e avengers.
*Raises hand*
But to be fair, I see it as an offense against players everywhere for stupidity to go unchecked. It happens to be trolls who show the worst symptoms, but the truth burns all forums of idoicy...
I had people who read the books and played in mind. People who don't bother to try something out, obviously have nothing to base their opinions on (like people who hate a movie they have never seen, or people who condemn RPGs while never having played them. I believe I clarified this in a later post, but I could be wrong.
So if I hand you a piece of Dog **** in a hot dog bun and tell you its a sweet new dessert, you'll eat it? But how do you know you won't like eating dog **** in a hot dog bun until you try it?
One problem I have seen is that the ...egregious... posters on both sides sometimes come in, crap on a thread, the posts get deleted and then it looks like the other side started flaming when they really didn't.
Ok fair enough. I admit that I didn't think of this. But that doesn't change the fact that flaming is a chief weapon of both sides. I don't see why one side is moderated for this, and gets its posts deleted, when the other side is often just as bad. Hell, even if they are nowhere near as bad, which I for one don't believe, then they are still bad enough.
The 4 fanatics have a certain sense of entitlement, as if, because they are defending the current version of the game, their flaming is somehow vindicated.
Just look at two quotes from this very thread.
If someone posts something reactionary and dumb without lurking first to find out that what they said has been covered ad nauseum, then they deserve what they get.
To be perfectly fair, anyone who compares 4E to WoW is showing an amount of ignorance that deserves a massive amount of flames.
This mentality, I think, is a cancer eating at these forums. "If someone disagrees with me, I'm allowed to flame them, and feel like a hero of the edition at the same time".
Being married to one 4e Avenger I have to respectfully disagree with you. They do not all think 4e is perfect and several have posted their personal opinions of 4e in several places on the forums (not perfect). However, getting called stupid and a troll for presenting possible options on how to work something out within the 4e framework gets old fast. The 4e less Magical thread is a perfect example. Several posters got flamed for suggesting that people make their own rituals.
Frankly the two most abrasive pro-4e posters I have seen aren't 4e avengers.
Yeah ok, I was generalizing. Of course there are exceptions. And 4venger's don't always have their costumes on all the time. And, when I say 4venger, I use it as an opposite of h4ter, so in my eyes any abrasive pro-4e poster is an 4venger. So kindly forgive me if my generalisation does not apply to your significant other.
Surely, the OP's reaction was less than charming, but it was in reaction to what I'd call "hostile formatting"
I have never heard of "hostile formatting". When did using the quote feature become hostile?
would his first reaction to this post have included the "dick" or "mindless slave to change" part if it were not the case that he had been or had seen the 4venger crusade in action? I'm guessing not.
I have no idea and really, neither do you. If your claim is that 4vengers are derailing thread,s you're going to have to show us a thread that does that without us having to rely on mind-reading.
I'm not going to argue with the fact that there's a lot of anti 4E posting getting in the way. But frankly thats not what Im posting here about.
I understand that and I don't disagree. However, if you're going to take a position that 4vengers are derailing productive threads, I really do want to see some examples of it. Having gone through the first two pages of the General Board, I didn't see any examples of it.
I find 4venger's just as detestable, however, because their baiting is tolerated, and their posts are rarely, if ever in my experience, moderated.
The threads I pointed out, for example, had plenty of h4ter talk and hadn't been moderated. I think this is a case of confirmation bias. You notice the 4venger stuff more because it evokes more of a reaction from you than h4ter talk. So you would be more prone to remember when people get away with it.
I must admit I find it disturbing that people read the OP's statement and then immediatly chose to believe that its a defense of h4tred.
That's not what I thought. I thought he was referring to the perfectly understandable disappointment people who loved 3rd edition would feel on seeing their game end. I didn't think he was referencing the trolls who hate 4th edition, but the nostalgic folks who might post something about how they'll miss 3rd and might get pounded by 4vengers.
I admit I read the OP wrong, but I did not impute any ill motive to him.
Ok fair enough. I admit that I didn't think of this. But that doesn't change the fact that flaming is a chief weapon of both sides. I don't see why one side is moderated for this, and gets its posts deleted, when the other side is often just as bad. Hell, even if they are nowhere near as bad, which I for one don't believe, then they are still bad enough.
A)I don't think flaming is the chief weapon of the vast majority of either side. It is just what annoys both sides (yes including people on the same side as the ones that start the flaming!)
B)Posts are getting deleted on both sides. What makes you think they aren't?
I have never heard of "hostile formatting". When did using the quote feature become hostile?
Yes I just invented the term now. I believe there is a certain way people format there posts when they are feeling confrontational, and believe the post in question is an example of that. Clearly you don't see it, or choose not to, so I'll let it slide. I feel that it is indicitive of the attitude that I have been opposing here. You disagree, but I challenge you to tell me, honestly, that you don't feel abrasive pro 4E posting is an issue.
I have no idea and really, neither do you. If your claim is that 4vengers are derailing thread,s you're going to have to show us a thread that does that without us having to rely on mind-reading.
I have a fairly good idea. Perhaps you can dismiss it as being based on intuition, but "mindless slave to change", and things like it, is a fairly specific response. If there was no 4E crusade, people wouldn't respond with these specific defense mechanism, because they wouldn't feel like they were being subject to an inquisition. So, overall, my point here is Forum - Crus4de = Less Flaming.
I understand that and I don't disagree. However, if you're going to take a position that 4vengers are derailing productive threads, I really do want to see some examples of it. Having gone through the first two pages of the General Board, I didn't see any examples of it.
I will get back to you with examples, if there are any to be found when I am online again. However, you certainly don't need any examples of crus4de flame wars? They are there, in the jumble of the general forum, so unless you feel that their flaming is more acceptable than h4ter flaming, you can see the grounds for my primary concern.
The threads I pointed out, for example, had plenty of h4ter talk and hadn't been moderated. I think this is a case of confirmation bias. You notice the 4venger stuff more because it evokes more of a reaction from you than h4ter talk. So you would be more prone to remember when people get away with it.
OK, say I grant your assumption that I am more affected by 4venger rants than h4ter rants. Its certainly possible, since, as yet, no h4ters have implied that I am too stupid to exist. Regardless, I am member of this community. I don't believe its acceptable that I should just live with the flaming of one side because the other side does it too.
I challenge you to tell me, honestly, that you don't feel abrasive pro 4E posting is an issue.
Why is it necessary to "challenge" me? I think abusive posting is a problem no matter what the predilection of the poster.
If there was no 4E crusade, people wouldn't respond with these specific defense mechanism...
One could just as easily say if there weren't h4ters there'd be no 4vengers. Or vice versa. It's not productive to go down this road because it's all rank speculation. There are 4vengers and h4ters and people stuck in the middle. We can wish them all to be gone, but wishing isn't going to do it. The question is what can be done.
you certainly don't need any examples of crus4de flame wars?
No, I need evidence of your assertion that 4vengers get away with threadcapping in a way that other people do not. It seems to me that there are appropriately merged threads (both pro- and anti-) and threads that should be merged or locked but haven't (pro- and anti-) and threads that shouldn't be merged or locked and aren't (pro- and anti-).
Which leads me to believe that the folks doing this stuff may be merely fallible human beings.
Its certainly possible, since, as yet, no h4ters have implied that I am too stupid to exist.
I've had h4ters call me a shill. I've had 4vengers call me moronic. It's a sad fact of life that jackassery is not confined to any particular point of view.
I don't believe its acceptable that I should just live with the flaming of one side because the other side does it too.
Agreed. So let's stop claiming that the problem is one of bias by CM and deal with the fact that too many threads (of all stripes) are getting threadcapped. What can be done about that?
Then you should give me the link to the one you found, because the thread in this link does not show a pro-4E poster starting a flame war.
Your reaching to try to find an example in the statement you showed would do Reed Richards proud.
This thread is something of an example:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1058876
This thread is something of an example:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1058876
That thread also has had at least an equal number of posts deleted as kept. I think it would be very difficult at this point to point any fingers.
So if I hand you a piece of Dog **** in a hot dog bun and tell you its a sweet new dessert, you'll eat it? But how do you know you won't like eating dog **** in a hot dog bun until you try it?
In the case of food, intimacy and violence, the consequences for "trying something new and exotic" are potentially more long lasting and negative. But an RPG is a past time. You can try it, and if you don't like it, nothing bad will happen. Same with a movie. And even most foods that are proven safe.
I think it is the very idea of eating fecal matter, which I know to be unhealthy, that would give me good reason not to try to the hot dog. Just like someone who doesn't like sushi without even trying it is usually reacting to the idea of eating raw fish. I have had many pungent smelling dishes in southeast asia (the ones flavored with fish sauce (fermented fish oil), hot peppers, citrus fruit, and other sour sauces). By the smell you would think they were terrible, but they actually can taste very good. I don't think anyone would fault someone for refusing to eat a hot dog bun filled with dog poop.
This thread is something of an example.
I think any thread in which the OP admits 1) he hasn't played 4e, 2) hates it based on the layout (which is the only component he acknowledges noting) and 3) he compares it to WoW pretty much started out as a flamewar.
The second poster didn't flame it. He just rose to some pretty ripe bait (which doesn't forgive rising to the bait, mind you).
I just don't think a persons opinion about black and white movies has as much weight if they haven't seen any.
Say a person is given a choice between a movie and radio version of the same story.
Lets add another person, this one blind.
The sighted person may like movies better vecause they get more out of htem. They don't have to listen to every audio adaptation or whatnot to decide they like movies better. They know they like the visuals.
The unsighted person likes the audio versions better because they provide those "visuals" for them without the actual images and gets more from them. Does the unsighted person have to "watch" ny movie to know they would prefer an audio version of it?
Likewise a game about a collection of rules based on statistics can be figured out how someone likes or not without playing. It could be based on probability.
People go to Vegas all the time. Does one need to lose $10 million on 00 on a roulette wheel to know they don't like betting on 00?
The odds of winning on it are listed. They can choose to bet on it or not at any time they choose. The establishment does not force them to play any game to PROVE they don't or won't like it.
Same for D&D. You don't value the opinon of someone who hasn't played the game. That is your choice.
Likewise I should be able to devalue or not value the opinion of someone who has to play to understand the game as they are not my peer since they do not think like me.
Sounds fair right?
I think any thread in which the OP admits 1) he hasn't played 4e, 2) hates it based on the layout (which is the only component he acknowledges noting) and 3) he compares it to WoW pretty much started out as a flamewar.
The second poster didn't flame it. He just rose to some pretty ripe bait (which doesn't forgive rising to the bait, mind you).
I don't think so. The OP himself said that because he didn't play, he couldn't give an opinion of the playability. He was mostly commenting on how he was so turned off by the layout and rules of the book that he didn't want to play. I do not think he was reacting strictly to the layout. That is a lot different from the people who say they heard from a friend that it is no good, so they know the game is bad. This guy was being very reasonable in his original post. 1) There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion on a book based on its design, readability and content. 2) Comparing 4E to WoW is perfectly reasonable. Many people feel they are similar, and people shouldn't be flamed for having this opinion.
I think any thread in which the OP admits 1) he hasn't played 4e, 2) hates it based on the layout (which is the only component he acknowledges noting) and 3) he compares it to WoW pretty much started out as a flamewar.
The second poster didn't flame it. He just rose to some pretty ripe bait (which doesn't forgive rising to the bait, mind you).
The OP also admits that he really wants to like the game but is having a hard time doing so because of some changes.
I think people have very different opinions to what flaming is.
"the game of the Devil! Don't make such silly accusations, please."
I ask because I think I understand what baiting is, but am not sure.
There are a few people that do seem to follow each other around and tag-team threads in a baiting or flaming type manner. This thread does show that, as the thread was closed after apparently repeated reports.
Does it mean the thread will not be cleaned and reopened so the pro-4E crowd was able to stop yet another not 100$ positive look at 4E?
That the OP and his views are worthless because some people decided to turn the thread into a pile of hate and anger?
If the thread remains closed then any potential "fanboys" that tried to get it closed have won and will continue on their crusade to do likewise with other threads.
This goes for both sides, but how often do you see some pro-4E thread closed because a few people mention something about 4e being not 100% perfect.
There is a trend that a thread created that doesn't give 4E two thumbs up is more likely to be closed due to flamewar starter by "avengers" or whatever than a pro-thread being closed at all no matter what goes on it in.
Some people question is the reason because that these are the WotC forums and that discontent with the product within the forums by having threads against the edition and saying so in the title will reduce sales of the edition?
So the forums are being used and moderated as some sort of advertising engine to tthe shareholders or HASBRO, or something else.
People wonder why it happens this way and why bias exists in the moderation this way.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from singling out other patrons by name.
I guess we'll have to disagree. I can't imagine any reasonably intelligent person admitting that their negative opinion is ill-informed and thinking that he would get any opinion other than flames or "Hell yeah!" encouragement. When someone acknowledges they are both 1) ignorant of the facts and 2) able to remedy the situation (by reading the book he bought) but refusing to do so, I'm not sure how you can have a productive conversation.
In some ways, the guy who says his information is based on his friend's reading has (slightly) more of an excuse because he hasn't had an oppportunity to correct his own ignorance. (Until, of course, he admits he has had an opportunity to read the books and discover if his secondhand info is wrong, but refuses to do so.)
Hellmute,
The OP also admits that he really wants to like the game but is having a hard time doing so because of some changes.
No, he admits he wants ot like it but he can't bring himself to read it because of the layout, which makes him feel it's a WoW rip-off.
This goes for both sides, but how often do you see some pro-4E thread closed because a few people mention something about 4e being not 100% perfect.
I think this is a loaded question. The OP didn't say "it wasn't 100% perfect". He said he was deliberately ignorant of the product but that he though the product was awful regardless. That's pretty much a textbook definition of baiting.
There is a trend that a thread created that doesn't give 4E two thumbs up is more likely to be closed due to flamewar
Rictras_Shard has already posted threads critical of 4E that haven't been closed. So have I. So your presumption seems to be flawed.
I think people who tend to be critical of 4E tend to remember critical threads being derailed and closed. And people who tend to like 4E tend to remember complimentary threads being derailed and closed.
My advice: report threadcapping. It can work.
This goes for both sides, but how often do you see some pro-4E thread closed because a few people mention something about 4e being not 100% perfect.
In my honest opinion, it runs about 50-50 for the number of "pro" threads that are closed as compared to the number of "anti" threads that are closed.
I guess we'll have to disagree. I can't imagine any reasonably intelligent person admitting that their negative opinion is ill-informed and thinking that he would get any opinion other than flames or "Hell yeah!" encouragement. When someone acknowledges they are both 1) ignorant of the facts and 2) able to remedy the situation (by reading the book he bought) but refusing to do so, I'm not sure how you can have a productive conversation.
In some ways, the guy who says his information is based on his friend's reading has (slightly) more of an excuse because he hasn't had an oppportunity to correct his own ignorance. (Until, of course, he admits he has had an opportunity to read the books and discover if his secondhand info is wrong, but refuses to do so.)
It wasn't ill informed. He read the books. I read the rules to lots of games I never get a chance to play and form an opinion on them. He admitted point blank, he couldn't comment on playability. He was speaking strictly about the rules content and layout.
Sniped comments on my posts.
I am not a very nice person, I don't spoon feed and I am intolerant of stupidity. The poster in question lied, said things in ignorance and showed that he/she/it lacked the foresight to think before posting...
We are all intelligent people, thinking is a requirement.
Edit; That said, I do help people who are in need and call out on people who are incorrect.
and yes, I have been wrong. I'm not one of those 'uber'geeks that are incapable of making mistakes.
It wasn't ill informed. He read the books.
No. He didn't. He said in the OP "I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB". He acknowledge he only owns the PHB and doesn't own any other books. He admitted he read the previews and loved that, but not the books.
Perhaps later in the thread, he clarified, but the OP was an explicit statement that he was ignorant of the game and that he couldn't stomach the layout and that he hated the game as being too much like WoW, flavorwise.
That's not constructive. That's bait. You can't have a productive post with someone who revels in their own ignorance. Thus, the only responses that are feasible are non sequiturs (which is off-topic and thus against the CoC), complete agreement with the OP's ignorance, or flaming/baiting.
He was speaking strictly about the rules content and layout.
His OP made no statement of rules content. In the entire post, his only specific comment about 4th edition was about the layout. As far as anybody could tell, that was the basis for his negative opinion.
[thread=1058876]Here[/thread] is the thread again, so people don't have to hunt back through the thread.
I have to say that while the OP was near the line, responses to it could have easily gone either way. The tone of a thread like that will be determined by the first coulpe of responses. There were some people (on both sides) who valiantly tried to have a discussion and steer away from Edition Wars. There were a lot more people who wanted to have an edition war. In this case, the edition wars people "won".
There are a few people that do seem to follow each other around and tag-team threads in a baiting or flaming type manner. This thread does show that, as the thread was closed after apparently repeated reports.
Did you read any of the deleted posts before they were deleted? There was just as much anti-4e flaming going on as pro-4e. Therefore this thread isn't a relevant example of pro-4e people closing an anti-4e thread, both sides contributed. I happen to know that one avenger reported himself twice for being off-topic after he responded to someone and realized the whole discussion was completely off-topic.
However, you certainly don't need any examples of crus4de flame wars? They are there, in the jumble of the general forum, so unless you feel that their flaming is more acceptable than h4ter flaming, you can see the grounds for my primary concern.
You say that anyone who has seen an avenger in a flame war understands your concern. I think where we differ is that I see the pro-4e and the anti-4e flamers as equally disruptive.
How is seeing pro-4e people involved in a flame war proof that they are the primary disruptive group? Are you claiming that the anti-4e people aren't involved in disruptive flame wars?
No. He didn't. He said in the OP "I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB". He acknowledge he only owns the PHB and doesn't own any other books. He admitted he read the previews and loved that, but not the books.
Perhaps later in the thread, he clarified, but the OP was an explicit statement that he was ignorant of the game and that he couldn't stomach the layout and that he hated the game as being too much like WoW, flavorwise.
That's not constructive. That's bait. You can't have a productive post with someone who revels in their own ignorance. Thus, the only responses that are feasible are non sequiturs (which is off-topic and thus against the CoC), complete agreement with the OP's ignorance, or flaming/baiting.
His OP made no statement of rules content. In the entire post, his only specific comment about 4th edition was about the layout. As far as anybody could tell, that was the basis for his negative opinion.
[thread=1058876]Here[/thread] is the thread again, so people don't have to hunt back through the thread.
He never said he didn't read it. He said he couldn't play it. He also never said he only didn't like the layout. It was just an area he "couldn't even stomache". I think it would be wildly presumptious to think he saw the layout, thought it was awful and made his post. It looks to me, like he read the book, didn't like it (particularly the layout), and therefore did not play. He obviously at least skimmed through the rules to come to the WoW conclusion. He also never explicitly stated ignorance of the rules, just of play. He admits upfront he hasn't played. But his post is polite, and not inflammatory. Since flaming is against the CoC (I know, I have been banned for it), he shouldn't be getting flamed anyways. Just because someone says something you think is baiting, that doesn't mean you have a right to bite. If you are concerned, report the post.
He never said he didn't read it.
He didn't say he did and in fact he said he only owned one of the three corebooks. He prefaced it by saying he had to convince his players to try 3.x. The implication was that if he wasn't going to run a game, his friends certainly didn't have the book.
It looks to me, like he read the book, didn't like it (particularly the layout), and therefore did not play. He obviously at least skimmed through the rules to come to the WoW conclusion.
But that's not written anywhere. And his WoW conclusion was expressly tied to his statement about the layout:
[indent]I just can't play it. I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB. It feels too... meh... to me. Too much like competing with WoW, which I play too btw[/indent]
Actually, he didn't even say the game felt like WoW. He is straight-out saying that the layout made him feel like WotC was competing with WoW. It has nothing to do with how the game might play
I have read the first couple of pages (100+ posts) of the thread in question.
I have to say that while the OP was near the line, responses to it could have easily gone either way. The tone of a thread like that will be determined by the first coulpe of responses.
There is the problem. Punishing a thread creator for the response by other people.
Why should anyone feel welcome to post a new thread if all it takes is the first few responses to come in and start some war to ruin the whole "tone" of the thread?
EACH post should be judged based on the post, a thread should NOT be judged for people who wish to derail it and cause it to be closed.
REmove offending posts and see what happens when the thread is not filled with spam.
Doing a job correctly does take extra work, but you should do it correctly rather than look like an idiot by cutting corners to save some time.
In the case of home building you don't use Balsa wood because it is cheaper to transport large quantities, or use wadded up newspaper for insulation. So in forums don't cut corners either.
Don't make a thread creator look like a problem because a few people came in and destroyed the discussion. Instead moderate the proper posts and leave the thread open if the initial post doesn't violate the EULA, TOA, CoC, whatever.
Nothing to see here, move along.A thread like that, due to the topic, will generate *lots* of violations of the CoC that the WizOs have to deal with. If it starts getting too many, the WizOs will lock it and punt it over to CM for them to look at it. CM then looks at the thread and determines whether the thread, if cleaned up and re-opened, would result in the same thing all over again, or whether it would result in a newer, better discussion.
CM and CS need to play a very delicate balancing act over the work that a thread requires to keep it CoC violation free and the value of the remainder of the discussion to the community.
In this case, I would be surprised if the thread were re-opened. Yes, it sucks that the OPS thread got locked. But it is not CM and CS that are to blame. Blame the people that participated in the flame war, both those that started it, those that continued it, and those that posted thinly veiled bait posts designed to elicit a flaming response. All of them are responsible.
Kistra's second quotation was originally written by Umbralknight in post 143. Don't you think it more likely that Kistra mistakenly forgot to attribute the quote to Umbralknight, rather than intentionally misattributed the quote to you?
I think accusing Kistra of inventing quotes to win an argument was out of line.
-wrecan
I am not a very nice person, I don't spoon feed and I am intolerant of stupidity. The poster in question lied, said things in ignorance and showed that he/she/it lacked the foresight to think before posting...
We are all intelligent people, thinking is a requirement.
So, in other words "I'm the big bad wolf, and I eat the little guy for breakfast"?
I wasn't sniping you (or, to clarify, specifically using you as an example. I would have no reason to. You and I have had no previous discourse.) [edit: just realised you ment sniped as in "snip" not "snipe", so nevermind]
I thought your post was an example of something I think is wrong on these boards. I couldn't be sure, your post was snarky, but not openly flaming. But I suspected. And you know what, your response has clarified that for me. This is exactly what I think is wrong with these boards right now.
The post in question that you responded to was an opinion post. He lied? How do you lie when you state your opinion? You might think his opinion is wrong, but it is borderline hubris to suggest that your opinion determines absolute objective truth, and that therefore someone who disagrees with you is lying. Unless you are using the word in reference to an even less obvious form of deception on his part.
But you are intolerant of stupidity. and he was ignorant, and lacked the foresight to think before posting.
On an opinion thread?
Forget anything else I might say here. This, this attitude alone, "I may say what I like, act how I like, and feel no shame, because someone earned it through being brainless and ignorant", is something that deserves to be seriously reigned in.
Notice how I don't bash your opinions. Notice how I don't brand you as brainless and incapable of thought. I am staying perfectly within the CoC, not judging you, but the way you feel it is acceptable to behave. Truth be told I am not a nice guy either, nor am I all that tolerant. But I would never condone your stance.
B)Posts are getting deleted on both sides. What makes you think they aren't?
Because I don't see evidence of it. As much as I would like have faith in this, the pessimist in me finds a way to crawl to the surface. In all the lurking I do, I never see a single avenger/4E fanatic post get deleted. Thats not to say it doesn't happen. Just that, from my seat, it doesn't happen enough.
Why is it necessary to "challenge" me? I think abusive posting is a problem no matter what the predilection of the poster.
Wasn't sure if you disagreed with me in general or just in the specific instance. Thought I'd poke you for clarification. Sorry if the word "challenge" was a mite confrontational.
One could just as easily say if there weren't h4ters there'd be no 4vengers. Or vice versa. It's not productive to go down this road because it's all rank speculation. There are 4vengers and h4ters and people stuck in the middle. We can wish them all to be gone, but wishing isn't going to do it. The question is what can be done.
Aye. As to what can be done, I feel if you take care of one thing, it helps others fall into place. If 4venger posts were more heaviliy moderated, there would be less flames to wade through. That wouldn't stop h4ter flaming, but would contribute to general forum ambience, and the h4ter flaming itself should be moderated also. Plug the leaks, the ship stops sinking. But you need to actively plug them all. My view, at least.
No, I need evidence of your assertion that 4vengers get away with threadcapping in a way that other people do not. It seems to me that there are appropriately merged threads (both pro- and anti-) and threads that should be merged or locked but haven't (pro- and anti-) and threads that shouldn't be merged or locked and aren't (pro- and anti-).
I will go through the forums again tommorow or the day after, permitting access, to present a more thorough case. And even if I don't have a case to say that 4vengers get away with threadcapping in ways that others don't, I dislike them getting away with any sort of threadcapping period.
Which leads me to believe that the folks doing this stuff may be merely fallible human beings.
Sure. So are the people dealing with how often the forum chrashes. Sure they are fallable, and one can't expect robotic perfection from them. The problem still is, however, undesirable.
I've had h4ters call me a shill. I've had 4vengers call me moronic. It's a sad fact of life that jackassery is not confined to any particular point of view.
Agreed. I'm just raising a voice against one kind of jackassery (crus4ding) here, since I feel the other (h4tred) has gotten plenty of denouncements without needing me to contribute to them.
Agreed. So let's stop claiming that the problem is one of bias by CM and deal with the fact that too many threads (of all stripes) are getting threadcapped. What can be done about that?
Personally, I would advise a potential revision on the CoC, as an added preventative measure, and then to see from there.
You say that anyone who has seen an avenger in a flame war understands your concern. I think where we differ is that I see the pro-4e and the anti-4e flamers as equally disruptive.
How is seeing pro-4e people involved in a flame war proof that they are the primary disruptive group? Are you claiming that the anti-4e people aren't involved in disruptive flame wars?
This was in fact in response to me, so I will take it.
Yes, the anti-4e flamers can be equally disruptive.
So what?
The fact is that the pro-4e flamers can be disruptive, which is an implied admission in your post.
To clarify
I don't believe its acceptable that I should just live with the flaming of one side because the other side does it too.
hellmute,
Kistra's second quotation was originally written by Umbralknight in post 143. Don't you think it more likely that Kistra mistakenly forgot to attribute the quote to Umbralknight, rather than intentionally misattributed the quote to you?
I think accusing Kistra of inventing quotes to win an argument was out of line.
-wrecan
Hellmute probably was unaware that the words were mine and thus misattributed. I imagine he would not be reading my posts, in favour of focusing on those of his major respondents. A misunderstaning on both sides then. No need to call hellmute out about it either. I imagine I might have reacted similiarly, if presented with words I didn't recognize.
It reflects an hypocrisy.
I try to stay civil, but I'm willing to admit that I've been baited successfully a time or two. And I most assuredly have had posts deleted, posts that would likely have stayed put if I didn't have the Avenger tag in my sig. We get moderated just as hard as anyone else does, believe me. In a lot of cases, we get it worse because we're an identifiable group.
Sniped... because I can
I didn't call anyone names either. I was stating facts.
Also, a lie is a lie... unless you say so? Really... this is odd.
He said 'the old aliment system was perfect'...
This is a lie.
If I'm a problem (to you) on these boards because I call out and correct disinformation then please, do us all a favor and report me.
Otherwise, I will continue to support truth and spurn misinformation at every turn.
Thank you, have a nice day.
hellmute,
Kistra's second quotation was originally written by Umbralknight in post 143. Don't you think it more likely that Kistra mistakenly forgot to attribute the quote to Umbralknight, rather than intentionally misattributed the quote to you?
I think accusing Kistra of inventing quotes to win an argument was out of line.
-wrecan
So it was.
Well it would not have been the first time someone has twisted words and I couldn't find the original post. Yes accidents do happen.
With an average of "22.5 posts/per day" our posts can't always top-notch :P. Still, we are responsible for the content and tone of our posts. It's all too easy to blame the other side; I say, take some responsibility for our own words and actions.
I'm prolly not making a whole lot of sense here, just more rambling ;). I'm certainly not responding to any particular post. More than anything, I'm just amazed at the level of debate on what amounts to "Who's Most Annoying?"
I didn't call anyone names either. I was stating facts.
Also, a lie is a lie... unless you say so? Really... this is odd.
He said 'the old aliment system was perfect'...
This is a lie.
If I'm a problem (to you) on these boards because I call out and correct disinformation ... then please, do us all a favor and report me.
Otherwise, I will continue to support truth and spurn misinformation at every turn.
Thank you, have a nice day.
Again, this sense of entitlement, like you are somehow a champion of the community with your bad behaviour.
You brand a person's opinion as factually incorrect, and claim to be be somehow bettering the forum with this dismissive disregard for the fact that your opinion does not determine truth?
I suggest you return to that thread, and read the responses of one individual called Maxperson.
Yes, the anti-4e flamers can be equally disruptive.
So what?
The fact is that the pro-4e flamers can be disruptive, which is an implied admission in your post.
I flat out said in several posts that I think flaming is disruptive no matter who is doing it. I have a problem with people in this thread implying that it is all the fault of the pro-4e side. Since I seem to fail quoting... I mean the "get rid of the avengers and there will be no more flaming" type logic.
My second point all along has been that the 4e avengers should not be called out on this issue. Not all pro-4e flamers are avenger. Not all avengers are flamers. Several avengers are actively working to encourage pro-4e people not to flame. I'm willing to bet there are anti-4e people discouraging anti-4e flaming as well, but I don't know those people as well so I don't know about it.
My basic point is, maybe it is time to start thinking about solutions other than blaming the other side and calling for increased moderation of the other side? I for one think it is a little bit sad that we can't discuss this like adults without calling for the moderators to delete every other post in some threads.
Any suggestions?
As one of these hateful, dispicable creatures you call "Avengers," I just want to say that I want the flaming to stop as much as anyone else here does. That doesn't mean that I like the fact that people feel that they have a mandate to drop into the 4E forums and crap in perfectly serviceable threads. I don't mind when people want to talk about their issues like adults, but jumping straight to one of the hot buttons (WoW, 4E kills RP, "retards") is going to provoke a response; we're only human, after all.
I try to stay civil, but I'm willing to admit that I've been baited successfully a time or two. And I most assuredly have had posts deleted, posts that would likely have stayed put if I didn't have the Avenger tag in my sig. We get moderated just as hard as anyone else does, believe me. In a lot of cases, we get it worse because we're an identifiable group.
Righto, Batshido. I'm glad you stopped by here. I've been using the term 4venger perhaps as an inclusive term for folks including krownhunter07. I have seen some posts where you specifcally try to avoid EdWar, so I would like to hear the following from you, if you don't mind.
If you want the edition war to end as badly as everyone else does, why do you include edition war terminology in your sig? I just can't see any other use for the 4venger declaration other than as a war banner. If you want the war to end, why not put down its regalia? I'm not being snarky or anything. You seem reasonable enough so I would like to know what your justification is.
Sniped.... yet again
I'm fine w/o going back, thanks. A lot of my posts were cut and you've missed the best parts.
Opinion =/= fact (it's very foolish to think so, IMHO)
Fact; A majority of players had issues with the system.
Fact; WotC saw this and addressed the issue.
Fact; It was changed because it was seen as flawed.
Call it what you want, but saying it is perfect is a lie.
I flat out said in several posts that I think flaming is disruptive no matter who is doing it. I have a problem with people in this thread implying that it is all the fault of the pro-4e side. Since I seem to fail quoting... I mean the "get rid of the avengers and there will be no more flaming" type logic.
I don't mean to imply "get rid of the 4vengers, and there will be no more flaming", but rather, get rid of the 4venging and there will be less flaming.
To clarify
That wouldn't stop h4ter flaming, but would contribute to general forum ambience, and the h4ter flaming itself should be moderated also. Plug the leaks, the ship stops sinking. But you need to actively plug them all.
My second point all along has been that the 4e avengers should not be called out on this issue. Not all pro-4e flamers are avenger. Not all avengers are flamers. Several avengers are actively working to encourage pro-4e people not to flame. I'm willing to bet there are anti-4e people discouraging anti-4e flaming as well, but I don't know those people as well so I don't know about it.
Yes, but I don't see why, if an 4venger wants the edition war to end, he still carries his edition war banner in his sig.
My basic point is, maybe it is time to start thinking about solutions other than blaming the other side and calling for increased moderation of the other side? I for one think it is a little bit sad that we can't discuss this like adults without calling for the moderators to delete every other post in some threads.
Any suggestions?
Like I said a bit earlier, a revised CoC with less loopholes is what I'd vote for.
Truth burns on both sides of the fence. You should do your homework before labeling people... it's bad business.
I'm fine w/o going back, thanks. A lot of my posts were cut and you've missed the best parts.
Opinion =/= fact (it's very foolish to think so, IMHO)
Fact; A majority of players had issues with the system.
Fact; WotC saw this and addressed the issue.
Fact; It was changed because it was seen as flawed.
Call it what you want, but saying it is perfect is a lie.
A lot of players had issues with that system yes, but I wouldn't call it a majority. In my experience even more have problems with the new one. Regardless, clearly it was perfect for him and his group. Its his game after all. just as it is mine and yours. When it comes to fluff like alignment, there is no single valid truth as to whats better. YOu have no grounds telling him that his opinion is factually incorrect.
For the recored, I'm not an '4venger'.
Truth burns on both sides of the fence. You should do your homework before labeling people... it's bad business.
Regardless of what you say, it is your posting philosophy that I take issue with. Not trying to get personal with you, but I would dearly like to accomplish some change here, and if I can make you, even for a second, revise your "crush the puny little wrong person" method, then I have accomplished something in my ill-adivsed participation in this thread.
A lot of players had issues with that system yes, but I wouldn't call it a majority.
I don't care what you would call them.
In my experience even more have problems with the new one.
Again, your experience =/= fact
Regardless, clearly it was perfect for him and his group. Its his game after all. just as it is mine and yours. When it comes to fluff like alignment, there is no single valid truth as to whats better. YOu have no grounds telling him that his opinion is factually incorrect.
Yet you have grounds to tell me I'm factually incorrect... hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it.
He didn't stat it as opinion, he said it as a fact. That was a lie..... really.
Get over it and let it go, will you... sheesh.
Sniped the lack of wanting to get personal...
I don't 'crush the puny little wrong person.' I never said I did that.
You assumed that... and we know what that does.
*Unless you plan to report me for something, you should drop this before you get reported for threadjacking.
Yet you have grounds to tell me I'm factually incorrect... hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it.
I'm telling you not that your opinion of the game is factually incorrect, but that you have no place telling others whether or not their opinion is valid. Lest of all if you are using it to vindicate your "I'm allowed to flame whomsoever deserves it" mentality.
I don't 'crush the puny little wrong person.' I never said I did that.
You assumed that... and we know what that does.
*Unless you plan to report me for something, you should drop this before you get reported for threadjacking.
I know you didn't say it. It is how your posts read.
You have said you feel justified in saying what you want to people when they show evidence of "stupidity". That relates directly to the origional post of this thread, and therefore I am not threadjacking. Maybe I'm wrong, so you can report for such and we'll see. I won't report you, since you haven't violated the CoC when talking to me.
Nothing to see here either
We probably confused some poor moderator that will now think our posts are just spam and give us some sort of soft warning for some CoC violation.
LOL.
As long as the other 2 don't edit their posts it might not too badly confuse some poor WizO.
Righto, Batshido. I'm glad you stopped by here. I've been using the term 4venger perhaps as an inclusive term for folks including krownhunter07. I have seen some posts where you specifcally try to avoid EdWar, so I would like to hear the following from you, if you don't mind.
If you want the edition war to end as badly as everyone else does, why do you include edition war terminology in your sig? I just can't see any other use for the 4venger declaration other than as a war banner. If you want the war to end, why not put down its regalia? I'm not being snarky or anything. You seem reasonable enough so I would like to know what your justification is.
First, the "4E Avenger" stuff isn't war regalia. It started as an inside joke because one of the more malicious trolls in the old C&C forum (who has since been banned and re-banned, and re-re-banned) used it to refer to a few of us who were taking the time to refute him point by point in the interest of retaining some semblance of logical discourse in that hellhole. From there, it basically derailed the thread (not that there was really anything going on there besides pointless flaming an misinformation) and we wound up taking almost a dozen pages where we debated which Avenger was which (I'm Captain America, btw) and accepting new members. It was a fun little moment in the most contentious forum I've ever been a part of, and I keep that in my sig as a reminder to myself that this is supposed to be fun.
Anyone who views my sig as a declaration of war was going to see my posting style as that anyway. There are some who are bound and determined to keep this stupid conflict brewing, and they know who I am regardless of what sits below my posts. At least with that there, people know where I stand; an unabashed supporter of the new edition. Since that's out of the way from the get go, I don't have to worry about anyone misconstruing or trying to "call me out"; I'm already calling myself out for them.
For what it's worth, not a single fan of 4E is making the trip to the Previous Editions or Out of Print forums to tell them they're stupid for playing a different game. We sit and talk in our forum, and the hate comes to us. Expecting us not to respond in some manner is silly; it's human nature to counterattack. I agree that we as a forum could handle it better than we do most of the time, but with a random group of people collected in anonymity on the internet, you're going to get some bad seeds. I'm fairly convinced that there are some posters with sock puppets who troll both sides of the Edition Wars because they like the drama.
I know you didn't say it. It is how your posts read.
Wrong! It is how you read my posts.
You have said you feel justified in saying what you want to people when they show evidence of "stupidity".
Wrong again. I stated facts about myself. I never tried to justify my actions to you.
That relates directly to the origional post of this thread, and therefore I am not threadjacking. Maybe I'm wrong, so you can report for such and we'll see. I won't report you, since you haven't violated the CoC when talking to me.
I don't report people, I was concerned about someone else doing it.
Regardless of what you say, it is your posting philosophy that I take issue with. Not trying to get personal with you, but I would dearly like to accomplish some change here, and if I can make you, even for a second, revise your "crush the puny little wrong person" method, then I have accomplished something in my ill-adivsed participation in this thread.
I heartily agree with you in this sentiment.
How about something that individuals can do? Changing the CoC seems like it will simply make it more clear why some posts get moderated... and open the opportunity for more post deletion which doesn't seem helpful
And hellmute: it seemed the most polite thing to do. I thank you for changing your post.
I'm telling you not that your opinion of the game is factually incorrect, but that you have no place telling others whether or not their opinion is valid.
I never questioned his opinion. Understand this... I said stating something as a fact when it is not is a lie... *I was asked to cut the part of me asking you to reread this so you understand I am not judging people's opinions.... hopefully you will not need it to see truth.
Lest of all if you are using it to vindicate your "I'm allowed to flame whomsoever deserves it" mentality.
So you dictate my behavior now as well.... lol
Ah thank you for that. It was educational. I was unaware of the history of the movement.
While I have more understanding for you now, and why you have it in your sig, its fairly likely that many posters will, like myself, are unaware that it started as an inside joke. The perception of the avenger tag is often interpreted as war regalia. I have seen other, more emotional posters refer to it as a "slap in the face". Now, not to call them right, or to say you don't have the right to put whatever you like in your sig, but I for one just don't see the edition war dying out until we all stop wearing our edition badges.
Its like we are running around with pvp turned on...
whoops WoW reference...
I must admit i might be mis-identified as an anti-4the poster. But i am not. There are some things i dislike about the new edition, and there are some things i really like about it. I mention the things i dislike more often, because those are the things i want to see changed/altered. I have seen plenty of idiocy on both sides. I don't think a group of wanna-be E-gangsters are the root of the problem. Although i must admit they are a symptom of a most malicious pathogen.
And in reference to the OP...aren't fanboys of any stripe annoying? I mean unless you are amongst their number you will most likely find them quite poor company.
Ah thank you for that. It was educational. I was unaware of the history of the movement.
I used to have it linked up in my sig (via the quote) but it was deleted for a little while when they moved forums so I took it out and it never got put back in.
While I have more understanding for you now, and why you have it in your sig, its fairly likely that many posters will, like myself, are unaware that it started as an inside joke.
Yes, they likely will be. And if they aren't capable of finishing reading my post before drifting to my sig to find out what "side" I'm on, they're probably one of the people destined to wind up on my ignore list anyway. My "affiliation" with 4E doesn't make me adverse to genial conversation, it just means that I'm not likely to agree with them if they start bashing that system.
The perception of the avenger tag is often interpreted as war regalia. I have seen other, more emotional posters refer to it as a "slap in the face". Now, not to call them right, or to say you don't have the right to put whatever you like in your sig, but I for one just don't see the edition war dying out until we all stop wearing our edition badges.
Posters who respond in that manner (and I've seen those exact words used) are some of the worst hyperbolizing, misinformation dribbling, wastes of bandwidth on these forums. I could have a picture of ponies playing in a field of flowers with a rainbow overhead in my sig and they'd take offense; that's what they do. If a 10 letter chunk of my sig makes them lose all touch with rational thought and fly completely off the handle, they weren't going to be contributing much to the conversation anyway. I'm not changing my signature to facilitate mildly less acerbic relations with posters who are just here to pick a fight, sorry.
No offense, but I'll take the badge down when I'm good and ready. Not a moment before.
Its like we are running around with pvp turned on...
whoops WoW reference...
Ha.
I laugh incredibly hard, and loud, at anyone who thinks they are dispensing "street justice" in the name of 4th edition, or any other brand of entertainment.
As an aside, "street justice" is another inside joke, actually originating with the same troll who caused the formation of the "Avengers."
He made several references to "dispensing street justice," to the point where it became a bit of a calling card for a while. A few of the soon-to-be Avengers (the ones who wound up being Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Black Panther, etc) decided to take that as a slogan. Basically, taking a troll and turning the joke back on him.
I have never heard of "hostile formatting". When did using the quote feature become hostile?
-Oh, what UK said is quite true. Lemme show you an example. Lemme just make up some BS paragraph:
The moon is round. It's thousands of miles away. At night, depending on it's position, on earth, we see it in different phases. On some rare occasions, there are eclipses, where the moon lines up in front of the sun.
-"Hostile formatting"- a term I like- would prompt a response to that like this:
The moon is round.
-Actually, it's an oval, but that's okay.
It's thousands of miles away.
-193,034 miles, to be exact. (Mind you, I'm just making the number up).
At night, depending on it's position, on earth, we see it in different phases.
-Yes, the phases are A, B, C, and D.
On some rare occasions, there are eclipses, where the moon lines up in front of the sun.
-Yes, that's a solar eclipse.
-It's the format of breaking apart every single little sentence the poster makes, with the intent to be somewhat snarky about it, as (as I recall) the post that started this debate was doing.
Snipped because it's right above this post.
Hmmm... I was unaware it was called hostile formatting. When was this done?
*Note; I snipe posts on occasion, snip on others. It is intentional.
Hmmm... I was unaware it was called hostile formatting.
-UmbralKnight "coined" the term, as far as I am aware. It's a good term for the "technique", though.
When was this done?
-From memory, whatever the posted thread was that began the discussion. I just remember the OP wrote some stuff, about whatever it was, and the next poster dissected it like I did above, in that pseudo-snarky manner. I'm going by memory, but that's the gist of it.
-From memory, whatever the posted thread was that began the discussion. I just remember the OP wrote some stuff, about whatever it was, and the next poster dissected it like I did above, in that pseudo-snarky manner. I'm going by memory, but that's the gist of it.
That was my 'pseudo-snarky manner'... I had meant where did the term come from, but you answered that already.
Thanks, LK.
-Uh...No problem, I guess. I live to serve? ;)
Indeed. ;)
I find 4venger's just as detestable, however, because their baiting is tolerated, and their posts are rarely, if ever in my experience, moderated.
You've been around long enough to know this isn't true.
You did not ask me for a thread erupting in a flame war. You asked me for a thread being disrupted. Which is what I gave you.
He may not have been overly polite in his response, but he certainly wasn't disruptive either.
B) I wasn't "reaching". It was literally the first thread I looked in when you asked (if you choose to believe I looked long and hard for that in an incredible act of reaching, then go ahead I care not), and there, right in front of me, was something I would consider disruption.
Except, as you are well aware, the 'reach' I was referring to had nothing to do with the thread you found, but with your claim the the op was only referring to people who have read the books when he made his first post. By the way, in no way in his first post did he state anything to indicate he was only referring to people who had read the books.
Also, if you don't want me to be sarcastic and snarky with you, perhaps you should have refrained from previously being sarcastic and snarky with me.
Yes, they likely will be. And if they aren't capable of finishing reading my post before drifting to my sig to find out what "side" I'm on, they're probably one of the people destined to wind up on my ignore list anyway. My "affiliation" with 4E doesn't make me adverse to genial conversation, it just means that I'm not likely to agree with them if they start bashing that system.
Posters who respond in that manner (and I've seen those exact words used) are some of the worst hyperbolizing, misinformation dribbling, wastes of bandwidth on these forums. I could have a picture of ponies playing in a field of flowers with a rainbow overhead in my sig and they'd take offense; that's what they do. If a 10 letter chunk of my sig makes them lose all touch with rational thought and fly completely off the handle, they weren't going to be contributing much to the conversation anyway. I'm not changing my signature to facilitate mildly less acerbic relations with posters who are just here to pick a fight, sorry.
No offense, but I'll take the badge down when I'm good and ready. Not a moment before.
Right fair enough. I still think that the tag causes an auto-defense reaction in some. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to educate me. Not going to get into too much of a discussion now since I'm in a rush, but this clarified things for me somewhat.
I realise, now suddenly, in light of Bat negating some of my rage at 4vengers, that the thing that bothers me the most about the pro 4e community is the snide "I will make comments about your intelligence" bunch. And to fair I think that I missattributed the name 4venger to them. Thinking of the two biggest offenders in this category, neither of them are 4vengers. However it is still a problem in the cru4de I think. For the sake of being brief I will end that there for now.
-It's the format of breaking apart every single little sentence the poster makes, with the intent to be somewhat snarky about it, as (as I recall) the post that started this debate was doing.
Yes, and a clear indication of when hostile formatting is being used is when the responses to the broken up quotes are one word gems like "ummm" and "ok...
". I'm glad someone else gets what I'm talking about. Makes me feel less like the rambling crazy person.You've been around long enough to know this isn't true.
Clearly its not quite as self-evident to me.
He may not have been overly polite in his response, but he certainly wasn't disruptive either.
Agree to disagree then. I think it certainly was. However, since I've discussed this at length I have nothing new to add. He was kind enough to come here personally to have a chat with me, which I feel illustrates my point, so I'm not going to rehash it with you.
Except, as you are well aware, the 'reach' I was referring to had nothing to do with the thread you found, but with your claim the the op was only referring to people who have read the books when he made his first post. By the way, in no way in his first post did he state anything to indicate he was only referring to people who had read the books.
I was not aware. The thing about snarky one liners is that they are lacking in clarification. Regardless, I was right. My reading of the OP strongly indicated as much, and while it may not have been crystal clear, he has since clarified that my reading of his post was correct. I see nothing more for you to contest.
Also, if you don't want me to be sarcastic and snarky with you, perhaps you should have refrained from previously being sarcastic and snarky with me.
So, what, you are saying "you started it"? I have not been sarcastic or snarky with you in this thread, or in recent memory. If you are using some other disagreement with me to justify condescention, I suppose there's nothing really I can do. You have left it vague enough that I can't defend myself. However, if you are going to use "you started it" as a justification for your snarky responses, don't expect me to respond as though what you are saying actually has merit in discussion. Odds are I will ignore any more sarcasm purely on principle. I bickered with krownhunter for a few posts, since I felt the discourse illustrated my point. Bickering with you over childish "he said she saids" would serve no such point.
I realise, now suddenly, in light of Bat negating some of my rage at 4vengers, that the thing that bothers me the most about the pro 4e community is the snide "I will make comments about your intelligence" bunch. And to fair I think that I missattributed the name 4venger to them. Thinking of the two biggest offenders in this category, neither of them are 4vengers. However it is still a problem in the cru4de I think. For the sake of being brief I will end that there for now.
The pro-4E side doesn't have the market cornered on insulting the other side's intelligence, believe you me.
I've been called; "stupid," "simple minded," a "WoW kid," "too dumb to play D&D," etc more times than I care to count. One of the posters who has contributed to this very thread at one point referred to 4E as "a game for retards" (it's since been deleted, for good reason).
I've been told that am simply "too simpleminded to appreciate [Vancian Casting], and [my] stupidity shouldn't inflict itself on those who enjoy it."
There have been days when I've had more insults thrown at me than facts. That's pretty messed up, no matter how you think about it.
Casting aspersions as to the intellect of those you disagree with is an old internet tradition, at least on the troll side. If you're not seeing it on the anti side of this equation, you're not looking for it. It honestly looks like another case of confirmation bias; you want to see "4vengers" doing it so you find them, but you don't want to see the people who come into discussion forums with the intent of insulting the intelligence of the people who like the game, so you don't.
Amount of money made is not equal to good & high quality. Meth dealers bring in more $ that WoW. And meth is a stinking pile of horse crap. So, by your logic, Meth is a wonderful thing with lots of users. Good logic.
Maybe debate isn't for you?
No but the fact that WoW isn't illegal sort of pokes a massive gaping hole in your argument. Maybe debating isn't for you either.
Yes, and a clear indication of when hostile formatting is being used is when the responses to the broken up quotes are one word gems like "ummm" and "ok...
-Indeed. That doesn't negate the fact that you are a crazy rambling person, though. ;) :P
OK sure, there are people who say things along the lines of "4th edition is disgusting I will never touch the books or read them lolzlolzlolz grrrr watch me foam at the mouth". But I don't care about them. I don't advocate their defense. Nor is that the intent of the OP.
However, as a person who actually owns the new books, it is my right as a customer of WotC to express my opinion of things as long as I don't violate the CoC. And, as is my right, there may be things about the new system which I find questionable, or not understand. Now, when you have a raging pack of flamethirsty "Avengers" running around, shoving the perfectness of 4E down your throat (having started doing so before the edition was released) and (this is really what irkes me) posting "witty" one liners about the person's intellegence, almost always followed by the following smiley "
And as long as there are trolls on the 4E forums threadcapping posts and turning the whole thread into an anti-4E vs. Pro-4E thread, we'll never get any decent discussions going. This is a fact.
I would like to point out that I have never said 4E was "perfect". What I have said, is that I feel it's better than 3.5 in my opinion. I dislike quite a few things about the system, but because there are parts that I really like, I'm either prepared to put up with them, or prepared to change them, as I'm sure 99% of people on this forum are.
The WoW thing is a whole other issue. Sure, saying 4E = WoW is silly. However, as someone who has played WoW, the similarities are obvious. This isn't a bad thing, I play WoW for a reason (which is that I enjoy it) and I know that WoW was based on D&D, so I don't mind any similiarites. However, according to "Avenger" dogma, the fact that I can see similiarities between these two fantasy games I play makes me a class A moron who is too inept to tie his own shoes, let alone be allowed on a forum. In fact, according to Avenger dogma, it is surprising that I have even the most basic ability to type, because, *clearly*, anyone who sees any similarities between the new edition and wow is too stupid to exist.
The fact is they both draw there fluff from the same source: earlier editions of D&D. So yes, obviously there are going to similarities, and I admit that there are similarities. The "Avenger Dogma" you were referring to I believe comes from the fact that trolls seen similarities and then said "because X, Y and Z are the same, 4E is exactly like WoW, with no exceptions whatsoever". These people may not be "too stupid to exist" but they certainly act that way.
Luckily for me, I, despite being too stupid to exist, know enough about the drama to avoid posting anything involving WoW. However, it still makes me livid, purely on principle, when I see some clown using a reference to WoW as a launching pad to start a flame war and/or make snide comments about the other poster's mental capacity. What really bothers me though is that this is tolerated. Saying "4E=WoW", while clearly ill advised, is not against the CoC. Calling other posters stupid, or insinuating such, is.
Indeed. Insulting other posters in a clear violation of the CoC, and these posters should be dealt with. But they are not. It's only the posts, and who says that is enough to get a poster to change his ways?
I don't condone name calling, but when you have a subset of people who proudly proclaim their 4E Avenger status in their sigs, then it comes into the picture regardless.
This 4E Avenger thing started because of trolls. The Avengers then kept the name because they thought it would be a deterrent to the trolls who, let's face it, tried to make idiots out of them. The name just stuck. It is not, and in my opinion, never has been, a way of saying "4E is perfect, disagree and face my wrath," but rather a way of saying "I support 4E", which puts it in a different light altogether.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16351783&posted=1#post16351783
The poster is accused of lying about playing older editions within the first few posts.
Exhibit B:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16351783&posted=1#post16351783
The poster is accused of lying about playing older editions within the first few posts.
One person said that many of the people who make the specific comments the OP didn't haven't played it. He didn't say that the OP hadn't played it.
Another person said that a lot of people are saying they have played all editions and obviously haven't and at this point it is reasonable to ask everyone a few questions to try and determine if they actually have. Again, not saying anything specific about this OP, just saying in general he has found it to be good policy at this point. This second comment was made as a response to you harshly criticizing the person who made the first comment.
I also think you picked a bad example. I don't see any connection between the title of the thread and the first post. It seems to be a deliberately inflammatory title. However, I think english may not be the OP's first language, so there might be a language barrier where he didn't realize it would be inflammatory.
I also think you picked a bad example. I don't see any connection between the title of the thread and the first post. It seems to be a deliberately inflammatory title. However, I think english may not be the OP's first language, so there might be a language barrier where he didn't realize it would be inflammatory.
No it is not. It is a legimitate question to ask after a new edition is released. The op was polite, and not inflammatory. He simply gave a negative opinion of the game. If you read the thread carefully you will see he is attacked by several posters and accused of not playing 4E, never playing previous editions, etc. I don't see how you can look at this thread and not understand that the 4E fanboy rage is out of hand. Look at crownhunter's and redcap's comments. They specifcally say the OP is lying.
My criticism wasn't harsh at all. I was just pointing out that there was no reason to make any assumptions about the OP.
Exhibit B:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16351783&posted=1#post16351783
The poster is accused of lying about playing older editions within the first few posts.
The OP felt the need to lead with his "gaming resume." That's red flag number one. Attempting to weight to your arguments based on what you have or haven't played is unnecessary e-peen swinging and is effectively telling the people in the thread who don't have that (potentially made up) resume that your opinion matters more than theirs.
He then goes on to speak negatively of basically everything that changed from 3E to 4E. That's red flag number 2. If you don't like change, then changing isn't for you, and that's fine. We don't really need to hear about it though. If you don't want to play the game, why are you here ostensibly to discuss it? Makes no sense.
The OP then disappears while surrogates step in to harass those who disagree with him. That's red flag number 3. If he gets to state his opinion, we get to state ours. I don't see how that's unreasonable, unless you're approaching the thread from a direction other than actual discussion.
Basically, this thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with the 4E forums at this point;
The OP who has never made an appearance in that forum drops in, claims authority, dumps on the new system and splits before any rebuttals can be made. Then, once the rebuttals arrive, they are attacked as being unfair to the OP. If we're not allowed to voice our own opinions when someone else presents theirs, how is this a discussion forum, again?
I was just pointing out that there was no reason to make any assumptions about the OP.
And we were pointing out that in a forum as rife with career trolls as that one, assuming that the OP was on the level is just as silly as assuming that he isn't.
The OP felt the need to lead with his "gaming resume." That's red flag number one. Attempting to weight to your arguments based on what you have or haven't played is unnecessary e-peen swinging and is effectively telling the people in the thread who don't have that (potentially made up) resume that your opinion matters more than theirs.?
Nothing wrong with saying you have played games before commenting on them.
The He then goes on to speak negatively of basically everything that changed from 3E to 4E. That's red flag number 2. If you don't like change, then changing isn't for you, and that's fine. We don't really need to hear about it though. If you don't want to play the game, why are you here ostensibly to discuss it? Makes no sense..?
What else is he going to comment on? It is a new edition. The thing people are going to pick up on (postive and negative) are the changes from the last edition.
The OP then disappears while surrogates step in to harass those who disagree with him. That's red flag number 3. If he gets to state his opinion, we get to state ours. I don't see how that's unreasonable, unless you're approaching the thread from a direction other than actual discussion.
The post is recent. There was an explosion of replies right after. Perhaps he didn't post because he was affraid of being attacked, since the replies were so hostile. From what I can see, I am the only person in their rising to his defense. I am not harrassing anyone. I have been polite, factual and asking people to be respectful of the OP (i was banned recently and have no intention of being banned again).
Basically, this thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with the 4E forums at this point;
The OP who has never made an appearance in that forum drops in, claims authority, dumps on the new system and splits before any rebuttals can be made. Then, once the rebuttals arrive, they are attacked as being unfair to the OP. If we're not allowed to voice our own opinions when someone else presents theirs, how is this a discussion forum, again?
Voice your opinions. But be polite. I don't think you realize how out of line some of the responses are.
Nothing wrong with saying you have played games before commenting on them.
No, it's generally best to have done so.
What the OP is doing, though, is trying to give his post more authority through invoking previous editions. He's holding up his opinion as being more important than those whom he has implied his superiority over. It's e-peen swinging, that's it.
What else is he going to comment on? It is a new edition. The thing people are going to pick up on (postive and negative) are the changes from the last edition.
Here's the thing. If you're comparing one game to another game on the first game's terms, the first game is going to come out looking good and the second is going to come out looking crazy. Bottom line. Comparing 4E to 3E purely in terms of 3E is going to give you a biased result. That's exactly what he's doing here.
This inability to be circumspect is what's drawing him a lot of heat, in fact. It's pretty clear when a poster is looking at the new system through the filter of 3E without judging it on it's own merits, and a lot of the posters who enjoy 4E (myself included) are getting very tired of it being trashed on those terms.
The post is recent. There was an explosion of replies right after. Perhaps he didn't post because he was affraid of being attacked, since the replies were so hostile. From what I can see, I am the only person in their rising to his defense. I am not harrassing anyone. I have been polite, factual and asking people to be respectful of the OP (i was banned recently and have no intention of being banned again).
There have already been deletions from that thread. Quite a few of them, as a matter of fact. It's probably being prepped for the megathread anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Just don't think you're the only one leaping to his defense when in fact there are several of you and the others are just flaming enough to get themselves deleted very quickly.
Voice your opinions. But be polite. I don't think you realize how out of line some of the responses are.
People on both sides have been out of line. I have no control over that. The thing at issue here is that the OP started (whether he knew at the time or not) a thread that's basically going to be come a perfect flaming storm. His posting style, the conclusions he reached, the way he reached them and the bias that is fairly obvious to anyone who reads it all add up to a very contentious thread and we have too many of those already. It was a stupid thing to post at all (who's he trying to convince anyway?) and the way it was done only magnified that.
At its heart, the thread merely stated a handful of criticisms...
1) Two-handed weapons were inferior to bastard swords
2) Monsters are not as customizable as 3rd edition
3) Undead have Con
4) Goblins are harder to kill
5) Oozes are harder than level 3
6) Characters end at level 30.
Now, most of his criticisms are inaccurate. (Monsters are quite easy to customize, he seems to have misread the rules on bastard swords, he likely made some sort of tactical error on the ooze because that encounter is pretty balanced from most playtesters, and some goblins are easy to kill -- like minions -- while some are harder.) Other criticisms contradict his assertion that he has played older editions. (For instance, undead used to have Constitution scores, and levels used to be capped.)
There was no reason to rise to the bait of appeals to expertise or the "Is D&D Dying" title.
No it is not. It is a legimitate question to ask after a new edition is released. The op was polite, and not inflammatory. He simply gave a negative opinion of the game. If you read the thread carefully you will see he is attacked by several posters and accused of not playing 4E, never playing previous editions, etc. I don't see how you can look at this thread and not understand that the 4E fanboy rage is out of hand. Look at crownhunter's and redcap's comments. They specifcally say the OP is lying.
My criticism wasn't harsh at all. I was just pointing out that there was no reason to make any assumptions about the OP.
If you look I posted at 10:12am EDT. At that point one of the people you reference hadn't posted and the other was making points about how he was worried about the future of the game as well and also getting into a tiff with you but not the OP. Since then the thread has taken an unpleasant turn, but it is still two or three people doing it. There are more than that number of pro-4e people making polite and reasoned responses. EDIT - polite responses to the OP.
Are all the responses in that thread polite? No, but you already called them out in the thread itself. I don't see how one person (now more - but only one at the time of my original post) posting argumentative things in response to a post with a very inflammatory title is fanboy rage in general. One rude poster does not make fanboy rage. I have already said that I don't like rude posts on either side. I think that title was either baiting or a language issue and is equally to blame. I would love to see the title changed and a bunch of posts deleted. Then maybe it can be a worthwhile thread.
I don't see how "I think D&D is dying because my play group doesn't enjoy the new edition more than the old one" isn't baiting. Should people rise to the bait? No! But that doesn't make it okay to bait.
There was no reason to rise to the bait of appeals to expertise or the "Is D&D Dying" title.
There was also no reason for them to be there in the first place.
As I've said before, 4E fans in that forum have been defending their right to enjoy their game, and on occasion their worth as human beings for doing so, for a while now. We're going to react negatively to stuff like that.
Intentional or not, the post got exactly the response this thread was started as a comment on; he baited and it's dissolving into a flame war.
Trust me, we don't like this any more than the rest of you.
There was also no reason for them to be there in the first place.
There's no reason to bait, I agree. That doesn't justify or even explain bad responses.
Trust me, we don't like this any more than the rest of you.
Who's this "you" and "we"? What side do you think I'm on?
There's no reason to bait, I agree. That doesn't justify or even explain bad responses.
Who's this "you" and "we"? What side do you think I'm on?
He was speking to the lord...something guy/girl...
There was no reason to rise to the bait of appeals to expertise or the "Is D&D Dying" title.
Really stupid question... isn't baiting against the CoC?
There's no reason to bait, I agree. That doesn't justify or even explain bad responses.
I agree with you on both counts. My post was meant as an assertion of that agreement, I'm sorry if I came off a little cross. The developments this morning have put me in a bit of a "mood."
There's no justification for aggressive responses, but it's pretty easy to point at the cause. 4E supporters don't just sit in the forum and flame each other if there's no one else around, after all. We're not the ones injecting this stuff into the forum, we're just reacting to it. We don't do the best job of reigning ourselves in at times, but there are a lot of raw nerves at this point.
Who's this "you" and "we"? What side do you think I'm on?
Sorry. Again, this was meant as an agreement with your post. The "you" here is everyone who is accusing the "4vengers" of being the problem here; we just want a forum where we don't have to sift through threads filled with people flaming our edition to have an actual discussion of it. That's all.
Really stupid question... isn't baiting against the CoC?
It is, but "Is D&D Dying" is not obvious baiting. I've seen that asked sincerely. And give the OP's inartfulness with the English language, it's entirely possible he was lumbering ignorantly through that minefield.
Also, if nobody reports a bait, it won't be handled.
Why did they change ignoring trolls with the new edition?
Let's assume for a moment that the OP was a troll. Ok by responding and flaming, you not gave the Op what they wanted in the first place, but encouraged them to troll again. Good job 4venger, by encouraging trolling, and justifying flaming you've made the board a better place for us all.
Has anyone here said that we feel responding to trolls is productive? Because, if they did, I must have missed that.
Yes, reacting to trolls is a bad idea. It's also human nature. As with anything else, you're going to have some successes and some failures; and in this case it's easy to focus on the failures since they're up front and center (since they're the ones who posted). How many other fans of 4E walked away from the thread, as was my initial inclination? I got pulled back in because one poster was berating another for being disinclined to put weight behind the poster's assertion that he'd been playing D&D from the beginning. I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked back in, but I did. On that front, I failed. It happens, we move on.
Why did they change ignoring trolls with the new edition?
The 2E to 3E shift wasn't any less contentious. Looking back through the threads from the time via the wonder of the internet, there was just as much stupidity floating around then as there is now. The buzzwords were a little different (Diablo, thAC0 and nonweapon Profs vs WoW, Saving Throws and skill points), but the arguments were effectively the same;
Side 1: This new game is fun, I think I'll play it instead of the old game I was playing.
Side 2: This new game isn't fun. I think I'll keep playing the old game, and take random shots at those who decided to switch.
Exhibit B:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16351783&posted=1#post16351783
The poster is accused of lying about playing older editions within the first few posts.
The OP may not have been deliberately lying, but it was obvious that at least some of his statements were not truthful. When someone isn't telling the truth, are people not allowed to call them out on it?
And by the way, that discussion was going along reasonably well until you yourself disrupted it. So, presenting this thread as an 'exhibit' is not exactly helping your case.
Let's assume for a moment that the OP was a troll. Ok by responding and flaming, you not gave the Op what they wanted in the first place, but encouraged them to troll again. Good job 4venger, by encouraging trolling, and justifying flaming you've made the board a better place for us all.
Why did they change ignoring trolls with the new edition?
The discussion was never did the fanboys flame. We all agree they did and it was bad.
The discussion going on here (IMHO) is whether it is all the fault of the pro-4e side or if the anti-4e side contributed to the flame war in this thread. I personally find both sides to be equally non-helpful in this thread (in the case of the OP possibly unintentionally).
The larger discussion is about what, if anything, can be done by individuals to make the boards more friendly from both sides.
I was not aware.
Even though my statement followed a quote of yours to show exactly to what I was referring?
Regardless, I was right. My reading of the OP strongly indicated as much, and while it may not have been crystal clear, he has since clarified that my reading of his post was correct. I see nothing more for you to contest.
Except for the fact that he never stated anything to clarify that this was the case until after you forwarded your theory.
So, what, you are saying "you started it"? I have not been sarcastic or snarky with you in this thread, or in recent memory.
Is that so? Well, let's look and see:
It was (un)surprisingly easy to find one.
Step 1 - I open a thread I havent looked at before
Umbral; "Hmm, ok, the guy is saying that there are some things he would like to keep from 3.5, and he would like to discuss as much... Possibly interesting, I have had similiar thoughts about maybe wanting to keep some things... Lets read further..."
Step 2 - Read the first response to thread
Umbral; "Oh look, its some guy being abrasive and posting dismissivly. How nice."
Step 3 - Stop Reading
Umbral; "This has put me off the thread now. I am going to stop reading now, since I know if I read further I will get involved which I don't want to do. Maybe I will just avoid the forums in general, since they are so nasty nowadays..."
And there you have it. Simple three step example of how someone who isn't a h4ter can be put off the forums. I didn't even have to look for a whole minute.
[edit: and look, I succomb to the temptation to look a bit further in the thread, and yes, it was derailed with plenty of "grrr, your 3.5 (insert 3.5 feature here, alignment in this case) is crap, regardless of how you think or feel" style posts.
If you look at the very origional post...
This is clearly in reference to people who have bought the 4E books, therefore excluding the "rrraaaarrrgh I will never touch your filthy 4.0 books movement" I mentioned.
Sarcasm? Check.
Snarkiness? Check.
Contained in this thread? Check.
If you are going to berate others for wrongdoings, it somewhat lessens your case when you yourself are doing the same thing.
Even though my statement followed a quote of yours to show exactly to what I was referring?
Except for the fact that he never stated anything to clarify that this was the case until after you forwarded your theory.
Is that so? Well, let's look and see:
Sarcasm? Check.
Snarkiness? Check.
Contained in this thread? Check.
If you are going to berate others for wrongdoings, it somewhat lessens your case when you yourself are doing the same thing.
I wouldn't call what I do to be 'wrongdoings'.... just my two cents.
;)
I wouldn't call what I do to be 'wrongdoings'.... just my two cents.
;)
Don't worry, I wasn't referring to you, as I can't even remember any of the things you have posted right now. Senility creeping up on me, and all that.
Don't worry, I wasn't referring to you, as I can't even remember any of the things you have posted right now. Senility creeping up on me, and all that.
lol, no problem... I was the poster who UmbralKnight had quoted and misrepersented... a little.
The OP felt the need to lead with his "gaming resume." That's red flag number one.
With the kind of comments that come out of people like "have you even played D&D ever before?" and the like, then someone tells his gaming history is a bad thing?
Doesn't every D&D article include some sort of credentials at the bottom of the page about the author?
So who is wrong? The WotC articles wrongly include some sort of credentials, or a poster giving his "gaming resume" aka credentials is wrong?
There was no reason to rise to the bait of appeals to expertise or the "Is D&D Dying" title.
I think this is the big problem of the community versus management.
How is that baiting?
By the standards I see around here EVERY newspaper article title would be baiting, and therefore every newpaper publisher is libel/slanderous to the subject of that title. Same goes for the TV newspersons and their headlines.
It isn't meant to "illicit a negative response". The title serves to be catchy to seperate it from anything else in the forum.
How many threads can you have with the same title, before someone has to use something new to not confuse or have someone complain that a thread with the EXACT title exist a few posts down?
Get off the high-horse, and realize that after a while you will have used every possible title and need something new and catchy. Heck D&D does it with new gimmicks each edition, same for every other product in the world. Catchy title is nothing more than a catchy jingle for an advertisement, or a catchy slogan like "Just Do It".
With the kind of comments that come out of people like "have you even played D&D ever before?" and the like, then someone tells his gaming history is a bad thing?
The fact that people are asking for a resume is just as bad as having one displayed at the top of your post. You shouldn't have to credential to put forth your feelings about the game, and there's no call to get into an e-peeing contest over whose list is longer.
People should be able to make a case for their statements without resorting to stroking their "qualifications" or calling others out on theirs.
Doesn't every D&D article include some sort of credentials at the bottom of the page about the author?
Those are generally official titles. Someone on the Dev team DOES have more say than someone who isn't, and it's worth noting that. Otherwise, they're just fans of the game (or individual editions thereof) and should be treated as such.
So who is wrong? The WotC articles wrongly include some sort of credentials, or a poster giving his "gaming resume" aka credentials is wrong?
When credentials translate into actual power to alter the course of the development of the game, they should be stated up front. When they're just going to be used to beat people who dare to disagree with you over the head, they shouldn't even be brought up.
Who's this "you" and "we"? What side do you think I'm on?
I think you found the very important question and may be able to understand a few people around in this very thread when you find that answer out.
With the kind of comments that come out of people like "have you even played D&D ever before?" and the like, then someone tells his gaming history is a bad thing?
Doesn't every D&D article include some sort of credentials at the bottom of the page about the author?
So who is wrong? The WotC articles wrongly include some sort of credentials, or a poster giving his "gaming resume" aka credentials is wrong?
It's wrong to force your opinion over others via being more experianced... and in other fashions.
What you compared is not the same.... nice try though... 4 points out of 10!
*Also, you keep comparing things not related to these forums as if they somehow prove a point.... they don't, try another route.
By the standards I see around here EVERY newspaper article title would be baiting, and therefore every newpaper publisher is libel/slanderous to the subject of that title. Same goes for the TV newspersons and their headlines.
There's a problem with your comparison; the newspaper headlines preface something that's a one-way communication. They can be inflamitory without sparking off flame wars. Thread titles, on the other hand, are intrinsically linked with a conversation that's going to be taking place. One can afford to lead with something that is going to produce cries of "********!" without negative effect on an immediate dialogue, the other can't.
The OP may not have been deliberately lying, but it was obvious that at least some of his statements were not truthful. When someone isn't telling the truth, are people not allowed to call them out on it?
It might be baiting or harrassment under the CoC, but we, the users are still trying to unlock the cryptic code to see what the CoC really means.
If it is to correct a misunderstanding of RAW where RAW is being discussed, then that should be perfectly allowed, but if you were to correct a houserule by saying that RAW says you can't do that, then I think that is not something that should be done...
CM would have to clarify that possibly on a case per case basis I think...
I think this is the big problem of the community versus management.
How is that baiting?
It is not a constructive criticism. It's a rhetorical question designed to elicit a negative response.
And yes, headlines often bait people. They're trying to bait you into buying the newspaper. Baiting may be appropriate to tabloids. It is not appropriate to forum discussions.
The fact that people are asking for a resume is just as bad as having one displayed at the top of your post. You shouldn't have to credential to put forth your feelings about the game, and there's no call to get into an e-peeing contest over whose list is longer.
People should be able to make a case for their statements without resorting to stroking their "qualifications" or calling others out on theirs.
Those are generally official titles. Someone on the Dev team DOES have more say than someone who isn't, and it's worth noting that. Otherwise, they're just fans of the game (or individual editions thereof) and should be treated as such.
When credentials translate into actual power to alter the course of the development of the game, they should be stated up front. When they're just going to be used to beat people who dare to disagree with you over the head, they shouldn't even be brought up.
That power that you assert the Devs have ends with the printing of the books. The only additional power they have is to make sure CS doesn't screw up some Q&A and to make sure that any errata follow the Devs ideas on rAW.
Other than that they have NO power for independent games, and even the RPGA may alter things created by the Devs to more fit it should there be a conflict of rules.
As you say each person shouldn't need credentials because when it comes down to it, James Wyatt really means nothing to a majority of gaming groups. He contributed majorly to the edition, but there is no way to tell which exact parts. It is just as Gary had little say even though he wrote the 1st edition books what happens at individuals games.
So the Devs only have say in the published product, and after the consumer has it unless they want information from the Devs, they have no more say in anything.
Note what people were telling Andy Collins about the conversion articles. I think the latest one was much better as it included the fact that you could NOT convert characters again. Rather than implying that the previous articles made the older classes work. So the Devs say didn't mean squat to many posters or gamers.
I wonder if some people are fans of the game, or fans of the games creators?
It might be baiting or harrassment under the CoC, but we, the users are still trying to unlock the cryptic code to see what the CoC really means.
So if I started a thread titled 'Repent Sinners!' and stated in my first post "God himself was at my place today and told me that 4E is the one true way to salvation, and that those who support 3.5 are going to bath in the fires of the abyss", that would be okay? And anyone who questioned me on it, or indicated they thought I was being less than truthful, they would be in violation of the CoC?
There's a problem with your comparison; the newspaper headlines preface something that's a one-way communication. They can be inflammatory without sparking off flame wars. Thread titles, on the other hand, are intrinsically linked with a conversation that's going to be taking place. One can afford to lead with something that is going to produce cries of "********!" without negative effect on an immediate dialogue, the other can't.
But you are wrong. Newspapers are not oneway streets anymore that a forum thread is.
You reply to the content of a thread, not its title.
You can reply about the title, but then that is not properly using the forums is it?
You could easily contact the author of the newspaper article and complain or such, so there is no oneway street there either.
You have the option to communicate in either case. The medium for communication is not built in to a newspaper, but it does not deny that communication, otherwise you would never see news articles in any medium being retracted and newspapers/shows would not be held accountable for what they say.
I would suggest people to read at least a portion of the thread and not just reply to the threads title.
(Sorry I think your post quoted above got spell-checked with everything else in this post.)
The difference is that the resume is vetted by the editor of the magazine, and the author's real name is used.
When someone writes an anonymous opinion on the internet and then claims for themselves credentials that cannot be verified, they are not only making an erroneous appeal to authority, they are making an unverifiable appeal to authority.
As the New Yorker cartoon famously stated:
That said, such appeals are best ignored.
Title: Repent Sinners
Post:
Show
This is my campaign about where the players will have to convert people from one religion to another is some crusade for.............etc
That power that you assert the Devs have ends with the printing of the books. The only additional power they have is to make sure CS doesn't screw up some Q&A and to make sure that any errata follow the Devs ideas on rAW.
Other than that they have NO power for independent games, and even the RPGA may alter things created by the Devs to more fit it should there be a conflict of rules.
But those same devs are going to be driving future releases. Each new release alters the way 4E plays and works, even if only in subtle ways. In that aspect, they do have power and it's worth stating that in articles they write.
They're also responsible for creating the material being discussed, which gives them a different perspective and a higher level of responsibility when it comes to addressing it. That, too, points to a need to enumerate their involvement up front.
There's a reason to have people who worked or work on the books say so up front. There's absolutely no reason, however, for posters to be bludgeoning one another with their gaming history's to see whose is longer.
Forum: Campaign Worlshop
Title: Repent Sinners
Post:ShowThis is my campaign about where the players will have to convert people from one religion to another is some crusade for.............etc
Newspapers are not oneway streets
Really? You walk around writing your comments about a newspaper article on random people's newspapers so they know your response to them?
You reply to the content of a thread, not its title.
A title is part of the thread and certainly it is appropriate to respond to the title along with the content of the post beneath it.
You can reply about the title, but then that is not properly using the forums is it?
In what way is such a thing improper?
You could easily contact the author of the newspaper article and complain or such
But not publicly, which is what a forum discussion is about. A newspaper doesn't invite discussion of its article on the paper. A discussion forum is about, well, discussing things.
If you want the OP to know your response, you can PM him. If you respond publicly to his post it is to elicit public discussion, something that your contacting an article's author cannot accomplish.
I would suggest people to read at least a portion of the thread and not just reply to the threads title.
Nobody responded only to the title. But they respond in part to the title, and if the title is baiting then that's going to elicit an unfortunate response.
You reply to the content of a thread, not its title.
But you start forming an opinion about the content based on the title. If there's a thread titled "4E = WoW and you all suck for playing it," I'm not going to go into that thread in a mood for calm discussion. If baiting had a definition (it doesn't seem to around here) that would be it.
You could easily contact the author of the newspaper article and complain or such, so there is no oneway street there either.
But the article isn't written on a discussion forum with the intent of being publicly discussed. It's written for a newspaper (or website) and posted there in a vacuum. Thread posts and articles are very different beasts, they really bear no comparison in this case.
I would suggest people to read at least a portion of the thread and not just reply to the threads title.
Inflammatory titles sit on top of inflammatory threads. If the thread was actually about rational discussion, they would have lead with something that wouldn't cause a gut reaction in one side or the other. When they fail to do this, they're baiting.
To write a post whose content is likely to elicit a negative emotional response.
The best definition of baiting I've seen is.
To write a post whose content is likely to elicit a negative emotional response.
-I'd replace "is likely" with "is designed with the purpose of". Because, to use an example, a fully honest, genuine, no-punches pulled, critique is surely going to elicit a negative emotional response from someone who is utterly convinced of whatever the poster is genuinely critiquing.
-There is a difference between being genuinely honest, and offending someone because of it, and being "stupid", trying to offend someone.
It might be baiting or harrassment under the CoC, but we, the users are still trying to unlock the cryptic code to see what the CoC really means.
Try being a little less presumptuous and not talking for me, a user.
I would add "... from a reasonable reader" to the definition and qualify the definition with the caveat that a post that itself avoids making emotional arguments is unlikely to be deemed to elicit an emotional response form reasonable people.
What defines reasonableness? The mods.
-I'd replace "is likely" with "is designed with the purpose of". Because, to use an example, a fully honest, genuine, no-punches pulled, critique is surely going to elicit a negative emotional response from someone who is utterly convinced of whatever the poster is genuinely critiquing.
-There is a difference between being genuinely honest, and offending someone because of it, and being "stupid", trying to offend someone.
Indeed
I don't like definitions that require someone to read the poster's mind. He shouldn't get to defend against an accusation of baiting by claiming innocent intent.
I would add "... from a reasonable reader" to the definition and qualify the definition with the caveat that a post that itself avoids making emotional arguments is unlikely to be deemed to elicit an emotional response form reasonable people.
What defines reasonableness? The mods.
-Yeah, it goes both ways. The posters shouldn't be able to feign ignorance at the intent, and at the same time, someone shouldn't be able to claim offense arbitrarily.
:P :P
-Yeah, it goes both ways. The posters shouldn't be able to feign ignorance at the intent, and at the same time, someone shouldn't be able to claim offense arbitrarily.
This is why we need to tighten up the definition for the term.
"Arbitrarily" is something that can be defined if we get a good working definition of baiting. If you were baited, it's not arbitrary.
I find that idea offensive, LK!
:P :P
-As do I! Why did I even bring it up! I baited myself!
This is why we need to tighten up the definition for the term.
"Arbitrarily" is something that can be defined if we get a good working definition of baiting. If you were baited, it's not arbitrary.
-This, I don't see as possible, because there isn't a set definition. It changes on a case by case basis.
-This, I don't see as possible, because there isn't a set definition. It changes on a case by case basis.
It does change from post to post, yes. But until we define it, we can't define what "arbitrarily taking offense" means either.
Like anything else, it falls to the denizens of the forums themselves to make that call. And everyone's got a different idea of where the line is.
I think this is the big problem of the community versus management.
How is that baiting?
By the standards I see around here EVERY newspaper article title would be baiting, and therefore every newpaper publisher is libel/slanderous to the subject of that title. Same goes for the TV newspersons and their headlines.
Newspaper articles and TV headlines are designed to be baiting and inflammatory. They are competing in a closed market for advertising dollars and want to draw in as many people as they can. They are also, as mentioned by another poster, one-way communication.
If you think a thread is baiting, report it. But when the dialog box opens, it's your responsibility to explain the problem. Putting "baiting" might not cause any action. But if you go into an explanation of why you think it's baiting, something is likely to get done. For example, I recently saw a WizO edit a thread title to be less of a bait while leaving the rest of the post alone.
-I can attest to this. A post I've reported multiple times for baiting, nothing was done. Then, when I reported it, and included the post number, and how exactly it was baiting, the post was removed.
I agree with Zherog. Which is why baiting is a problem but responding to it with an inappropriate post is just as much a problem.
Can't disagree with this.
someone shouldn't be able to claim offense arbitrarily.
Right. That's why the definition should not require us to read the mind of the poster or the reader.
-I can attest to this. A post I've reported multiple times for baiting, nothing was done. Then, when I reported it, and included the post number, and how exactly it was baiting, the post was removed.
I am curious exactly how to handle reports, as I don't know what information is sent with it.
Just the comment so the report has no other information?
Is the thread title/# or post number included?
What goes along with the report to identify the post in question?
Sometimes, a one-word description is fine. When those
spambots come around and advertise their Nokia phones, a simple message of "spam" probably suffices.But for anything else, it's always best if you type out at least one sentence, and probably more. The better you explain why you think something is a problem, the more informed the mod is when he/she comes in to deal with the problem. Saying "baiting" might not be good enough -- remember that there are mods who don't know anything about the edition wars and all that. Tell them why you think it's baiting. Tell them why you think it's flaming. And so on.
I don't think that it is anonymous. I am pretty sure that the UserID of the person making the report goes as well.
That makes sense. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to track abusive use of it.
-It's probably anonymous as well.
It's been a while, but I don't think so. I think it also includes your name in the report.
It's wrong to force your opinion over others via being more experianced... and in other fashions.
What you compared is not the same.... nice try though... 4 points out of 10!
*Also, you keep comparing things not related to these forums as if they somehow prove a point.... they don't, try another route.
First off, this is not true. The opinion of an astro physicist has more weight my opinions about the distance of the moon from the earth. He is a credible source. It only becomes a fallacy when the person making the claim says they can't be criticized because of their experience or authority. If the person simply says "I have experience in this matter and I have found..." that is fine. It is when the person says "I am an expert that makes my argument right" that it is a logical fallacy. Again, for the appeal to authority to be fallacious, it must include the notion that the authority's opinion is infallible because of his/her expertise.
Note that the OP never said his opinion was more imporant than others because of his experience. He stated it as part of his overall criticism, because he was arguing the game has changed too much from previous editions. It was an important detail, to help people understand where he is coming from.
"Can't we all just get along?"
The discussion was never did the fanboys flame. We all agree they did and it was bad.
The discussion going on here (IMHO) is whether it is all the fault of the pro-4e side or if the anti-4e side contributed to the flame war in this thread. I personally find both sides to be equally non-helpful in this thread (in the case of the OP possibly unintentionally).
The larger discussion is about what, if anything, can be done by individuals to make the boards more friendly from both sides.
That wasn't my point at all. What I was saying is that if the OP is such an obvious troll then why did people even bother responding to him/her/it?
What I'm hearing is that the 4vengers feel that they must defend 4e from the haters by flaming them into the stone age. And that flaming them is the correct course of action, becuase the haters are trolls.
I agree that the vast majority of the "haters" are probably trolls, at at this point they are. The people who have decided to move on, have done so. I can't see why they bother coming in here just to pick a fight. Heck most of them don't bother coming to these boards anymore. Granted some people would still like to discuss the new edition and do not like it, but thats another matter entirely.
So if the posters who come on here and post, "4e is the suxours cause it's wowerific and Mearls kicked my Dog!" are trolls, they why the need to respond to them at all? Sure you want to flame them, I can understand that, but it won't help. It's like trying to put out your camp fire by throwing a bucket of gasoline on it. Your free to do so, but it will not do anyone any favors, (Unless you live in a country were they charge for medical assistance, them you maybe doing the doctors a favor by giving them business) and you certainly aren't helping put out the camp fire.
To use another metephor, a troll is like a children screaming becuase it can't have what it wants. Buy giving it what it wants you teach it that it can get what it wants by screaming. In the case of a troll, they want to see you get all riled up and ****** off, and then say mean things on the net and laugh at you when you do get ****** off and act lick a tard. When you flame a troll you give it exactly what it wants, and thus teach it that to get what it wants it should continue trolling. Which of course just makes things worse.
My point is that if the OP was indeed a troll then the correct response would have been to not respond to him/her in the first place.
Bat: I know its human nature to respond, but it is also human nature to run around naked and do whatever you feel like. Obviously in order for society to function we do not do everything that is in our nature to do. I know you failed in this instance, but you and everyone else who feels the need to defend 4e seem to be failing an awful lot in this respect. Perhaps instead of the "better luck next time," approach we could actually try to show some restraint when it comes to responding to absolute lunacy?
Sniped.... headshot... or not... w/e
This is a game, not someone's life work we're talking about here...
Trying to put your opinion above truth in any fashion is wrong. Very simple....
This is a game, not someone's life work we're talking about here...
Trying to put your opinion above truth in any fashion is wrong. Very simple....
So what you are saying is anyone who presents an opinion that isn't the same as your own is wrong?
"Can't we all just get along?"
-I find that offensive! Mwa ha ha!
:P :P
So what you are saying is anyone who presents an opinion that isn't the same as your own is wrong?
...
Umm.. no. I said {anyone who puts their opinion above truth is wrong}
...
...
Umm.. no. I said {anyone who puts their opinion above truth is wrong}
...
Yes, and you claim ownership of the truth. Anytime someone gives their opinion, you accuse them of putting their opinion above truth as if it is some sort of rhetorical sledge hammer. How could he have phrased his opinion so that it didn't offend you in this respect?
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Note that the OP never said his opinion was more imporant than others because of his experience. He stated it as part of his overall criticism, because he was arguing the game has changed too much from previous editions. It was an important detail, to help people understand where he is coming from.
Which is rendered moot, when it is obvious that he is either not familiar with any edition other than 3.5, or he is being less than honest with his comments.
for the appeal to authority to be fallacious, it must include the notion that the authority's opinion is infallible because of his/her expertise.
But for the appeal to authority to be credible, the authority also needs to be verifiable, right?
I mean if someone says "I've been playing D&D since the White Box, and this edition is the best edition of all the games that's been out," doesn't it matter if the person is lying about his experience?
And since we have no way to verify whether he is or is not telling the truth, doesn't that make the appeal to authority worthless? (Note I am not saying we should presume someone who makes an appeal is lying or being truthful. I am saying we simply cannot gauge the statement's accuracy over the internet.)
The only way to verify such a statement is to compare specific explanations for his opinion and evaluate it for accuracy. For example, if someone complains that no prior edition ever had a level cap, then we know the claim is inaccurate.
Now, I'm not saying referencing one's history is always bad. But on the internet it's pretty much always unverifiable and thus not credible.
Bat: I know its human nature to respond, but it is also human nature to run around naked and do whatever you feel like. Obviously in order for society to function we do not do everything that is in our nature to do.
Here's the difference; We're ingrained from birth with the idea of covering ourselves and not randomly shouting. On the other hand, we're constantly told that we need to be ready to defend ourselves if we feel attacked. One of those "instincts" (and I'm not sure the example you gave is something that is really instinctive) is trained out of us and the other is honed to a fine point. We're going to fail a lot more at keeping one in check than the other.
I know you failed in this instance, but you and everyone else who feels the need to defend 4e seem to be failing an awful lot in this respect. Perhaps instead of the "better luck next time," approach we could actually try to show some restraint when it comes to responding to absolute lunacy?
Restraint works on an individual level. In the thread that was posted, I restrained myself from responding to the OP directly (I gave a little aside that replaced the post I had been typing up) and didn't jump in until the thread had dissolved into people trading blows about what kind of assumptions we should have for posters new to the forum. At that point, I started responding.
Not everyone managed to show even the low level of self-control that I did, though, since "ignore them" works on a personal level but you can't apply it to a group of effectively unaffiliated people without some sort of internal communication system. So, they jumped to the bait and it was what it was.
As I've said before, the thing that's not talked about is how many posters on those boards don't jump to fight the trolls. The ones who do are obviously the most visible, but for every one that does there are a dozen or so that go about their business. Painting everyone in the forum with the same brush is a bad idea.
And I will reiterate this again; we don't seek people to flame. We'd be perfectly happy to stay in our forum and discuss the game. The flames come looking for us. Get a better system for identifying and deleting those posts/threads, and we'll be fine.
Yes, and you claim ownership of the truth. Anytime someone gives their opinion, you accuse them of putting their opinion above truth as if it is some sort of rhetorical sledge hammer. How could he have phrased his opinion so that it didn't offend you in this respect?
I never claimed to own anything... stop assuming things about me that are not truth.... please.
But for the appeal to authority to be credible, the authority also needs to be verifiable, right?
I mean if someone says "I've been playing D&D since the White Box, and this edition is the best edition of all the games that's been out," doesn't it matter if the person is lying about his experience?
And since we have no way to verify whether he is or is not telling the truth, doesn't that make the appeal to authority worthless? (Note I am not saying we should presume someone who makes an appeal is lying or being truthful. I am saying we simply cannot gauge the statement's accuracy over the internet.)
The only way to verify such a statement is to compare specific explanations for his opinion and evaluate it for accuracy. For example, if someone complains that no prior edition ever had a level cap, then we know the claim is inaccurate.
Now, I'm not saying referencing one's history is always bad. But on the internet it's pretty much always unverifiable and thus not credible.
1) his argument opinion didn't hinge on his statement that he played every edition, since he was mostly comparring 3e to 4e. I think he was just giving context, and anticipating possible attacks.
2) I generally take people at their word on their gaming experience here. Sure some people could say they played an edition that they never did, but I am not worried about being played the fool occassionally. I also don't want to be suspicious of everything anyone posts.
3) He didn't deserve to be flamed for saying he played previous editions. We can't know if he is lying or not. I will agree his argument wasn't air tight. But he could have forgotten details about 1e and 2e. Heck I came of age with 2e and forget important details about it all the time. I mean most people haven't played it in 8 years. I recently opened the old players handbook and was amazed at all the stuff I had forgotten about. My point is there are many reasons he could have posted shaky info, and the most plausible ones have nothing to do with him lying. Lots of people play the game as players, and miss important details of the system. But to say he never played because he claimed combat took too long (which I have experience myself) is simply presumptious.
I never claimed to own anything... stop assuming things about me that are not truth.... please.
I am trying to figure out what you mean by putting opinion over truth, when everything discussed in the thread was a matter of opinion.
Which is rendered moot, when it is obvious that he is either not familiar with any edition other than 3.5, or he is being less than honest with his comments.
I don't see how this is so. Being fuzzy on details about an edition he probably hasn't played in 8 years, doesn't mean he was lying.
I am trying to figure out what you mean by putting opinion over truth, when everything discussed in the thread was a matter of opinion.
It should be glaringly obvious what it means.
That wasn't my point at all. What I was saying is that if the OP is such an obvious troll then why did people even bother responding to him/her/it?
What I'm hearing is that the 4vengers feel that they must defend 4e from the haters by flaming them into the stone age. And that flaming them is the correct course of action, becuase the haters are trolls.
I thought we had already agreed that the most abrasive 4e posters are not avengers and that the avengers are working to reduce flaming? See pages 5 and 6 of this thread for that discussion.
Several people did write out very thoughtful explanations of how they saw all of the OPs points. See the following as an example. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16352000&postcount=40
The flame war started over a tangential point of the OP's post and was fanned by several people in this thread. It seems that many people agree that the majority of the posts shouldn't have been made. I don't see how arguing over who made the worst posts, or who started it is going to help anything. Heck, it has started a minor war here in this thread that has been mostly civil.
It should be glaringly obvious what it means.
Given the circumstances it isn't obvious to me.
We forced them to moderate a thread about moderation. Rock on.
Edit: Note how the "Avenger" in the thread didn't get moded.
err... nm the post I was responding to isn't here any more
same
Excellent work, folks.
We forced them to moderate a thread about moderation. Rock on.
Edit: Note how the "Avenger" in the thread didn't get moded.
For the third time.
1) his argument opinion didn't hinge on his statement that he played every edition, since he was mostly comparring 3e to 4e. I think he was just giving context, and anticipating possible attacks.
Whatever purpose he cited his alleged experience, that allegation is simply unverifiable.
Whether he did it to give context, or to rebut anticipated arguments, that purpose must fail when you make an unverifiable assertion.
I generally take people at their word on their gaming experience here.
As I said, it's not a matter of trusting or distrusting them. What matters is the value you place on the statement. An unverifiable statement has no value until it is verified. He may be truthful or not. It doesn't matter without the ability to verify.
But to say he never played because he claimed combat took too long (which I have experience myself) is simply presumptious.
I agree that responding to a fallacious argument to authority is unproductive and, depending on how it is phrased, could be presumptuous. That doesn't change the error of relying on the argument in the first place.
I agree that responding to a fallacious argument to authority is unproductive and, depending on how it is phrased, could be presumptuous. That doesn't change the error of relying on the argument in the first place.
But he wasn't guilty of the fallacy. The fallacy requires a claim of infallibility based on one's experience or expertise.
His claim that he had been playing for thirty years is unverifiable (and in fact contraindicated by his demonstrated ingorance of previous editions). For whatever reason he made that claim, its unverifiability renders it useless, not because it was an appeal to authority, but because it was an unprovable assertion.
I don't really care if it's verifiable. I just think it's annoying and added nothing to the discussion.
Exactly. There's no reason to be stating such a thing unless a) you're specifically called on it and wish to respond, or b) want to swing the old e-schlong.
If there's no reason to post it, then there's no reason to "call" somebody on it.
Not saying there is. If you'll notice, my response in that thread was to someone else berating a poster for questioning the veracity of the OP's claims.
I didn't really care enough about it to step up and say something on my own. I did care enough about the implications of it that I was pretty much going to ignore the thread until the scuffle over whether or not it was a good idea kicked off.
If there's no reason to post it, then there's no reason to "call" somebody on it.
Not true, because the person did post it for a perceived reason, but that reason was fallacious.
There's no reason to post "I have ridden a unicorn" because it's an unverifiable statement, but if I were to say "I know that 4th edition didn't properly stat a unicorn because I have ridden one and it moves a lot faster than 10 squares", it would be appropriate to criticize that assertion exactly because there is no reason to post it, and yet it got posted as evidence of a claim.
The basic problem is if you don't believe 4E is perfect and without sin, the 4E inquisition comes after. If you notice similarities between WoW (without even saying that is a bad thing) and 4E in terms of mechanics, the 4E crowd comes at you with a bunch of specious talk about WoW being based on D&D anyways, so 4E is ultimiately just borrowing from itself (clearly people are talking about the powers, the healing surges and the roles when they make this observation anyways).
The WoW comparisons themselves have a tradition on these forums of being used as a method of attacking 4E. Been that was for months, and has been one of the main challenges. Besides, considering how much WoW stole from DnD, it's impossible to produce a DnD edition without the comparisons being made. Warhammer, another game that the Warcraft series stole from, has suffered similar complaints about its MMO as 4E has suffered.
As for powers, healing surges, and roles: The powers themselves are nothing new to DnD (ever browse through the Monster Manual sometime?), the healing surges are a long-standing tradition of a number of video games and even a few PnPs and go back years before WoW was even made, and the roles are pretty much the core four class roles clear back from 1E given new names. About the only thing new to DnD of that list is the healing surges.
The 4E crowd wont even acknowledge that these are ultimately subjective opinions that people should be free to have. It is as if I walked into their forum said "Gee I don't really like the color yellow, its too bright for my tastes", and they respond by saying "How dare you! Prove that it is too bright! Show me evidence of its brightness! How could anyone believe it is brighter than red or green! I am going to invent a fallacy to show you how wrong you are! Bow down and worship the color yellow!"
Except that people don't express it as an opinion. They express it as a fact. If you came in and said, "I don't like yellow because yellow is bright enough to cause people to go blind," then you would be expected to be able to back that claim up. So, please, stop misrepresenting how people are presenting the arguments.
You saying that something is trolling doesn't make it so. Regardless of what you think of the opinion expressed.
It is a comment expressed in most cases specifically to get a rise out of people and cause a potential flamewar. That, by definition, is flamebaiting, which is a form of trolling. Now, try to prove to me that it isn't trolling.
You saying flaming is acceptable doesn't make it so. Regardless of what you think of the opinion expressed.
And you saying it isn't doesn't make it any less acceptable, either. I provided my logic behind that conclusion. Provide logic that refutes it. And, don't bother citing the forum rules; the enforcement of them was actually the cornerstone of my argument.
Lets all take potshots at each other and call it a "discussion". Who wants to go first?
Oh, oh! I will!!
Batshido sucks! Take that, ya poser!
I think I'm doing it wrong.
Lets all take potshots at each other and call it a "discussion". Who wants to go first?
I do i do...your poo head :P
The discussion was never did the fanboys flame. We all agree they did and it was bad.
The discussion going on here (IMHO) is whether it is all the fault of the pro-4e side or if the anti-4e side contributed to the flame war in this thread. I personally find both sides to be equally non-helpful in this thread (in the case of the OP possibly unintentionally).
The larger discussion is about what, if anything, can be done by individuals to make the boards more friendly from both sides.
This isn't about who did what to whom, or who did it first. What I'm saying is that we will never be able to stop the trolls. I've been here for 4 years -- check join date if you don't believe me-- and I can not remember a time when the boards were troll free. There were times when it was worse then others, but the trolls will always come.
Since we can not control the trolls, we can control our reaction to them. I'm not singling anyone, intentional, out. I know that there isn't an organized 4e defense force, or for that matter an organized resistance. But there are trolls, and there are people who insist they have a right to flame them, and somehow flaming them makes the boards a better place. It doesn't. It sucks massive monkey balls that there are *******s with nothing better to do then troll, but we can't stop them. We can however refuse to respond to them. It's feeding astray animal, every time you do you encourage them to beg for more food. Ignore them and they will go away.
Bat: I know you think these boards are some kind of pro 4e fan only club, but they are not. They are a place to discuss 4e, good and bad. You no more have the right to defend 4e with flames and raving stupidity, then a poster has the right to attack 4e with flame and stupidity. And I know other people are doing it too, but that isn't an excuse. What they are doing is wrong, what you are doing is wrong. The reason, or other people did it first do not matter. Want to test my theory? Go and sell some crack. When you get arrested see if the police let you after you tell that other people were doing it too, and they did it first.
I know you think the forums will be better of if you somehow drive away everyone who is disrupting your squee fest of 4e, and maybe your right. But news flash you've already driven off most of the people who don't share your enthusiasm for 4e! All that are left are 98% trolls. Your flames, and the others who flame, are only feeding and encouraging the trolls. Your not helping your making it worse. Is it fair that you have to show restraint, and others won't? No. Does it change anything? Will flaming a troll ever make them go away? Will whining to the mods to make them stop help? No, not really. Will ignoring? yes, that will help. And no maybe i can't get everybody to ignore them, but you seem to have some influence, perhaps if you stopped defending the flamers, and called them out on, and encouraged them to ignore the trolls, more people would. I can't reach everybody, and I'm probably not reaching you, but if I do reach you, and get you to ignore the trolls, then I've made at least a small improvement.
Bat: I know you think these boards are some kind of pro 4e fan only club, but they are not. They are a place to discuss 4e, good and bad.
I've never advocated that the forums be purely for the use of those who enjoy 4E. My point has always been that the assumption should be that people who visit here want to talk about 4E and enjoy the game. Too often (in fact, pretty much always) the assumption on the boards gets to be that it's a place to come and flame the fans of 4E while they're in a sort of captivity. Flaming fish in a barrel, as it were. That creates a hostile environment for the people who actually like the game, and it's what causes everyone to be on edge all the time. Stop that, and we stop the flaming of innocent bypassers.
You no more have the right to defend 4e with flames and raving stupidity, then a poster has the right to attack 4e with flame and stupidity.
I'm not flaming anyone. I vehemently disagree with certain posters, but I'm not insulting them, following them around the forum attacking them or harassing them until they leave. I will, however, tear apart their posts if they contain falsehoods or hyperbolizing against the game. I might have skimmed over the part of the CoC where disagreeing with someone is flaming them, I'll have to check it later.
I'm not denying that there are kneejerk flamers on both sides of the aisle. Laying it on me isn't fair, though.
And I know other people are doing it too, but that isn't an excuse. What they are doing is wrong, what you are doing is wrong. The reason, or other people did it first do not matter. Want to test my theory? Go and sell some crack. When you get arrested see if the police let you after you tell that other people were doing it too, and they did it first.
I'm not rationalizing anything with "they did it too." I'm stating a simple fact; the aggressive, reactionary tendencies of 4E forum regulars will dissipate when the drive-by hating stops. We can either wait for that to happen naturally or step up and fix it with moderation. The bottom line, though, is that as long as this keeps up the reactions aren't going to change.
I know you think the forums will be better of if you somehow drive away everyone who is disrupting your squee fest of 4e, and maybe your right.
Your bias is showing. It's not a "squee fest." We just want to talk about the game without the thread we're in burning to the ground. That's not an unreasonable feeling.
But news flash you've already driven off most of the people who don't share your enthusiasm for 4e! All that are left are 98% trolls. Your flames, and the others who flame, are only feeding and encouraging the trolls. Your not helping your making it worse. Is it fair that you have to show restraint, and others won't? No. Does it change anything? Will flaming a troll ever make them go away? Will whining to the mods to make them stop help? No, not really. Will ignoring? yes, that will help. And no maybe i can't get everybody to ignore them, but you seem to have some influence, perhaps if you stopped defending the flamers, and called them out on, and encouraged them to ignore the trolls, more people would. I can't reach everybody, and I'm probably not reaching you, but if I do reach you, and get you to ignore the trolls, then I've made at least a small improvement.
There's a reason I've let my PM inbox fill up. If I don't, I get somewhere between 5 and 10 PMs a day from posters that I haven't even so much as quoted telling me that I'm an ******* for supporting 4E.
Since Friday, I've had 3 posters that I know of make attacks on my character on these boards completely out of the blue.
There isn't a day that goes by when I don't have a quote misattributed to me that contains something I obviously didn't say, which then gets railed against as though it proves some point.
I'm something of a lightning rod on these forums, but I know I'm not the only one experiencing this sort of harassment. It's one thing to talk about turning a blind eye when you're sitting back as a casual observer, it's quite another when you can't log into these boards without seeing yourself maligned. I don't think there are a whole lot of posters that are dealing with this on the level that I am, but they get hit the same way I do if not with the same frequency. There's only so much you can take before it provokes a reaction. That's not an excuse, it's a statement of fact. As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, that's just not the reality of the situation.
Lets all take potshots at each other and call it a "discussion". Who wants to go first?
I think wrecan already did.
Since we can not control the trolls, we can control our reaction to them. I'm not singling anyone, intentional, out. I know that there isn't an organized 4e defense force, or for that matter an organized resistance. But there are trolls, and there are people who insist they have a right to flame them, and somehow flaming them makes the boards a better place.
But if we can't control the trolls, how can we control the troll-flamers? I mean, everybody here appears to agree that trolling is wrong and flaming is wrong. Some of us might not live up to our own standard of behavior, but at least we're the ones talking about it and trying to behave.
What can be done to stop trolls and troll-flamers (on either side of the edition wars)?
you seem to have some influence, perhaps if you stopped defending the flamers, and called them out on, and encouraged them to ignore the trolls, more people would.
I wish that were true. But influential people leave these boards all the time and never has an impact on the behavior of trolls and troll-flamers.
If Batshido were loudly to declare to everyone he will not flame and is leaving the General boards until it cleans up, there would be some agitation as some cheer and some beg him to stay and then a week later it will be forgotten.
The trolls and troll-flamers are beyond influence.
The only thing that works is to report a violation with a clear post explaining why it's a violation and hope it is acted upon before someone takes the bait.
Which i think was kind of a shame, as the CO board seemed pretty shenanigan free. Although there was alot of factions along class lines to an extent, they liked to argue. But they did that with logic and facts for the most part. And we all know how useless THOSE things are in an argument.......
I wonder how many embraced the new edition.
Lets all take potshots at each other and call it a "discussion". Who wants to go first?
Not a good idea for me... I go for one shot, one kill.... d*** rubber bullets!
Perhaps its time you actually read whats happening on the general boards...
SIGGED!!!!! :D
SIGGED!!!!! :D
Bah, this is a biaised view of the thing.
'Truth', nah.
Everyone is hyper defensive, and just knows the next person they that is disagreeing with their opinion is just here to troll, spoil everyones fun, and ruin someones day. It's almost like watching the news after a presidential candidate mentions a hot-button issue. There is even that neat phenomenon where a completely harmless word, usually an adjective, magically turns into a dirty word without anyone noticing.
I realize we contribute nothing, but I theorize based on my own diminishing interest in these forums, that the blatant hostilities are even driving of lurkers. Who range from "Posters to be", to "Apathetic", to those who know all of their report cards in school said "Doesn't play well with others."(Side note: I'm the last two.)
The environment on these forums has become such that I'm aware of individuals who's only form on contribution on these forums is through PM's to posters they are attempting to help. And while it may not carry much weight from me, I would say that is something both sides need to think about. I've watched once common posters vanish, sometimes literally over night. I've watched them fade away. I've watched the general hostilities grow. It's ludicrous.
As my final note, I would like to say: A forum is nothing without varied opinions. It is useless without many points of view. It is boring without new blood.
Feel free to disregard my post, or tear it apart. I'd be interested to see which side dislikes it more.
I think any thread in which the OP admits 1) he hasn't played 4e, 2) hates it based on the layout (which is the only component he acknowledges noting) and 3) he compares it to WoW pretty much started out as a flamewar.
The second poster didn't flame it. He just rose to some pretty ripe bait (which doesn't forgive rising to the bait, mind you).
Actually, the OP just wanted to love 4E. He may not have been clear, and he may have made some controversial comparisons, but from the start he made his intent clear - I want to love 4E. Give me a reason to do so!
And note that he did postively respond to people who did give him good reasons - compared to the people who simply flamed him (accusing him of being a Nazi), and the people who dismissed him ("Don't bother looking for a reason. Just play 3.5"), and people who told him that any anti-4E talk doesn't belong here and he should leave.
That is the reality of the situation. A poster came to the boards looking for a reason to love 4E, and the pro-4E people attacked him because he made a few comments about WoW and D&D.
Now, the 4E "Avengers" and fanatical supporters can claim that the OP was a troll. They can claim that I was the one stirring up trouble. They are entirely entitled to their own opinion.
Quite bluntly however, the truth seems to be fairly clear: They're fooling themselves if they believe this. I wasn't the only one who thought the OP was being bullied. Other people posted in the same thread and made the same arguments. Heck, I even got a PM from a complete stranger thanking me for standing up against the bullying.
Are all of these other people also delusional? Perhaps. But the more likely truth is far simpler: The "pro" and 4E "avenger" people are no better than the people they claim to be fighting against. They also harass, bully, and flame innocent people. They are just as guilty as the "anti" and "haters" people for making the boards a mess.
These boards are a place to discuss everything about 4E - the good, the bad, the ugly, and the funny. If you don't want to discuss the bad, stay the **** out of threads that discuss the bad.
First, the "4E Avenger" stuff isn't war regalia.
False, by your own admission in a previous thread you see yourself as being on "battlestations" all the time:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16312209&postcount=95
Key quote: "We've been at battlestations so long that it's hard for us to try and stand down, especially when we've still got shells hitting the ground on an hourly basis."
You clearly see yourself as a combat organization under siege. In fact, the implication of your post is that the 4E Avengers are no longer capable of standing down.
I've never advocated that the forums be purely for the use of those who enjoy 4E.
Outright lie.
See post here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16311096&postcount=63
I said that you can discuss the good, the bad, the ugly, and the funny in these forums. You said I was wrong.
Therefore, by implication, you are advocating a forum where only the good can be discussed.
Especially since you followed that post up by a rant several paragraphs long about how "threadcrapping" doesn't belong here. And yet who is to say what is a threadcrapping and someone who just isn't aware comparing D&D to WoW has been made taboo?
In fact, bluntly, the only reason comparing D&D and WoW is taboo is... actually wait, it's not actually taboo. Just a few posters are claiming it is taboo, even though this is a view that is not endorsed by the CoC, the WiZos, or the VCLs - the true legal authorities of the forum.
There's also this post here where you explicitly state that only positive threads should be allowed in the forums:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16308865&postcount=31
Your reasons? Because you're "tired of defending 4E" (no excuse - if you don't want to discuss the bad, get the **** out of the threads that discuss the bad) and because "we don't go to the 3.X forums" (which is untrue, because 4E vs 3E discussions also happen in the old edition forums, and I would suspect the lack of flame wars in the old edition forums is because the 4E avengers aren't there causing trouble - they're too busy causing trouble in General Discussion).
Any claim that the 4E avengers aren't a bunch of militant "This should be OUR forums" whiners flies in the face of stuff you yourself have said.
Zinegata, how is this any different from what the 3.5E supporters did to 3E supporters when 3.5E was released? And how are the accusations levelled against the 3.5E supporters now any different than they were when levelled against 3E?
It matters not what was done before. What matters is being done now. Innocent posters are getting hurt.
Saying "it's no different from before" is no excuse for continued bad behavior.
It matters not what was done before. What matters is being done now. Innocent posters are getting hurt.
Saying "it's no different from before" is no excuse for continued bad behavior.
You mistook part of what I was saying. You see, I'm not trying to justify it. Assuming they haven't deleted it, you can go a few pages back and see where I gave some advice on how to stop it next time and forcibly calm it down this time. However, I was providing something else you should have considered.
For some people, this may be about a form of vengeance. They finally got one over on the 3.5 supporters and are going to milk it for all it's worth. And the 3.5 supporters, finding themselves in the same situation as the 3E supporters did, are acting exactly the same way as those people did, which eliminates any claims of being innocent on their side.
All in all, a repeat of last time. And maybe a prophesy of next time as well.
You mistook part of what I was saying. You see, I'm not trying to justify it. Assuming they haven't deleted it, you can go a few pages back and see where I gave some advice on how to stop it next time and forcibly calm it down this time. However, I was providing something else you should have considered.
I understand that you are trying to explain why it is happening, and are not trying to justify it. However, I believe that regardless of the reason, it's still unacceptable behavior. Wrong is wrong.
For some people, this may be about a form of vengeance. They finally got one over on the 3.5 supporters and are going to milk it for all it's worth. And the 3.5 supporters, finding themselves in the same situation as the 3E supporters did, are acting exactly the same way as those people did, which eliminates any claims of being innocent on their side.
Again, it doesn't matter if both sides are guilty (and read my first post replying to wrecan - I'm saying everyone's equally guilty).
Wrong is wrong. It's that simple.
Again, it doesn't matter if both sides are guilty (and read my first post replying to wrecan - I'm saying everyone's equally guilty).
Wrong is wrong. It's that simple.
Then what do you propose to do about it?
The major problem we have is the trolls. The ones on both sides, plus ones stirring things up just for the fun of it. For example, the OP of this thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1058876
At the start, he seems pretty nice and middle ground, and as though he's posting an honest opinion and looking for honest replies. He's actually using one of the more subtle forms of trolling, one which is very hard to prove as trolling except to someone familiar with how it works (those people, incidentally, are usually trolls or semi-trollish themselves). Let's break it down.
I love D&D. Played for over 14yrs.
This is the standard authority resume, meant to throw people off. Basically, he's trying to make himself seem like an insider so that he can throw people off and force their guard down. It's a pretty common tactic, and in some cases it's actually true (I've been playing for a long while and am a long-term visitor to this website, but you'd never know it from my account). However, the veracity of the claim is not what is important.
When 3rd came out my buds hated it. I said give it a chance.
Standard announcement of middle ground history, which is followed by a statement that shows his support for 3E (probably the only edition he actually played, as otherwise he'd be making comments about how 3E was improved upon before breaking into commenting on 4E). Of course, he tries to make his tone sound moderate so as to keep your guard down.
Now, 4th is out and....... I just can't play it. I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB. It feels too... meh... to me. Too much like competing with WoW, which I play too btw.
Now we get into the trolling. Note how he mentions things, but doesn't actually get into specifics. Anyone who's actually played WoW can give you a laundry list of similarities just from the first ten levels that would probably kill a small elephant. And that's the similarities to 3.5E. The entire WoW hunter class is just a reworked 3.5E ranger, for example.
But, wait, it gets better. Let's examine the rest.
Too much..... like something that is not D&D. I don't mean anything tangable just flavor wise. This don't taste like D&D. Its like a brand new game with a D&D sticker stuck on as an after thought.
Note a lack of specifics. Anyone could bring up specifics if they actually looked at the book. Or, for that matter, actually stopped to scan a preview page or something. But, as he's trolling, it's actually not in his best interests to be that specific.
Now, I haven't played 4e, so I can't have an opp as to wether it is good or not. And its not like I don't play almost every game under the sun. But, D&D is the staple. Its home. Sure I can stick with the old stuff, which I am. And I do want to pick up a new game, which I am now. I just can't buy anything else "new" for D&D. And that is what I did on a regular basis. I own every book printed for 3 and 3.5. And the PHB for 4 but thats all I'll get for it I guess.
And right there is where he revealed that he's lied about his gaming experience. He claimed he's played the game for 14 years... yet 3E was released 8 years ago. 14 years ago would put him a full 6 years before 3E was released. If he were going to provide some legitimacy, he also would have pointed out exactly how many 2E books he owned as well. He certainly would have made some mention of them in his comparisons just for the point of having the baseline of why he feels 2E and 3E were DnD but 4E isn't. Why? To back up his claim that it doesn't feel like DnD at a glance. That's also what reveals him as a troll, as he's using a trollish tactic of making claims to support something that would rile up some members, and yet does not provide anything that even reveals any form of detail.
But, wait, it gets better. Let's examine what he says later.
As far as the WoW refrence... I mean if a lot of ppl are bringing it up then, well......... Maybe you dont see it. I do. And I don't care. I don't like it.
That's in response to someone saying the WoW similarity is silly and that he should play it. He, of course, doesn't quote. This way, he can always save himself by saying he wasn't talking to them, despite the fact he obviously was.
As far as my home being still here.... sure it is. On my book shelf. The new suburb you mentioned is cool. But, I ain't going there. I don't like the way the ppl there look. I don't have to move true. But, if I want something dynamic and changing, Something alive, and my choices are move down the street into the new hip and trendy area or hit the road. Well, my bags are packed. I just don't want to leave.
In this one, he's indirectly insulting the people who support 4E, though keeping it purposefully mild to stay within the rules. Also, note the subtle threat to leave if he doesn't get his way.
But, you see. I don't like Starbucks. I don't do uniformity. Too 1939 - 1945 Germany. Know what I mean.
And here's where he accuses those who play 4E of being Nazis. Only, he does it subtly, so that he can always claim to be innocent of the charge later on.
All in all, it's a brilliant piece of trolling. I have to applaud him. He's obviously very experienced, and obviously quite intelligent. He knows fully well what he's doing and what each word is meant to do. He's crafting his trolling perfectly, in such a way he always has a back door.
And that's the kind of fight you have on your hands. You have to not only deal with the obvious trolls, but the devious and subtle ones. The only people who can deal with it are the mods, and I'm willing to bet you there is no way they can justify even deleting his posts due to the subtlety of that trolling.
Exhibit B:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16351783&posted=1#post16351783
The poster is accused of lying about playing older editions within the first few posts.
I don't think anybody has tried to say that Pro 4th ed people can be insulting.. I certainly acknowledge it happens.
But i am honestly very surprised that the anti 4th ed people are playing the victim card so much lately.. i honestly believe that if the whole flame wars started by certain posters (who have been banned multiple times) this whole conversation would not be happening.. i left these boards for quite a while.. and upon my return (in which I stated how excited i was about 4th ed upcoming release) i was immediately set upon by a couple of posters (no i won't name name.. suffice to say i have reported said posters.. multiple times).. and at this time i did not see much hostility coming form the pro 4th crowd.. there was a whole lot of "try it before you bag it" comments and that was really it. But as the 4th ed flaming continued (and still with the same hand full of people) tempers flared and now we are were we are at now..
So in my opinion.. it is extremely naive to blame all of these issues on the pro 4th ed people becoming annoying and maybe look into why some of the normally moderate people are starting to become quite short and rude with the constant threadcapping and baiting. Even if new posters do get caught int he firing line.. it will keep happening until the hostile posts cease on both sides of the "edition war"
Then what do you propose to do about it?
Already said what you should do about it. If you don't like what the thread is talking about, stay the **** out.
The major problem we have is the trolls. The ones on both sides, plus ones stirring things up just for the fun of it. For example, the OP of this thread:
Trolling is not for you or me to decide, it's for the WiZos and the VCLs.
Moreover, you just spent several paragraphs attempting to justify that the behavior is trolling, and yet you missed (or perhaps intentionally omitted) several key facts, including...
1) The OP's spelling and grammar weren't exactly pristine. While this may be the sign of an immature flamer, this could also be a sign of a person who isn't too sure of himself and has difficulty articulating his position online.
2) The OP did, in fact, feel that he was being attacked by a lot of the other posters:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16308736#post16308736
Does that make the flamers stop though? No, it didn't.
Also, again, you curiously omit bringing up any of the inflammatory posts made by pro-4E people. Are you really seeking the truth of the situation, or are you just engaging in a blatant smear campaign against the OP.?
Moreover, funny how you missed several of the OP's quotes, such as...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16316539#post16316539
Where he explained that he made the Nazi analogy because, to him, Nazis represented a level of blandness, not really "evil."
Or how about...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16316185#post16316185
Where he thanked someone who did take the time to address his concerns instead of attacking him or dismissing him.
Moreover note that he mentioned he played AD&D, and yet you claim that...
He claimed he's played the game for 14 years... yet 3E was released 8 years ago. 14 years ago would put him a full 6 years before 3E was released. If he were going to provide some legitimacy, he also would have pointed out exactly how many 2E books he owned as well.
You apparently completely missed this fact and accused him of lying!.
Then you say he should have said exactly how many 2E books he owned? What if he simply doesn't remember? Assuming the poster is in his mid twenties he'd be around ten years old when he started playing - do you remember everything you owned when you were ten?
Frankly, your behavior mirrors the exact same behavior that caused the crapfest anyway. A lot of presumptions were made, and people simply attacked based on presumptions instead of figuring out "What is really happening here?"
Yes, the OP made some controversial comments, but based on his posts and posting style I'm more inclined to say this was the result of ignorance or lack of communication skill - not outright malice.
If you're a 4E fan who couldn't take the time to understand this or to explain why he should like 4E, you should have just stayed the **** out of the thread. Many did not and simply engaged in bullying.
But i am honestly very surprised that the anti 4th ed people are playing the victim card so much lately.. i honestly believe that if the whole flame wars started by certain posters (who have been banned multiple times) this whole conversation would not be happening.. i left these boards for quite a while.. and upon my return (in which I stated how excited i was about 4th ed upcoming release) i was immediately set upon by a couple of posters (no i won't name name.. suffice to say i have reported said posters.. multiple times).. and at this time i did not see much hostility coming form the pro 4th crowd.. there was a whole lot of "try it before you bag it" comments and that was really it. But as the 4th ed flaming continued (and still with the same hand full of people) tempers flared and now we are were we are at now..
In that very thread, there were at least two other posters who basically said "Guys, he just wants to like the game. Give him some reasons or just skip this thread."
And they said it much more nicely than I did.
Result? They got attacked, and were told how they "didn't understand", that they were going against "truth and logic" (even though the "truth and logic" being spouted were technically completely untrue), and a whole myriad of other things. In short, they got attacked purely because they also saw bullying going on, and the pro-4E people were in complete denial about their own bad behavior.
It's not the anti-4E people playing the victim card here.
It's the moderates getting sick and tired of pro-4E people making up so many excuses for what is plainly bad and nasty behavior.
Read the CoC. Unlike what one pro-4E poster said in that thread, you should NOT assume that every post has a bad intention.
So in my opinion.. it is extremely naive to blame all of these issues on the pro 4th ed people becoming annoying and maybe look into why some of the normally moderate people are starting to become quite short and rude with the constant threadcapping and baiting. Even if new posters do get caught int he firing line.. it will keep happening until the hostile posts cease on both sides of the "edition war"
All of the posters in that thread who stood up for the OP stated plainly at least once that both sides are to blame. Attacks still came.
So again, these aren't even the anti-4E people speaking anymore. These are the moderates.
In that very thread, there were at least two other posters who basically said "Guys, he just wants to like the game. Give him some reasons or just skip this thread."
And they said it much more nicely than I did.
Result? They got attacked, and were told how they "didn't understand", that they were going against "truth and logic" (even though the "truth and logic" being spouted were technically completely untrue), and a whole myriad of other things. In short, they got attacked purely because they also saw bullying going on, and the pro-4E people were in complete denial about their own bad behavior.
It's not the anti-4E people playing the victim card here.
It's the moderates getting sick and tired of pro-4E people making up so many excuses for what is plainly bad and nasty behavior.
Read the CoC. Unlike what one pro-4E poster said in that thread, you should NOT assume that every post has a bad intention.
All of the posters in that thread who stood up for the OP stated plainly at least once that both sides are to blame. Attacks still came.
So again, these aren't even the anti-4E people speaking anymore. These are the moderates.
I have seen several of the people, that i also see very regularly visiting the general discussion forum and baiting. Don;t try and tell me this thread is full of Moderates tired of being bashed, because i have read posts from guitly parties on both sides of the great divide.
The moderates might be sick of the pro 4th people bashing them, i am also sure the truly moderate people are sick of the anti 4th ed people derailing their threads, asking for help as you suggest, with comments like "4th ed is only good for combat so you an only use it for dungeons crawls" or "if your new to DMing don't try do any social encounters because 4th ed doesn't support them" etc etc. i will say it once agian both sides are guilty of bad behavior
I do not assume every new thread has bad intentions, i simply stated i can under stand why many people are dubious when the read the same old critisims being echoed over and over again, in a manner that sound very much the same every time. I have seen examples of people who where banned for trolling recreating accounts for the soul purpose of baiting or "continuing his crusade against 4th edition" i think is how he described it.
You say everybody is saying that both sides are to blame. But every example i have seen you post seems to blame the pro 4th ed for all the sins on that board. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it is how you come across.
I have seen several of the people, that i also see very regularly visiting the general discussion forum and baiting. Don;t try and tell me this thread is full of Moderates tired of being bashed, because i have read posts from guitly parties on both sides of the great divide.
The moderates might be sick of the pro 4th people bashing them, i am also sure the truly moderate people are sick of the anti 4th ed people derailing their threads, asking for help as you suggest, with comments like "4th ed is only good for combat so you an only use it for dungeons crawls" or "if your new to DMing don't try do any social encounters because 4th ed doesn't support them" etc etc. i will say it once agian both sides are guilty of bad behavior
And where again have the moderates denied it is both side's fault?
Look at the title of this thread, and look at the content of the thread being used as an example. There is no denying that both sides are at fault, but what is being discussed are the overzealous actions of pro-4E people, and of people who make excuses for them.
Again, it doesn't matter if both sides do it. Wrong is wrong.
But every example i have seen you post seems to blame the pro 4th ed for all the sins on that board. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it is how you come across.
Of course I'm pointing out the bad things pro-4E people are doing. Again, look at the thread title. It's called being "on-topic" :P.
And where again have the moderates denied it is both side's fault?
Look at the title of this thread, and look at the content of the thread being used as an example. There is no denying that both sides are at fault, but what is being discussed are the overzealous actions of pro-4E people, and of people who make excuses for them.
Again, it doesn't matter if both sides do it. Wrong is wrong.
Of course I'm pointing out the bad things pro-4E people are doing. Again, look at the thread title. It's called being "on-topic" :P.
Wouldn't that make this thread the exact thing people are arguing about? I mean even the title should be baiting...I realize it may have been a snide attempt to counter the trolling thread that was in here a week or two ago.. but to wrongs aren't making a right.. and like you said wrong is wrong.
Already said what you should do about it. If you don't like what the thread is talking about, stay the **** out.
Problem is, I have yet to see a solution that deals with it if the community as a whole, including the mods, isn't on the ball. We can suggest solutions all we like, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they're not implemented.
Trolling is not for you or me to decide, it's for the WiZos and the VCLs.
Moreover, you just spent several paragraphs attempting to justify that the behavior is trolling, and yet you missed (or perhaps intentionally omitted) several key facts, including...
This is going to be fun.
To be honest, trolling is for us to at least judge on. If we judge it trolling, then we report it. Possibly include a line of reasoning as to why it's trolling. If you don't have the ability to judge something as trolling, then you can't report it, either.
1) The OP's spelling and grammar weren't exactly pristine. While this may be the sign of an immature flamer, this could also be a sign of a person who isn't too sure of himself and has difficulty articulating his position online.
From what I saw, he was actually capable of being quite articulate. His reference to the Nazis, in particular, comes to mind. He also reveals several times that he is capable of producing sentences of a full structure, sometimes a sentence that is quite complex in structure.
I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB.
But, if I want something dynamic and changing, Something alive, and my choices are move down the street into the new hip and trendy area or hit the road.
The second one in particular is quite a complex sentence structure, compared to the rest. The fact he is able to produce a sentence of that advanced a structure when normally he doesn't otherwise suggests he's either faking the sentence structure or is just being lazy. The fact he can also craft an image like that using a sentence of that structure shows a level of complex thought that isn't found within the other sentences, which adds weight to the idea he's faking it. It also shows, through that and his particular choice of how he represented the Nazi image, that he is capable of fully understanding the weight of his words and carefully weighing exactly what he's saying.
In short, the logical conclusion is that his apparent troubles with sentence structure are not actual troubles at all, but actually done that way on purpose. His use of netspeak in certain areas suggests this may be done for speed, but the fact he put that much effort into a single sentence says that speed was not a concern of his when he was posting. Most normal writers would have split his complex thought into two or even three sentences, which would have been more natural for the style of writing he's mostly shown.
2) The OP did, in fact, feel that he was being attacked by a lot of the other posters:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16308736#post16308736
Does that make the flamers stop though? No, it didn't.
That's because he was. I can definitely spot several open attacks upon his character that the mods did not remove. The people rising to the bait is inexcuseable, but that does not change the fact that the baiting itself happened. And there's nothing that stops a troll from simply getting a new account and trying again when one fails to properly bait.
Also, again, you curiously omit bringing up any of the inflammatory posts made by pro-4E people. Are you really seeking the truth of the situation, or are you just engaging in a blatant smear campaign against the OP.?
I never stated those people were innocent, did I? I'm just stating that there's more guilt involved than you think.
Moreover, funny how you missed several of the OP's quotes, such as...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16316539#post16316539
Where he explained that he made the Nazi analogy because, to him, Nazis represented a level of blandness, not really "evil."
And yet, that doesn't explain the timeline he used. The Nazi part rose to power in Germany in 1933, and destroyed a major political rival in 1934. September of 1935 is when the Nuremburg Laws were passed, which were the first of a series of systematic strategies to destroy the Jewish people and which eventually led to their enslavement and mass execution. And I'm sorry that a group of people who practiced slavery, mass murder, torture, forced prostitution, and a number of other crimes all the while preaching a dogma of hatred and planning, then later attempting, to invade large portions of Europe is bland to someone. Need I go on in describing the horrors of the period and the multitude of crimes that they did, or is that enough?
His justification of that comment is utter crap. Especially given the particular timeline he chose.
Or how about...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16316185#post16316185
Where he thanked someone who did take the time to address his concerns instead of attacking him or dismissing him.
It's good sense to do that. Also, it keeps up the illusion and helps save your skin later. Plus, if done right, you can confuse someone who is well-meaning into coming to your aide, throwing a lot of apparent legitimacy behind what you were doing to further help with your illusion and also sow a bit of chaos when you get the people who are trying to work together on the issue fighting with each other. It's a very basic tactic, yet sometimes works surprisingly well.
Moreover note that he mentioned he played AD&D, and yet you claim that...
You apparently completely missed this fact and accused him of lying!.
Then you say he should have said exactly how many 2E books he owned? What if he simply doesn't remember? Assuming the poster is in his mid twenties he'd be around ten years old when he started playing - do you remember everything you owned when you were ten?
I don't remember all of the books I owned when I first started playing DnD, yet I could still tell you the number of them. Why? Because I can go count them. And even if he doesn't have them lying around, he can still bring up references from memorable moments to help strengthen the claim. I still remember all of the fun I had playing a wild mage. And I know my first game was 3E, not 2E, because my group still jokes about the issues I had with THAC0 when they decided to introduce me to it, plus all of the fun of playing a wild mage and having things go comically or horribly wrong and yet still managing to survive anyway.
There's still a lot he could have used early on to establish himself, which would have lent credibility to his posts. He could have also avoided those two wording issues and made it look completely like that's how he talks... in which case I wouldn't even waste time bringing him up as an example. Instead, he failed to give details he could have researched on Google if necessary and made mistakes in sentence structure.
In short, I'm accusing him of lying because, to all evidence I have, he is lying. It wasn't a case of just omission of information, but the things he accidentally concluded and some of what he said that added up to it.
Frankly, your behavior mirrors the exact same behavior that caused the crapfest anyway. A lot of presumptions were made, and people simply attacked based on presumptions instead of figuring out "What is really happening here?"
Yes, the OP made some controversial comments, but based on his posts and posting style I'm more inclined to say this was the result of ignorance or lack of communication skill - not outright malice.
Or maybe some of them did try to figure out, came to the same conclusion I did based on the evidence before them, and then foolishly attacked anyway. Me? I try not to be as hostile when the post itself reflects a lack of hostility (I don't claim I'm not always, and I'm sure you can find examples of me being hostile with ease). At the same time, looking at it, I see more and more signs that there was malice to his actions.
If you're a 4E fan who couldn't take the time to understand this or to explain why he should like 4E, you should have just stayed the **** out of the thread. Many did not and simply engaged in bullying.
And maybe he should have worded it better. Honestly, I find innocent people don't respond like this to comments about comparing DnD to WoW being silly.
As far as the WoW refrence... I mean if a lot of ppl are bringing it up then, well......... Maybe you dont see it. I do. And I don't care. I don't like it.
Especially given that the comment was by someone who suggested to play it and was actually being nice about it. Not be someone who was popping in and accusing him of being a troll, a liar, and things like that. Try to explain away his reply if you wish, but it's ultimately that reply and the rest of his second post that provided all of the necessary evidence against him. Notice that the person who had been nice turned outright hostile after that reply.
Moreover, funny how you missed several of the OP's quotes, such as...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16316539#post16316539
Where he explained that he made the Nazi analogy because, to him, Nazis represented a level of blandness, not really "evil."
Of course. Referring to people as Nazi's always equates blandness.
He played the Godwin's Law card and lost. I found LilithTaveril's post to be pretty well thought out and I found myself in agreement with her thoughts on that post and the motives of the poster. I am one of those moderates you speak of, having played the game since I got my first little box with the blue book and dice you had to color in the numbers. I currently play a 3.5e and a 4e campaign, along with playing on NWN and a NWN2 PWs and running a gurps horror campaign off and on. ((showing my fanboy authority :D. I really am a geek)). Anyway, while both sides do tend to over-react at times, I find myself having more sympathy towards the pro-4e side than the anti. There are quite a few posts, and some posters running around bashing on 4e without having either trying the game, and in at least one case, even having seen the books yet. I can empathize with the pro crowd losing their patience after months of dealing with that kind of behavior.
Wouldn't that make this thread the exact thing people are arguing about? I mean even the title should be baiting...I realize it may have been a snide attempt to counter the trolling thread that was in here a week or two ago.. but to wrongs aren't making a right.. and like you said wrong is wrong.
But this isn't the troll thread, is it? It's the complaints against the fanboys thread.
Problem is, I have yet to see a solution that deals with it if the community as a whole, including the mods, isn't on the ball. We can suggest solutions all we like, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they're not implemented.
The inability to solve a problem is no excuse not to point out the problem.
To be honest, trolling is for us to at least judge on. If we judge it trolling, then we report it. Possibly include a line of reasoning as to why it's trolling. If you don't have the ability to judge something as trolling, then you can't report it, either.
We do not judge what is trolling or not. WiZos do. We can recommend posts that we personally believe to be trolling, but the judgement of what is a troll and what is not a troll is not up to us. Read the CoC - that's how it works.
From what I saw, he was actually capable of being quite articulate. His reference to the Nazis, in particular, comes to mind. He also reveals several times that he is capable of producing sentences of a full structure, sometimes a sentence that is quite complex in structure.
You say this, and yet...
And yet, that doesn't explain the timeline he used. The Nazi part rose to power in Germany in 1933, and destroyed a major political rival in 1934. September of 1935 is when the Nuremburg Laws were passed, which were the first of a series of systematic strategies to destroy the Jewish people and which eventually led to their enslavement and mass execution. And I'm sorry that a group of people who practiced slavery, mass murder, torture, forced prostitution, and a number of other crimes all the while preaching a dogma of hatred and planning, then later attempting, to invade large portions of Europe is bland to someone. Need I go on in describing the horrors of the period and the multitude of crimes that they did, or is that enough?
His justification of that comment is utter crap. Especially given the particular timeline he chose.
He clearly doesn't have much idea about the Nazis and their history. You may claim he's doing bad justification, but he could simply be ill-educated and ill-informed, which is why his justification is bad. Not all of us are walking encyclopedias.
Again, your version of events only holds true if you assume he has ill-intent.
The second one in particular is quite a complex sentence structure, compared to the rest. The fact he is able to produce a sentence of that advanced a structure when normally he doesn't otherwise suggests he's either faking the sentence structure or is just being lazy. The fact he can also craft an image like that using a sentence of that structure shows a level of complex thought that isn't found within the other sentences, which adds weight to the idea he's faking it. It also shows, through that and his particular choice of how he represented the Nazi image, that he is capable of fully understanding the weight of his words and carefully weighing exactly what he's saying.
I'll be blunt.
This is a ******** analysis based on your own opinions and very little verifiable scientific fact, much like the rest of your "analysis" of his sentence structure.
I don't remember all of the books I owned when I first started playing DnD, yet I could still tell you the number of them. Why? Because I can go count them.
And what if he didn't? He indicated he barely remembered the color of the book.
Again, you're engaging in ******** analysis. You already had a conclusion based on your own experiences, rather than thinking of all the possibilities - one of which is that he simply doesn't remember how many books he owned.
In short, I'm accusing him of lying because, to all evidence I have, he is lying. It wasn't a case of just omission of information, but the things he accidentally concluded and some of what he said that added up to it.
Nope, you're accusing of lying because your method of analysis was flawed from the start. You had a conclusion - he was lying - and you then began justifying this through faulty analysis. Your analysis of his sentence structure has no basis in fact - you can't tell if a person is being deceitful or not just because some of his sentences are properly constructed and others aren't.
Intent cannot, and has never been, measurable via analysis of words alone.
In fact, if you go by Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation given the measurable variables is that the poster has poor communication skills.
But this isn't the troll thread, is it? It's the complaints against the fanboys thread.
yes, but as was pointed out in the troll thread, it is against the CoC to bait. Which is exactly what this title does before you even open the thread up. These is even a mod back there that says referring to people as Fanboys etc is against the CoC. So we are back to two wrongs don't make a right, and wrong is wrong...
yes, but as was pointed out in the troll thread, it is against the CoC to bait. Which is exactly what this title does before you even open the thread up. These is even a mod back there that says referring to people as Fanboys etc is against the CoC. So we are back to two wrongs don't make a right, and wrong is wrong...
Which is the whole point of being a moderate anyway :D
Of course. Referring to people as Nazi's always equates blandness.
Not gonna defend the fact he brought up Nazis, but I will say it's more likely a case of him not knowing what he's talking about.
Let's put it this way:
What is more likely:
1) Based purely on a few forum posts, you determine that a person is intentionally feigning stupidity in order to incite the 4E defenders into attacking him.
OR
2) Based purely on a few forum posts, you determine the poster probably doesn't quite know what he's talking about or what he's doing.
If you think #1 is more reasonable, then I suggest you open a psychic hotline. You can't determine intent that easily. If you claim you can, you're making it up.
The inability to solve a problem is no excuse not to point out the problem.
In that case, you have a problem that you cannot solve. I do not see it as unsolveable, but just an uphill battle that I want you to be fully aware of before you commit to doing it. You will be fighting a combination of trolls, site staff members who prefer to advise the use of the ignore feature as a solution to problems, and posters who generally don't care because they don't see the WizOs doing anything. Not insurmountable, only difficult.
We do not judge what is trolling or not. WiZos do. We can recommend posts that we personally believe to be trolling, but the judgement of what is a troll and what is not a troll is not up to us. Read the CoC - that's how it works.
By coming to believe a post to be trolling, you have judged, based upon evidence you see, the post to be trolling. You can try to argue against this, but you will not change that simple fact.
Also, it is the job of the WizO's to not only judge a post as being trolling, but to compare it to the site rules and determine if it truly is trolling by the guidelines that bind them. They can also rely on the judgement of others, which is what the report feature is for.
You say this, and yet...
He clearly doesn't have much idea about the Nazis and their history. You may claim he's doing bad justification, but he could simply be ill-educated and ill-informed, which is why his justification is bad. Not all of us are walking encyclopedias.
He has enough of an idea to post specific dates that most people really are not that aware of. And you'll have to excuse me if I refuse to accept that he cannot have at least some basic knowledge about the Nazis, especially given how much of an impact they have had on world politics and history for just about every nation on Earth. So, I'm not buying that defense of him.
Again, your version of events only holds true if you assume he has ill-intent.
And yet, the assumption of ill-intent itself came from examining what he was saying. Mostly, I had been unaware of his posts before this topic and had not cared to examine them further until I posted that analysis to you. In other words, you got a first-impression analysis of his words from someone who otherwise would never have cared enough to read them, especially given the topic itself is one that would not have held my interest enough to reply in.
I'll be blunt.
This is a ******** analysis based on your own opinions and very little verifiable scientific fact, much like the rest of your "analysis" of his sentence structure.
Examine them for yourself. Here's his entire first post:
Ok, here is the deal. I love D&D. Played for over 14yrs. Heard about 4th and loved what I heard during the sneak peeks. I want to love 4th. But, I can't.
When 3rd came out my buds hated it. I said give it a chance. They did and we played with it. It worked but it had its problems. It was flexable. It felt fluid. Scanning the phb, it felt like D&D. I loved it, warts and all.
Now, 4th is out and....... I just can't play it. I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB. It feels too... meh... to me. Too much like competing with WoW, which I play too btw.
Too much..... like something that is not D&D. I don't mean anything tangable just flavor wise. This don't taste like D&D. Its like a brand new game with a D&D sticker stuck on as an after thought.
Now, I haven't played 4e, so I can't have an opp as to wether it is good or not. And its not like I don't play almost every game under the sun. But, D&D is the staple. Its home. Sure I can stick with the old stuff, which I am. And I do want to pick up a new game, which I am now. I just can't buy anything else "new" for D&D. And that is what I did on a regular basis. I own every book printed for 3 and 3.5. And the PHB for 4 but thats all I'll get for it I guess.
I guess what I mean is I WANT to love 4e. Just because it is D&D but I can't bring my self to.
I miss my old home.
And his entire second post:
As far as the WoW refrence... I mean if a lot of ppl are bringing it up then, well......... Maybe you dont see it. I do. And I don't care. I don't like it.
As far as my home being still here.... sure it is. On my book shelf. The new suburb you mentioned is cool. But, I ain't going there. I don't like the way the ppl there look. I don't have to move true. But, if I want something dynamic and changing, Something alive, and my choices are move down the street into the new hip and trendy area or hit the road. Well, my bags are packed. I just don't want to leave.
But, you see. I don't like Starbucks. I don't do uniformity. Too 1939 - 1945 Germany. Know what I mean.
I like a unique taste to my kool-aid.
You can see a certain amount of shortness and disjointedness to the sentence structure. Combined with the use of abbreviations in certain places where they were not necessary and knowledge of how chatrooms can operate, one would likely come to the conclusion that this is someone who spends a lot of time in chatrooms, having to type such short sentence structures and use those abbreviations as a side-effect of how fast the chat itself moves. This style is fairly consistant and, when one is familiar with it, easy to read. It's a style I've also used a few times myself, as necessity dictated.
However, one can notice certain things that stand out. There are oddities within his post that do not match the style of someone who is used to this style of posting. Let me post them.
I want to but I can't even stomach the layout of the PHB.
Note that, in comparison to the sentences around that one, it is strangely complete. The others are half-ideas, sentences with words chopped out or unnecessary abbreviations. That makes this one in particular stand out as an oddity, since it shows a complete following of proper sentence structure that is lacking in the first post.
Now, the second oddity.
But, if I want something dynamic and changing, Something alive, and my choices are move down the street into the new hip and trendy area or hit the road.
This is not only a proper sentence, but a complex thought. If you compare it to the others in the second post, you'll notice he shows a trend of breaking up complex thoughts. Example:
As far as my home being still here.... sure it is. On my book shelf.
As you can see, there's a combination of an ellipsis with an extra period in it and a complete sentence break within this. It is all one thought, but he has broken it up into multiple sentences or half-sentences as the need be. If you stop and look, there are multiple uses of ellipsis throughout that seem a way entirely of generating only a pause, as one would hear in natural speaking, but none of them are done properly. Which makes the sentence that is both a complex thought and has proper punctuation an oddity.
This produces the question of why these oddities would exist in a typing pattern that is indicative of one used to the faster pace of a chatroom, where simple necessity forces a shortened sentence structure. I don't believe I have to post the rest of my analysis from this point. You are far too bright for me to waste your time with something this obvious.
And what if he didn't? He indicated he barely remembered the color of the book.
Again, you're engaging in ******** analysis. You already had a conclusion based on your own experiences, rather than thinking of all the possibilities - one of which is that he simply doesn't remember how many books he owned.
And in this case, you are guilty of selective editting to support a conclusion. Let me post the full section that was a reply.
I don't remember all of the books I owned when I first started playing DnD, yet I could still tell you the number of them. Why? Because I can go count them. And even if he doesn't have them lying around, he can still bring up references from memorable moments to help strengthen the claim. I still remember all of the fun I had playing a wild mage. And I know my first game was 3E, not 2E, because my group still jokes about the issues I had with THAC0 when they decided to introduce me to it, plus all of the fun of playing a wild mage and having things go comically or horribly wrong and yet still managing to survive anyway.
There's still a lot he could have used early on to establish himself, which would have lent credibility to his posts. He could have also avoided those two wording issues and made it look completely like that's how he talks... in which case I wouldn't even waste time bringing him up as an example. Instead, he failed to give details he could have researched on Google if necessary and made mistakes in sentence structure.
As can be seen by all who read it, I clearly did consider the possibility he might now have remembered and even addressed it. I even included some of my own items in there as examples of what he could have posted, not to mention pointing out how easily this information could simply be gotten off of Google with a bit of a search.
Nope, you're accusing of lying because your method of analysis was flawed from the start. You had a conclusion - he was lying - and you then began justifying this through faulty analysis. Your analysis of his sentence structure has no basis in fact - you can't tell if a person is being deceitful or not just because some of his sentences are properly constructed and others aren't.
Intent cannot, and has never been, measurable via analysis of words alone.
In fact, if you go by Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation given the measurable variables is that the poster has poor communication skills.
Intent can be measured from words, though. If someone were to walk up to you and say, "I intend to kill you," then their intent is pretty obvious: They intend to at least scare you, and it's not that hard to use simple logic to conclude the intent to cause the cessation of your continual existence is indeed real. If a middle school student known for suffering depression is overheard asking a friend the proper places to plant bombs to bring the school down, then it's not hard to determine they have at least the temporary intent to bring the building down. In fact, there's a very specific reason why people are warned that their words may be used against them in a court of law, as words are often used to determine someone's intent behind an action.
But, in this case, we don't just have the words, but the electronic actions that go along with those words. If you stop and look, you have the OP posting in a way that can be considered openly hostile and which outright references the Nazis in a way that paints all 4E supporters as members of that group in response to a post that was a little snippy on the WoW comparison but otherwise perfectly friendly (all the while trying to be friendly on the WoW comparison). Then you have said poster trying to excuse that comment several pages later, by which point he's likely been called on it and openly flamed over it quite a few times. These are not the actions of someone who is innocent of the issue, especially given how logically absurd it is for him to not be at least partially informed on what the Nazis did (given he has internet access and actually knows a portion of their timeline).
And if you go by Occam's Razor, then all of the people this thread was created to complain about are only guilty of misunderstanding and having poor communication skills. There are times when Occam's Razor is actually wrong.
-Indeed. That doesn't negate the fact that you are a crazy rambling person, though. ;) :P
Pot-kettle my friend. ;)
The pro-4E side doesn't have the market cornered on insulting the other side's intelligence, believe you me.
I've been called; "stupid," "simple minded," a "WoW kid," "too dumb to play D&D," etc more times than I care to count. One of the posters who has contributed to this very thread at one point referred to 4E as "a game for retards" (it's since been deleted, for good reason).
I've been told that am simply "too simpleminded to appreciate [Vancian Casting], and [my] stupidity shouldn't inflict itself on those who enjoy it."
There have been days when I've had more insults thrown at me than facts. That's pretty messed up, no matter how you think about it.
Yeah, thats sad. It certainly isn't an exclusive weapon. But I don't think the fact that the other side does it justifies the pro side doing it to. Especially not if the pro sides' flames do splash damage on people who aren't actually trolls who spam their hatred about the new edition.
Casting aspersions as to the intellect of those you disagree with is an old internet tradition, at least on the troll side. If you're not seeing it on the anti side of this equation, you're not looking for it. It honestly looks like another case of confirmation bias; you want to see "4vengers" doing it so you find them, but you don't want to see the people who come into discussion forums with the intent of insulting the intelligence of the people who like the game, so you don't.
I didn't say anti's don’t do it. I did say in my post to wrecan that anti's have never implied anything about me, but that’s not a declaration of association. I don't get involved in the edition wars. So far, this means that I haven't caught any flak from antis. I have gotten splash damage from pros. As I have said several times, I don't dispute the unpleasantness of h4ters, but I don't think that that justifies me having to put up with splash damage from pro 4ers, be they 4vengers or otherwise. To be frank with you, I think accusing me of bias is just a way to pigeon hole me into the anti side so that you don't have to think about why a moderate would disaprove of your methods.
I've never advocated that the forums be purely for the use of those who enjoy 4E. My point has always been that the assumption should be that people who visit here want to talk about 4E and enjoy the game. Too often (in fact, pretty much always) the assumption on the boards gets to be that it's a place to come and flame the fans of 4E while they're in a sort of captivity.
This is unfortunate yes. And to you, it is a valid justification. To me, and others, who want no part in your war, it isn't.
Flaming fish in a barrel, as it were. That creates a hostile environment for the people who actually like the game, and it's what causes everyone to be on edge all the time. Stop that, and we stop the flaming of innocent bypassers.
No I just can't condone that. You admit that the pro side flames innocent bystanders. You claim justiification. I don't think there is any justification for this that's good enough.
I'm not flaming anyone. I vehemently disagree with certain posters, but I'm not insulting them, following them around the forum attacking them or harassing them until they leave. I will, however, tear apart their posts if they contain falsehoods or hyperbolizing against the game. I might have skimmed over the part of the CoC where disagreeing with someone is flaming them, I'll have to check it later.
You aren't a particularly bad offender. And you can't be blamed for disagreement. However, overzealous defense to the point that it affects people that the defense wasn't aimed at is highly unfortunate. I have seen admissions of this on these boards, but in no cases have I seen someone admit that causing splash damage on innocent bystanders is unacceptable wrongdoing. There is a prolific attitude of "the ends justify the means" which I cannot accept.
I'm not denying that there are kneejerk flamers on both sides of the aisle. Laying it on me isn't fair, though.
Agreed. But pointing at anti "kneejerk flamers" is not good enough to vindicate pro "kneejerk flamers".
There's a reason I've let my PM inbox fill up. If I don't, I get somewhere between 5 and 10 PMs a day from posters that I haven't even so much as quoted telling me that I'm an ******* for supporting 4E.
Since Friday, I've had 3 posters that I know of make attacks on my character on these boards completely out of the blue.
There isn't a day that goes by when I don't have a quote misattributed to me that contains something I obviously didn't say, which then gets railed against as though it proves some point.
I'm something of a lightning rod on these forums, but I know I'm not the only one experiencing this sort of harassment. It's one thing to talk about turning a blind eye when you're sitting back as a casual observer, it's quite another when you can't log into these boards without seeing yourself maligned. I don't think there are a whole lot of posters that are dealing with this on the level that I am, but they get hit the same way I do if not with the same frequency. There's only so much you can take before it provokes a reaction. That's not an excuse, it's a statement of fact. As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, that's just not the reality of the situation.
I'm sorry to hear that. This is unacceptable, and you have a right to be upset about it.
I lurk. A lot. Both sides tend to be pretty... Shall we way... Hostile, towards each other. Many times the very same post toting oneself as one who does not flame, or is kind, or that they are made of Grandma's best cookies, or whatever contain backhanded, or venomously worded comments. That's not directed at anyone in particular mind you, everyone knows if they've done it or not and far be it from me to point it out. I can't be bothered to care that much.
Everyone is hyper defensive, and just knows the next person they that is disagreeing with their opinion is just here to troll, spoil everyones fun, and ruin someones day. It's almost like watching the news after a presidential candidate mentions a hot-button issue. There is even that neat phenomenon where a completely harmless word, usually an adjective, magically turns into a dirty word without anyone noticing.
I realize we contribute nothing, but I theorize based on my own diminishing interest in these forums, that the blatant hostilities are even driving of lurkers. Who range from "Posters to be", to "Apathetic", to those who know all of their report cards in school said "Doesn't play well with others."(Side note: I'm the last two.)
The environment on these forums has become such that I'm aware of individuals who's only form on contribution on these forums is through PM's to posters they are attempting to help. And while it may not carry much weight from me, I would say that is something both sides need to think about. I've watched once common posters vanish, sometimes literally over night. I've watched them fade away. I've watched the general hostilities grow. It's ludicrous.
As my final note, I would like to say: A forum is nothing without varied opinions. It is useless without many points of view. It is boring without new blood.
Feel free to disregard my post, or tear it apart. I'd be interested to see which side dislikes it more.
I think this is important. The board is largely in agreement that trolling hatred is unacceptable. But the overzealous defense of the edition, which has been known to hit innocent bystanders, is also very damaging to the community. It would be for the greater good of the forums if the pro side starts to calm down and stops feeding trolls. Regardless of the anti side.
Zinegata, how is this any different from what the 3.5E supporters did to 3E supporters when 3.5E was released? And how are the accusations levelled against the 3.5E supporters now any different than they were when levelled against 3E?
It doesn't matter whether or not it’s different. What matters is that it is happening.
As for powers, healing surges, and roles: The powers themselves are nothing new to DnD (ever browse through the Monster Manual sometime?), the healing surges are a long-standing tradition of a number of video games and even a few PnPs and go back years before WoW was even made, and the roles are pretty much the core four class roles clear back from 1E given new names. About the only thing new to DnD of that list is the healing surges.
Why are you bringing this up? Is it meant to be a justification for the fact that you consider any discussion that involves WoW to be trolling?
It is a comment expressed in most cases specifically to get a rise out of people and cause a potential flamewar. That, by definition, is flamebaiting, which is a form of trolling. Now, try to prove to me that it isn't trolling.
Except that it isn't always. People who say "4e=wow and teh suxxors you guys are all stupid children" are trolling anyway. Their manner of posting makes them trolls, regardless of the subject matter. But, according to you, a) the similarities are obvious (which I agree with), yet b) to discuss any of those obvious similarities is trolling. Its safe to say a lot of people who are unaware of the 4e = wow ****storm could bring up the comparison, innocently, on these boards, and they would be reacted to as if they were trolls, and flamed. Someone could, say, compare the Elemental Chaos to Warcraft's Twisting Nether in a thread to find inspiration on how to use the EC. Someone could compare the thematic similarities between the new Forgotten Realm's Kingdom of Many Arrows, and the redemption of the orcs in Warcraft. These would be valid things to discuss. According to you, however, it would be "deserving of flames" simply because of the subject matter, regardless of intent. Which I can't condone. I can't condone your "acceptable flaming" policy in general, and I can't condone your "everyone who comments on a [obvious] similarity is a troll" policy.
And you saying it isn't doesn't make it any less acceptable, either.
It doesn't have to. Flaming is unacceptable on these forums, regardless of what I say.
I provided my logic behind that conclusion. Provide logic that refutes it.
I must have missed that. I just see extremist "flame endorsement", which advocates ignoring the rules of the forum in favour of what you feel is acceptable behaviour.
And, don't bother citing the forum rules; the enforcement of them was actually the cornerstone of my argument.
Ok here we go. Another piece of evidence of what I'm campaigning against on this thread.
A) You feel flaming is acceptable in certain circumstances.
B) You feel that advocating this makes you some kind of “defender of the forum” or servant of the community.
C) You don’t actually care what the rules of the forum are, or, more accuratly, how they relate to your “flaming is ok if you can justify it” stance.
To reiterate,
This mentality, I think, is a cancer eating at these forums. "If someone disagrees with me, I'm allowed to flame them, and feel like a hero of the edition at the same time".
I'm not flaming anyone.
Is calling someone a troll without presenting evidence not flaming?
Is calling someone a troll without presenting evidence not flaming?
If we're to go by past statements from the mods, no. It's baiting instead. ;)
Yeah, thats sad. It certainly isn't an exclusive weapon. But I don't think the fact that the other side does it justifies the pro side doing it to.
But that's not what Batshido is saying.
The conversation now looks like this:
UmbralKnight: I'm not saying the h4ters don't troll, but the 4vengers should stop.
Batshido: The 4vengers shouldn't troll, but you're not being evenhanded.
UmbralKnight: I don't have to evenhanded because the h4ters didn't attack me.
Batshido: But that makes it sound like you only think the onus is on the 4vengers.
UmbralKnight: I'm not saying the h4ters don't troll, but the 4vengers should stop.
And round and round we go.
Fundamentally you two don't disagree. Everybody should stop trolling and baiting and flaming.
But saying it won't make it happen. Responding to it won't make it happen. And fundamentally, it doesn't matter who is to blame because the people posting in these threads about the trolls and fanboys are not the problem. The people who don't care about these threads and flame and troll and bait are the problem. And every poster who lurks these threads could all become model netizens tomorrow and it would have no impact on the General Discussion board.
That's why "Don't do it" is untenable advice. The people who need to follow it aren't going to listen to it.
Active moderation is the only answer to trolling, baiting and flaming. That does require CS to be active. But it requires the community to actively report posts and clearly explain why they are baiting, trolling and flaming. And that is something that we can all do that will have an impact.
But it won't be perfect. As the discussion of the "Is D&D Dying?" thread shows, it's quite possible to bait people in a way that is difficult to punish. Asking rhetorical questions, making very vague and general criticisms, relying on emotion over substance, refusing to directly respond to people while generally responding to their points, are all ways to bait people while making yourself simply appear to be innocently ill-informed or a poor writer.
Laying blame on one side or the other is unproductive. Confirmation bias is rampant and it only further fans the flames. The problem is not any individual's position; it's their behavior. There is nothing inherent about disliking 4th that causes people to troll. There is nothing inherent about liking 4th that causes people to flame. There are trolls, baiters and flamers and they happen to have an opinion about the new edition. The problem is the behavior and the solution is to address the behavior in the only way that has a shot of working: reporting posts and moderating them.
Laying blame on one side or the other is unproductive. Confirmation bias is rampant and it only further fans the flames. The problem is not any individual's position; it's their behavior. There is nothing inherent about disliking 4th that causes people to troll. There is nothing inherent about liking 4th that causes people to flame. There are trolls, baiters and flamers and they happen to have an opinion about the new edition. The problem is the behavior and the solution is to address the behavior in the only way that has a shot of working: reporting posts and moderating them.
This is true, but I think it is also the case that there is a "culture" developing on the forum where it is considered trolling to express negative feelings about the new edition. As a result anyone who doesn't like the new edition and talks about it on the forum gets flamed very quickly. On the other hand, threads that are about the how much people like the new game, don't appear to get derailed in this fashion. Part of this is probably just the numbers, there are more 4E lovers than haters in the forum. But part of it is also this notion that anyone who doesn't like 4E is simply wrong for some reason. That it is such a good system, that anyone who gives it a fair chance has to love it. There is no room for differences in taste and opinion on the board.
False, by your own admission in a previous thread you see yourself as being on "battlestations" all the time:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16312209&postcount=95
Key quote: "We've been at battlestations so long that it's hard for us to try and stand down, especially when we've still got shells hitting the ground on an hourly basis."
You clearly see yourself as a combat organization under siege. In fact, the implication of your post is that the 4E Avengers are no longer capable of standing down.
The battlestations reference is obviously an extremely strained metaphor under any but the most malicious readings of that post. The line I was attempting to draw (and obviously failed in your eyes) was that people who like 4E don't feel like they can let their guard down, for reasons that should be fairly obvious to anyone who who frequents those forums.
I can see in hindsight that the siege metaphor was a poor choice of words. I don't really see anything else that applies to the situation (firefighters, maybe?), though. The idea that I view myself as a member of some anti-insurgent group within the forums, though, is patently ridiculous and if you actually think that's how I feel then I'm starting to see the source of our disagreements.
Outright lie.
See post here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16311096&postcount=63
I said that you can discuss the good, the bad, the ugly, and the funny in these forums. You said I was wrong.
Therefore, by implication, you are advocating a forum where only the good can be discussed.
Especially since you followed that post up by a rant several paragraphs long about how "threadcrapping" doesn't belong here. And yet who is to say what is a threadcrapping and someone who just isn't aware comparing D&D to WoW has been made taboo?
I've since clarified that position. In that particular thread, though, you did everything in your power to back me into a corner and I was reacting poorly to it, I'll admit. I'd already been called stupid and compared to a Nazi in that thread, so I was on a bit of a short chain.
I've got no problem with any constructive discussion of 4E, as I pointed out in that very post. I don't think the system's perfect, and I enjoy hashing out potential solutions to issues that I and others might have. The problem is that those guys (the civil dissenters) get buried under thread after thread of poorly thought through, grammar ambigious ranting by people who don't bother trying to put together logical thoughts.
It wouldn't be as much of an issue if the threads with the thoughtful posters and the threads filled with random hate were somehow kept separate. But whenever someone offers a decent, well thought through critique on the system the first page inevitably fills with "**** yeah, WoWE sucks!!" posts and any civil discussion dies on the vine.
There are not a small number of posters who prefer 3E to 4E that I enjoy talking to on those forums. StSteven, Stormonu, even Maxperson has been fairly pleasant of late. They prefer a different system, but they're fun to discuss things with and don't call me a Nazi if I disagree with them. (Have I mentioned that I don't like being called a Nazi?)
In fact, bluntly, the only reason comparing D&D and WoW is taboo is... actually wait, it's not actually taboo. Just a few posters are claiming it is taboo, even though this is a view that is not endorsed by the CoC, the WiZos, or the VCLs - the true legal authorities of the forum.
It's not a legal taboo, it's a social taboo. Once you invoke WoW in that forum, all reasonable conversation goes out the window. If that's what the OP wants, great. We can label them a troll straight out. If people actuall want feedback or rational discussion, they need to stop reaching for the go-to slams that have been beaten to death over the last few months. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.
There's also this post here where you explicitly state that only positive threads should be allowed in the forums:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16308865&postcount=31
Your reasons? Because you're "tired of defending 4E" (no excuse - if you don't want to discuss the bad, get the **** out of the threads that discuss the bad)
This is a forum dedicated to the current edition of the game; in this case, 4E. That means when you post here, the baseline assumption is that you enjoy the game and you want to discuss it with people who feel the same. There's no call to pollute it with random hatred thrown at the 4E and the people who happen to like it; that's what gets folks like the OP here the curt responses that turn them off to the community. We're tired of defending our right to play the game we enjoy. We don't go into the older edition forums and crap on those threads, we have every right to expect the same treatment here.
I never said anything about defending the system. We're tired of defending our worth as human beings because we prefer 4E to 3E. You should read the stuff that you link to.
and because "we don't go to the 3.X forums" (which is untrue, because 4E vs 3E discussions also happen in the old edition forums, and I would suspect the lack of flame wars in the old edition forums is because the 4E avengers aren't there causing trouble - they're too busy causing trouble in General Discussion).
Those discussions are taking place in the older edition forums, but since no one their is viewed as "the enemy" by people with bruised egos over 3E no longer being supported there's less anger to cause flaming. The "4E Avengers" don't go there to flame because we don't feel like we should. We aren't looking for fights, we just want to discuss our preferred game. It would seem that a good portion of the 3E community doesn't feel the need to come flame in the 4E forums, and I thank them for that. They're not the ones we're talking about here, though. The problem is the "vocal minority" that feels the need to harrass people who play the new edition. They are the root of the problem.
Any claim that the 4E avengers aren't a bunch of militant "This should be OUR forums" whiners flies in the face of stuff you yourself have said.
You're working pretty hard at this character assassination stuff. I can applaud the effort, but you'll excuse me if I take it a little personally. You're misinterpreting my posts, quoting me in a vacuum without context and putting words in my mouth (or keyboard in this case). Whether it's intentional or not, it's not something I'm finding terribly pleasant. If it's just a misunderstanding on your part, I'd ask you to stop, breathe and think about what I've said. If it's actually a malicious attempt, well, I think I'm done with you.
Yeah, thats sad. It certainly isn't an exclusive weapon. But I don't think the fact that the other side does it justifies the pro side doing it to. Especially not if the pro sides' flames do splash damage on people who aren't actually trolls who spam their hatred about the new edition.
UmbralKnight, I can just quote this part and basically answer your entire post.
I'm not justifying anything. Flaming is never justified. Not when Pros do it, not when Anti's do it, not when I do it. It doesn't matter if it's aimed at trolls, at the other "side," innocent bystanders or an edition in general. It's stupid, counter-productive and puts the forums into a downward spiral.
What I'm doing is pointing to the root of the problem. People who frequent the 4E forums because they like the game didn't start this. Once it's over, they won't be randomly flaming each other for lack of viable anti-targets. They'll actually start discussing the issue on a regular basis instead of feeling like they need to fight back. The portion of the forum that likes the new edition certainly isn't blameless in this, but they're not where the problem originates.
This isn't a chicken and egg thing. It's not pros begetting antis begetting pros.... It's pros minding their own business and then feeling attacked by drive-by flaming. Without that catalyst, this wouldn't have happened. Does that justify the response? NO. But it does give us a goal; end the drive-by flames and we can get (can't say "back," we've never actually had it) to civil discussion about the game, good and bad. Until then, nothing's going to change I'm afraid.
Bizarro Chicken Little:
This fan sees doom in every raindrop. This Chicken Little seems to operate on the assumption that even the smallest voice of criticism will reach the ears of the Powers That Be, who will immediately cancel the show in the belief that no one likes it any more. Ergo, all voices of criticism must be silenced without prejudice in order to keep the show on the air.
That looks like alot of the 4th guys that pop up.
But the thing is just to be clear, for a lot of people this is NOT about criticism of the actual works. That is a Hatedom. This is about those who don't think people should like a certain work.
This is true, but I think it is also the case that there is a "culture" developing on the forum where it is considered trolling to express negative feelings about the new edition.
And the way to fix that is the same: report people who call things trolling and baiting. The solution is no different.
Creating a thread about the "culture" won't change the culture because only a small portion of the community reads the Community Business Boards, so even if your words were so persuasive that every person who read them were to be convinced by them, it would make no difference, because not enough people will read them.
There is one solution: report posts and be clear and detailed in your report why the post needs moderation. It's not a perfect solution. It's not going to fix things overnight. It will make a difference in a way that nothing else can.
That looks like alot of the 4th guys that pop up.
As long as people fixate on a poster's position and not the behavior, the problem cannot be solved. The problem is the behavior, not whether someone is pro- or anti- 4E. It doesn't matter if there's only one h4ter and a million 4vengers trolling. It's still a million and one trolls.
And the way to fix that is the same: report people who call things trolling and baiting. The solution is no different.
Creating a thread about the "culture" won't change the culture because only a small portion of the community reads the Community Business Boards, so even if your words were so persuasive that every person who read them were to be convinced by them, it would make no difference, because not enough people will read them.
There is one solution: report posts and be clear and detailed in your report why the post needs moderation. It's not a perfect solution. It's not going to fix things overnight. It will make a difference in a way that nothing else can.
I started this thread because I was under the impression the Moderators paid more attention to the Community Business Board, and that it might spur them to pressure the Pro 4E avengers to change their tone.
If we're to go by past statements from the mods, no. It's baiting instead. ;)
It's against the CoC either way.
As long as people fixate on a poster's position and not the behavior, the problem cannot be solved. The problem is the behavior, not whether someone is pro- or anti- 4E. It doesn't matter if there's only one h4ter and a million 4vengers trolling. It's still a million and one trolls.
No, the numbers do matter. It isn't just a million AND one. It is a million TO one. And that is the problem. People who have criticisms of the new system are bullied out of the forum.
No, the numbers do matter. It isn't just a million AND one. It is a million TO one. And that is the problem. People who have criticisms of the new system are bullied out of the forum.
And the people who don't feel like they're constantly being attacked. It's not a good situation for anyone.
Steps need to be taken to clear out the obviously bad apples. Once that's done, the situation will hopefully stabilize. Until then, everyone is going to keep taking sides (as stupid as that is) and eying everyone else with suspicion. That's a really crappy way to try to discuss anything.
It's against the CoC either way.
Fabius, you harass people who you don't agree with. You refuse to acknowledge that there may be any truth to points that go against your way of thinking. You constantly seek out new people to disagree with when the old ones wise up to the fact that you're just looking for a fight.
It was the half-dozen angry PMs I got from you attacking my personal character over the course of 3 hours during the ToB debates that made me put you on my ignore list. That's trolling, sorry.
Fabius, you harass people who you don't agree with. You refuse to acknowledge that there may be any truth to points that go against your way of thinking. You constantly seek out new people to disagree with when the old ones wise up to the fact that you're just looking for a fight.
It was the half-dozen angry PMs I got from you attacking my personal character over the course of 3 hours during the ToB debates that made me put you on my ignore list. That's trolling, sorry.
I guess for me I would just be able to like to post my opinion on the game without being called out. For instance it would be nice to admit on the boards that I am not enthusiastic about the new system because of X, without 3-6 posters imediately jumping on me with "have you even playes?" "Why, you can just do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X", or "you are just looking for things not to like". The edition is new, people are still forming their opinions of it, and not everyone immediately thought it was great. I don't have a problem with people loving the game. It is a game system, and everyone is going to have a different opinion on how well it meets their gaming needs.
I guess for me I would just be able to like to post my opinion on the game without being called out. For instance it would be nice to admit on the boards that I am not enthusiastic about the new system because of X, without 3-6 posters imediately jumping on me with "have you even playes?" "Why, you can just do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X", or "you are just looking for things not to like". The edition is new, people are still forming their opinions of it, and not everyone immediately thought it was great. I don't have a problem with people loving the game. It is a game system, and everyone is going to have a different opinion on how well it meets their gaming needs.
I will give you the exact same advice that I gave pro-4E people who were in here complaining about anti-4e people driving them out of 4E General Discussion a couple of weeks ago
- Don't respond to people who attack you;
- Respond to people who engage you in discussion;
- Learn to use the IGNORE button;
- learn to use the Report Post button; and
- Someone disagreeing with you is not the same as an attack.
I should also point out that of the examples that you used, the second one ("Why, you can just do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X") Is not an attack. Disagreeing with you and presenting a different way to do what you want is notnotnot an attack. Granted, that is probably you not phrasing it the right way, as, depending on the tone of the advice, it could very well come off as an attack.
I started this thread because I was under the impression the Moderators paid more attention to the Community Business Board, and that it might spur them to pressure the Pro 4E avengers to change their tone.
How would they do that? The moderators don't meet in some super-secret clubhouse with the 4vengers where they could say, "Okay, okay. I guess maybe we went too far. Everybody ramp it back."
Customer Service has only a few arrows in their quiver. Convincing trolls (of any stripe) to become responsible forum members is not one of those arrows.
Moderating a properly reported post is. And that is done without regard to whether the reported post is by a h4ter, 4venger or anybody else.
How would they do that? The moderators don't meet in some super-secret clubhouse with the 4vengers where they could say, "Okay, okay. I guess maybe we went too far. Everybody ramp it back."
Customer Service has only a few arrows in their quiver. Convincing trolls (of any stripe) to become responsible forum members is not one of those arrows.
Moderating a properly reported post is. And that is done without regard to whether the reported post is by a h4ter, 4venger or anybody else.
I have seen threads merged, closed and re-opened as a result of posts on the community business forum. In fact, since this thread has started, I have seen more activity from the moderators in the general forum. They don't simply respond to reports, they can also pro-actively look for offensive posts.
No, the numbers do matter.
No they don't because there's nothing to be done about the numbers, unless you're asking Customer Service to actually choose a side in the Edition Wars and come in and ban everybody else.
Or, perhaps you feel Customer Service is being uneven in its application of the CoC. If you have any evidence of that that could be demonstrated, and not written off as confirmation bias, you need to write a letter to Customer Service and include all of your evidence. Attempts to publicly shame the WizOs into being evenhanded is never going to work.
Now, I don't know if you are charging CS with being biased. If you are, I would disagree with that assessment. CS only deals with the reports they are given. If a flame isn't moderated it's because either 1) nobody reported it, 2) the people who did moderate it didn't explain clearly why it needs moderation or 3) the WizO disagreed that it needs moderation. My experience is that CS is even-handed. My criticism of CS is that they are too timid about cracking down on baiting and flaming, which allows it to flourish more than it should.
People who have criticisms of the new system are bullied out of the forum.
Then the problem is bullying behavior. Behavior can be addressed. People's motivations for the behavior cannot.
I guess for me I would just be able to like to post my opinion on the game without being called out. For instance it would be nice to admit on the boards that I am not enthusiastic about the new system because of X, without 3-6 posters imediately jumping on me with "have you even playes?" "Why, you can just do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X", or "you are just looking for things not to like".
While all of those things can and do get said, they're not always posted with malicious intent.
"Have you played 4E?" There are a lot of folks who didn't like what they saw reading the books that came to enjoy it while playing. It's not unreasonable for that to be a question that get's lead with in these discussions; ascertaining the OP's actual experience with the game is pretty crucial. I had to coax a lot of my AD&D players to try out 3E for those same reasons. Once they did they liked it, but they would never have known that if they hadn't played it. There's a huge difference between reading an RPG and playing it for most people.
"Why, you can just do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X." A lot of the issues that people seem to have with 4E are fluff based, or with specific powers or classes. Presenting workarounds for those issues seems like a pretty positive thing to do if someone actually wants to play the system and give it a try.
"You are looking for things not to like." It's human nature to look for confirmation of your impressions. When something like this is said, it can be a jab a the poster, but if it's meant in a non-aggressive way it basically means "you should try playing it with an open mind, your assumptions may be clouding your judgment." Now, like so many other things on that forum it kneejerks towards the aggressive, but it's not always meant that way.
The edition is new, people are still forming their opinions of it, and not everyone immediately thought it was great. I don't have a problem with people loving the game. It is a game system, and everyone is going to have a different opinion on how well it meets their gaming needs.
I completely understand all of this. I think where a lot of misunderstanding comes in on the forums is when people do a poor job of communicating. The poster may intend for his post to be helpful, but access to true facial expression or intonation on the internet it doesn't come off that way. I've often said that my greatest weakness around here is that sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet, and compassion or expressions of helpfulness don't really either.
They don't simply respond to reports, they can also pro-actively look for offensive posts.
That is factually in error. WizOs do not patrol the forums. That is, in fact, established CS policy. If WizOs were to actively patrol for trolls, that would likely show up in their work logs and they would be reprimanded. Every CS action in a thread occurs in response to a complaint from a forum member. That complaint becomes part of Customer Service's records.
If there is more moderation, it is because forum members are appropriately reporting more posts and doing so with clearer explanations to the WizOs for why moderation is needed.
Pot-kettle my friend. ;)
-Yeah, well...;)
To reiterate, This mentality, I think, is a cancer eating at these forums. "If someone disagrees with me, I'm allowed to flame them, and feel like a hero of the edition at the same time".
-Like everything else you've said, this is right, this is the key.
They don't simply respond to reports, they can also pro-actively look for offensive posts.
No, no they can't. The only actions that WizOs can take are in reponse to reported posts. If a thread gets too many complaints about it, it is usually locked by CS and then punted over to CM who will decide what to do with it.
I said that you can discuss the good, the bad, the ugly, and the funny in these forums. You said I was wrong.
Therefore, by implication, you are advocating a forum where only the good can be discussed.
Any claim that the 4E avengers aren't a bunch of militant "This should be OUR forums" whiners flies in the face of stuff you yourself have said.
If that were the case why would he have posted the following:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16312107&postcount=86
As has been discussed several times, the 4e avengers aren't the knee-jerk pro-4e flamers. There are pro-4e flamers, there are pro-4e people that just enjoy being *******s (and have openly admitted such), however, that is not who the 4e avengers are.
I guess for me I would just be able to like to post my opinion on the game without being called out. For instance it would be nice to admit on the boards that I am not enthusiastic about the new system because of X, without 3-6 posters imediately jumping on me with "have you even playes?" "Why, you can just do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X", or "you are just looking for things not to like". The edition is new, people are still forming their opinions of it, and not everyone immediately thought it was great. I don't have a problem with people loving the game. It is a game system, and everyone is going to have a different opinion on how well it meets their gaming needs.
What sort of response would you like? It seems to me that the "Why not do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X" response is a constructive response. You have several times pointed out that there are posters basically asking how to like 4e. Isn't pointing out ways to adjust things to their liking a way to help them see how them might enjoy 4e?
I have also seen several posts where basically the poster was asking how to houserule 4e back to 3.5e except for one or two minor things. Wouldn't it be easier to suggest they house rule the one or two 4e things into their 3e games? How is that not a constructive suggestion.
Yes I have also seen both of those options presented in a rude way. That is not acceptable, but I don't see how the basic intention behind them is bad. What would you consider a perfect response to your hypothetical post?
What sort of response would you like? It seems to me that the "Why not do Y and Z, and it is the same thing as X" response is a constructive response. You have several times pointed out that there are posters basically asking how to like 4e. Isn't pointing out ways to adjust things to their liking a way to help them see how them might enjoy 4e?
What I think bothers me about these replies, is that the posters will suggest an alternative, and whent the OP says "thanks but that method isn't for me" they get flamed. Not everyone thinks that the "fixes" to 4e are adequate.
What I think bothers me about these replies, is that the posters will suggest an alternative, and whent the OP says "thanks but that method isn't for me" they get flamed. Not everyone thinks that the "fixes" to 4e are adequate.
But just as often "thanks, but that doesn't work for me" is basically meant as "sorry, but your system sucks and I'm trying to point that out to you using small words you can understand."
People who take offense at those who try to help, or actively belittle them, aren't helping.
We need to concentrate on the behavior.
But just as often "thanks, but that doesn't work for me" is basically meant as "sorry, but your system sucks and I'm trying to point that out to you using small words you can understand."
People who take offense at those who try to help, or actively belittle them, aren't helping.
No, it isn't meant as an offense. You can thank someone for suggesting something, but still disagree with them.
No, it isn't meant as an offense. You can thank someone for suggesting something, but still disagree with them.
I'm not saying it always is. I'm not even saying that it usually is. What I'm saying is that it sometimes is, and that puts a lot of posters on the defensive.
Gratitude doesn't really play well over the internet. It tends to come out as sarcasm, especially if someone's expecting that. This a simple problem of miscommunication on both sides that is compounded by the occasional stealth troll.
It starts with you (who ever you may be) to act and behave in a friendly manner. If you choose, of course.
So ask yourself... am I an
or a I know what I am, do you?
So ask yourself... am I an :angle: or a
I know what I am, do you?
I consider myself more of a oval. :D
So ask yourself... am I an angle
I've certainly been called obtuse from time to time. ;)
No one can dictate people's actions or the way they respond.
Actually, the Code of Conduct can and does dictate the way people act on these forums and respond to posts, as long as people report posts in violation.
I am going to remind everyone to keep away from personal insults and remarks. There is no need to make this into a personal issue. Additionally, I have changed the title of the thread to something less baiting. Hopefully, that will help to maintain a more civil discourse.
So just to see what the title suggest now for clarification.
Does it mean Pro4E are causing the frustration, or Pro4E are frustrated?
The girl with red hair kicked me.
The girl kicked me with red hair.
While "fanboys" may be a negative term, it didn't single out one side or the other but simple stated that the fanatics of either side was the premise...
Just asking.
- Learn to use the IGNORE button;
Where is this button I here speak of?
I have to click the user name.
View the user profile.
Find the ignore link.
Go through the ignore process.
There is nothing indicating an ignore feature exists unless you view a user profile, but you can instantly report a post with a button, or make a user a buddy from clicking the name and see it there in the dropdown box.
Why is there no quick way to ignore a user?
"http://forums.gleemax.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=" can be easily added to the dropdown list or to each of the 4 million styles to place a little image link next to the username to quickly be taken to the ignore feature, and allow people more ready access to know that the ignore feature exists if they are new to vBulletin forums.
So ask yourself... am I an :angle:
I prefer to be called acute ;)
"http://forums.gleemax.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=" can be easily added to the dropdown list or to each of the 4 million styles to place a little image link next to the username to quickly be taken to the ignore feature, and allow people more ready access to know that the ignore feature exists if they are new to vBulletin forums.
Stupid question, is that something an individual user can do? Or was that a suggestion for CM?
Does it mean Pro4E are causing the frustration, or Pro4E are frustrated?
It means meither. It means the OP is frustrated by the behavior of some Pro-4E members.
The girl with red hair kicked me.
The girl kicked me with red hair.
The second sentence is grammatically incorrect because you cannot use hair to kick people.
While "fanboys" may be a negative term, it didn't single out one side or the other but simple stated that the fanatics of either side was the premise...
The initial post clarified that by fanboys he meant pro-4E fanboys. Yesterday, you were insistent that one could not read titles in isolation. What happened?
So just to see what the title suggest now for clarification.
Does it mean Pro4E are causing the frustration, or Pro4E are frustrated?
The girl with red hair kicked me.
The girl kicked me with red hair.
While "fanboys" may be a negative term, it didn't single out one side or the other but simple stated that the fanatics of either side was the premise...
Just asking.
It is entirely clear to most reasonable people what the new title is saying.
IMO you are merely being deliberately obtuse.
I consider myself more of a oval. :D
...Typo demons getting clever...
But just as often "thanks, but that doesn't work for me" is basically meant as "sorry, but your system sucks and I'm trying to point that out to you using small words you can understand."
Thats the kind of thing I keep seeing myself. They are raging and want to prove they are right that 4th sucks. Not all of them are like this but a large number are just like this.
When you get a post saying 4th is pure suck but why don't you tell me why its not so I can point out that your wrong. Its hard for those that like 4th not to feed the troll.
Look, I know you guys like the game, and that is cool. But has only been out for about a month, and people are still posting their reactions. Could you guys please stop telling others their opinions about the game are factually incorrect? If someone posts something blatantly false about the rules, fine call them out. But if someone says I think it is too much like WoW, or I don't like the powers system, could you tone the nerd rage down a notch, and allow for differences in taste?
Very first post of the thread. Made is quite clear that the OP created this thread to discuss the issues he saw with pro-4e people, possibly specifically young males based on the former title.
So just to see what the title suggest now for clarification.
Does it mean Pro4E are causing the frustration, or Pro4E are frustrated?
The girl with red hair kicked me.
The girl kicked me with red hair.
While "fanboys" may be a negative term, it didn't single out one side or the other but simple stated that the fanatics of either side was the premise...
I am confused. Your first two statements seem to be implying that you see a flexibility with the word frustrated that I was unaware of. In the last sentence you seem unhappy that it is clear who is frustrating the OP. If the word frustrated is as flexible as you claim isn't it still ambiguous who is frustrated vs doing the frustrating? If half of it is sarcasm I missed which half.
The only loss of clarity with the new title, that I see, is that it no longer specifies that the problem is specifically with young males. Potentially the OP really wasn't trying to single out young males and was just using a common phrase and doesn't mind that loss at all.
I ask about IP addresses, because it's painfully obvious some people are just making new accounts and starting flamewars anew.
P.S. I think the thread title would be best served as: "Fed up with edition wars"
Actually, the Code of Conduct can and does dictate the way people act on these forums and respond to posts, as long as people report posts in violation.
Let me correct myself; Forum members can not dictate their will on other members (unless in coincides with the CoC)
Understand now?
I'm not saying it always is. I'm not even saying that it usually is. What I'm saying is that it sometimes is, and that puts a lot of posters on the defensive.
Gratitude doesn't really play well over the internet. It tends to come out as sarcasm, especially if someone's expecting that. This a simple problem of miscommunication on both sides that is compounded by the occasional stealth troll.
And there is the crux of the issue.
Most people on both sides are expecting it.
And then responding in kind.....
A nice vicious circle.
Maybe more people should take a deep breath, wait awhile before posting or maybe not posting at all and just let it go.
I've lost count of the number of times I've started a post only to cancel after typing it up. The realization that it wasn't a productive comment brought me back to a more moderate course.
I've lost count of the number of times I've started a post only to cancel after typing it up. The realization that it wasn't a productive comment brought me back to a more moderate course.
I myself have done so repeatedly in the past, and it is likely the best way to do things. However, I find my temper wearing thin with attitudes such as the one on this thread, that anti-4E people should be free to state whatever they please, and us pro-4E people should just shut up and take it.
I myself have done so repeatedly in the past, and it is likely the best way to do things. However, I find my temper wearing thin with attitudes such as the one on this thread, that anti-4E people should be free to state whatever they please, and us pro-4E people should just shut up and take it.
My point is that anti 4e people should be able to voice their opinion about the new system without being flamed. I think this post is key to understanding the problem. For some reason pro 4ers are treating any criticism of the system itself as a personal criticism, which it isn't.
My point is that anti 4e people should be able to voice their opinion about the new system without being flamed. I think this post is key to understanding the problem. For some reason pro 4ers are treating any criticism of the system itself as a personal criticism, which it isn't.
And with this post, you prove to me that you either haven't been reading what's being posted here or have been disregarding it because it doesn't fit your mindset.
The reasons behind the underlying hostility have been stated repeatedly. Both sides have the right to expect a flame free forum, but it's a two-way street. Just because your worldview flows one way doesn't mean it exonerates the people you agree with from wrongdoing.
And with this post, you prove to me that you either haven't been reading what's being posted here or have been disregarding it because it doesn't fit your mindset.
The reasons behind the underlying hostility have been stated repeatedly. Both sides have the right to expect a flame free forum, but it's a two-way street. Just because your worldview flows one way doesn't mean it exonerates the people you agree with from wrongdoing.
I never said it did. But saying you are unhappy with the new system isn't baiting. It is giving feedback on a game that came out about a month ago. If someone comes on with an anti 4e attitude to antagonize people, that is different. But honestly I am seeing a lot more flaming coming from the pro 4e crowd. I don't see the anti 4e people getting worked up because other people like the game.
I find my temper wearing thin with attitudes such as the one on this thread, that anti-4E people should be free to state whatever they please, and us pro-4E people should just shut up and take it.
My point is that anti 4e people should be able to voice their opinion about the new system without being flamed. I think this post is key to understanding the problem. For some reason pro 4ers are treating any criticism of the system itself as a personal criticism, which it isn't.
But he didn't say that!
He said he feels like some people believe that anything negative about 4E is fair game and that people who are pro-4E need to shut up and take it.
You take that to mean he believes that all criticism of 4E is a proper candidate to be flamed.
Can't you see you guys are talking right past each other and seeing only what you are predisposed to see and not what one another is actually writing?
And if you guys cannot see that, what hope is there of getting the folks who don't care enough to come to the Community Business Boards to see it?
Let me correct myself; Forum members can not dictate their will on other members (unless in coincides with the CoC)
Understand now?
-Be quite and submit to my will...
I don't see the anti 4e people getting worked up because other people like the game.
The entire problem with these forums comes from people who don't like 4E getting ****** off because some people do. That's where the conflict started; disgruntled 3E players unhappy with the new state of affairs. 4E players have to deal with unhappy 3E players every single day coming into that forum and telling them off for playing the new game. If you're not seeing that then you're either not looking or you've got some pretty strong blinders on.
The first salvo was fired by antis. That's not a value judgment, that's a fact. Without those people who were angry about the edition change, the rancor wouldn't have started.
Edit: None of this should be taken to mean that I think the onus lies purely on the anti's to change. We've all got to figure this thing out together. It's just that the claim that it's all the pro's fault flies in the face of logic.
My point is that anti 4e people should be able to voice their opinion about the new system without being flamed. I think this post is key to understanding the problem. For some reason pro 4ers are treating any criticism of the system itself as a personal criticism, which it isn't.
As I have pointed out, there are numerous threads where people make criticisms of 4E, and are still treated with respect and given constructive replies.
-Be quite and submit to my will...
NEVER!!!!!!!.... okay... maybe a little.
No, it's generally best to have done so.
What the OP is doing, though, is trying to give his post more authority through invoking previous editions. He's holding up his opinion as being more important than those whom he has implied his superiority over. It's e-peen swinging, that's it.
I have seen you repeat this a few times and I am not sure I understand your position. I have participate in many live discussion groups and it is customary/traditional to tell a bit about yourself. To let people know who you are and where you are coming from.
Sure not everyone does this, but knowing the person you are speaking to is not a bad thing. In fact, if an experienced player is asking a question I take heed. If he/she is confused then what is going to happen when I come across whatever the subject matter might be.
I did not find this so surprising as much as his/her lack of presence for the remainder of the discussion. The odd thank you, or comment lets people know you are at least listening.
Cheers!
Edit: Forget my hight light. Just a little slow on the up-take. Can you explain what you mean here? I do not understand the portion I have placed in bold.
My point is that anti 4e people should be able to voice their opinion about the new system without being flamed. I think this post is key to understanding the problem. For some reason pro 4ers are treating any criticism of the system itself as a personal criticism, which it isn't.
I think this is the basic disagreement here. I don't see the pro-4e people taking every criticism as an attack on 4e or as personal criticism.
Examples:
Is 4e heroic?
Warforged Breathing
Sword Damage
I did not read all of these threads, but the first pages all have constructive responses to the criticisms presented. Later in the thread flame wars may have erupted, but these show that there are pro-4e people posting constructive responses to criticism.
Yes people are overreacting to things that aren't phrased nicely, but I see that happening on both sides.
He said he feels like some people believe that anything negative about 4E is fair game and that people who are pro-4E need to shut up and take it.
You take that to mean he believes that all criticism of 4E is a proper candidate to be flamed.
Can't you see you guys are talking right past each other and seeing only what you are predisposed to see and not what one another is actually writing?
And if you guys cannot see that, what hope is there of getting the folks who don't care enough to come to the Community Business Boards to see it?
+1
Thank you for putting that so eloquently!
I have seen you repeat this a few times and I am not sure I understand your position. I have participate in many live discussion groups and it is customary/traditional to tell a bit about yourself. To let people know who you are and where you are coming from.
Sure not everyone does this, but knowing the person you are speaking to is not a bad thing. In fact, if an experienced player is asking a question I take heed. If he/she is confused then what is going to happen when I come across whatever the subject matter might be.
I did not find this so surprising as much as his/her lack of presence for the remainder of the discussion. The odd thank you, or comment lets people know you are at least listening.
Cheers!
Edit: Forget my hight light. Just a little slow on the up-take. Can you explain what you mean here? I do not understand the portion I have placed in bold.
It's one thing to clarify where you're coming from based on past experience. In retrospect, it looks like that's what the OP of the thread was trying to do; before he'd come back to reply he definitely looked like a drive-by troll, but that doesn't appear to have been the case after some clarification.
The problem with flashing a "gaming resume" is that it quickly becomes something to beat other posters over the head with until they're forced to agree with you. "I've been here longer, I've done more, I know better than you, agree dammit." It's one of the more common ways of giving oneself false authority on the internet and particularly in forums like these.
The reference to "e-peens" is about the fact that it's easy to turn a disagreement into a scuffle over "qualifications." The gaming resume turns into a stand in for offline *ahem* man-parts. Then it becomes about comparing sizes rather than addressing points.
It's one thing to clarify where you're coming from based on past experience. In retrospect, it looks like that's what the OP of the thread was trying to do; before he'd come back to reply he definitely looked like a drive-by troll, but that doesn't appear to have been the case after some clarification.
The problem with flashing a "gaming resume" is that it quickly becomes something to beat other posters over the head with until they're forced to agree with you. **"I've been here longer, I've done more, I know better than you, agree dammit." It's one of the more common ways of giving oneself false authority on the internet and particularly in forums like these.
The reference to "e-peens" is about the fact that it's easy to turn a disagreement into a scuffle over "qualifications." The gaming resume turns into a stand in for offline *ahem* man-parts. Then it becomes about comparing sizes rather than addressing points.
I can see what you are saying now. It is unfortunate that there has to be such a suspicious environment. Having to worry about flaming whether you are pro or con is a shame. **I guess there are those that like to slinging their weight around.
Instead of verbally calling out a flamer, there could be a tag or something, I do not know. I am reaching.....
Oh, well...Cheers!!
-You know that thread rating system? If it's a thread suspected to be trolling, give it a bad rank. That let's everyone know to avoid it. That's that.
On a message board I was on before, they had a policy for awhile that if after a certain number of votes a thread had a rating of "1" then they would lock the thread.
I think a policy like that would really help shut down the total flame war threads.
They would have a rating of 0.
Can't work like that do to sock puppets being able to just vote to get a thread locked without needed to flame anymore.
-You know that thread rating system? If it's a thread suspected to be trolling, give it a bad rank. That let's everyone know to avoid it. That's that.
And anyone with any sense at all ignores those, since they get skewed very quickly by trolls and their sock puppets.
On a message board I was on before, they had a policy for awhile that if after a certain number of votes a thread had a rating of "1" then they would lock the thread.
I think a policy like that would really help shut down the total flame war threads.
Then it would just be a race to create more sock puppets to lock down legitimate threads in which no one was taking the bait.
Sorry, this won't work in this situation.
Then any thread that isn't rated...what happens to them?
They would have a rating of 0.
The thread stays open. Nobody cared enough to vote either way.
Can't work like that do to sock puppets being able to just vote to get a thread locked without needed to flame anymore.
That is a possibility, but that's part of the reason you require a certain number of total votes before locking.
That is a possibility, but that's part of the reason you require a certain number of total votes before locking.
Sock puppets are easy to produce and they work cheap. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that certain posters might keep stockpiles of them just to lock threads they didn't like. We don't want to encourage that sort of behavior.
Then any thread that isn't rated...what happens to them?
They would have a rating of 0.
In database parlance, they'd have a rating of NULL actually. Databases treat NULL as different than 0; NULL is the lack of a value and doesn't equal anything.
The entire problem with these forums comes from people who don't like 4E getting ****** off because some people do. That's where the conflict started; disgruntled 3E players unhappy with the new state of affairs. 4E players have to deal with unhappy 3E players every single day coming into that forum and telling them off for playing the new game. If you're not seeing that then you're either not looking or you've got some pretty strong blinders on.
The first salvo was fired by antis. That's not a value judgment, that's a fact. Without those people who were angry about the edition change, the rancor wouldn't have started.
Edit: None of this should be taken to mean that I think the onus lies purely on the anti's to change. We've all got to figure this thing out together. It's just that the claim that it's all the pro's fault flies in the face of logic.
I've been away from these boards because I figured something like this would happen. So I was posting happily on various other gaming boards and lo and behold but what happens. Pro4E people came in and started going on and on how great it was and that we all needed to change to it because our game was old/obsolete/overly complex/stupid/and so on.
So I have a solution. You stay leave me alone on forums for other games and companies, and I'll continue to stay away from here.
I suggest everyone go this route. Don't like 4e leave the wizard forums dealing with it. If the fact that there is a section talking about is too tempting for you then leave WotC's forums all together. Meanwhile 4e fans stay here, and if you wander to a non-4e board please keep your posting related to the forum you're visiting.
I'd really like to not have to ban any more trolls from either side. Thank you.
i have never heard much on pros making that kind of troubles; however, there is MANY antis who come in and do that.
Such threads for me have a taste of hypocrisy, frankly.
So I have a solution. You stay leave me alone on forums for other games and companies, and I'll continue to stay away from here.
I personally have no intention of evangelizing for the new edition at any point. I'm not going to go from forum to forum casting out the demons of 3E and singing the gospels of 4E. I'm perfectly happy to come here (and a few other places around the tubes) and chat about the game with other people who want to do the same.
As long as people from either side aren't actively inflicting their viewpoints on others as though they are the one true font of gaming wisdom, I think we'll all be ok. We just need to get to that point somehow.
I never said it did. But saying you are unhappy with the new system isn't baiting. It is giving feedback on a game that came out about a month ago. If someone comes on with an anti 4e attitude to antagonize people, that is different. But honestly I am seeing a lot more flaming coming from the pro 4e crowd. I don't see the anti 4e people getting worked up because other people like the game.
There's one form of criticism that I think is really just a form of subtle trolling. Here's an example:
OP: I am upset and disappointed. Here are some things in 4e that don't work for me [a list follows].
Answer #1: [solutions and ideas]
Answer #2: [solutions and ideas]
Answer #3: [solutions and ideas]
Answer #4: [solutions and ideas]
Answer #5: [solutions and ideas]
OP: Thanks but no thanks. I want the game to work out of the box, not with house rules, reflavorings, and reinterpretations. Specifically, I want the game to have certain aspects of 3e in the core books. It doesn't, so none of these fixes have any value to me.
Answer #6: [anger]
The above is, in my view, completely dishonest and should be treated as trolling.
If you go to a forum, expect discussion and be honest. If you present a problem, people will assume you want a solution. If you don't want a solution, then you must want the problem to persist. The only reason to want a problem is a desire for drama.
If you want to give feedback to the people who make D&D, there are many ways to do this. They all have email addresses on this site. They have blogs. You can engage them directly. If you want to antagonize the fans of the game, however, you should stick to the forums. Antagonizing fans on forums doesn't particularly make developers take notice of your problems, but it does draw a lot of attention and it does drag other people down.
Again, the 4e forums are a great resource for anyone who wants to make his or her game better. They are also a great resource for anyone who wants to **** off 4e fans. Feedback is best given (and easily given) to the people who make the game through other means.
But if someone says I think it is too much like WoW, or I don't like the powers system, could you tone the nerd rage down a notch, and allow for differences in taste?
No :D
There's one form of criticism that I think is really just a form of subtle trolling.
This is one of the things that is incredibly frustrating with the situation. There are a good number of posters (around half a dozen) who are effectively meta-trolling the forum.
They don't say anything that can get them banned in a vacuum, but it's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that they're just in the forum to poke people with a stick and see if they'll react. The above example is one method of doing it, but there are others.
Posting an article and giving thoughts that aren't in any way backed up by it yet insisting that they are and then coming just short of flaming anyone who actually reads the article and calls you on it.
Posting a list of proposed "house rules" that when taken as a whole effectively turn the game back into 3E and then proceed to snipe at posters who are simply asking for your motivation in making those changes or trying to help with the process.
There are dozens of ways of trolling the forums without actually "trolling" it. Unless one of these guys screws up and actually posts something that is bannable in a single post, the powers that be probably don't have any clue what's going on and the people in the forums who can see this stuff happening can report posts from now until judgment day without anything happening about it.
I don't see that as trolling, emwasick. I mean, I can understand why it's frustrating. I know I've certainly been involved in threads like that before. Sometimes, though, people don't want a fix; they just want to vent.
If it's not trolling, it's sure at least not constructive and leave hook for flaming and arguments.
Even if it's not technically trolling, it does more to contribute to the ambient hostility than any other single issue. Those sorts of passive-aggressive trolling/baiting threads are what keep the situation at a low-boil, ready to explode at the drop of a hat.
I personally have no intention of evangelizing for the new edition at any point. I'm not going to go from forum to forum casting out the demons of 3E and singing the gospels of 4E. I'm perfectly happy to come here (and a few other places around the tubes) and chat about the game with other people who want to do the same.
As long as people from either side aren't actively inflicting their viewpoints on others as though they are the one true font of gaming wisdom, I think we'll all be ok. We just need to get to that point somehow.
It actually reminds me a bit of some of the Baseball forums I visit, being a Twins fan. Fans from other teams will occasionally visit a Twins forum and smack talk. It seems that no matter the forum, people are finding it more and more acceptable to shout their views at other people.
It doesn't matter whether or not it’s different. What matters is that it is happening.
Whether or not it is happening is only half of the importance. The other half is, "will it happen again?" That's the reason for pointing out that the forums have a pattern of this. As long as it's going to happen again, we're going to continue to deal with these problems every time a new edition is released. So why focus on just immediate solutions to a problem when we also need long-term solutions to prevent it from happening again?
Why are you bringing this up? Is it meant to be a justification for the fact that you consider any discussion that involves WoW to be trolling?
My posting history speaks more on what I consider it than your interpretation. Admittedly, I could have worded it better.
However, that part itself is meant to show that the main argument in comparison of DnD to WoW is itself ultimately flawed for a number of reasons, the list of which grows as I continue to pull together my resources and check books. It's amazing how many "new changes" to 4E are actually nothing new at all.
Except that it isn't always. People who say "4e=wow and teh suxxors you guys are all stupid children" are trolling anyway. Their manner of posting makes them trolls, regardless of the subject matter. But, according to you, a) the similarities are obvious (which I agree with), yet b) to discuss any of those obvious similarities is trolling. Its safe to say a lot of people who are unaware of the 4e = wow ****storm could bring up the comparison, innocently, on these boards, and they would be reacted to as if they were trolls, and flamed. Someone could, say, compare the Elemental Chaos to Warcraft's Twisting Nether in a thread to find inspiration on how to use the EC. Someone could compare the thematic similarities between the new Forgotten Realm's Kingdom of Many Arrows, and the redemption of the orcs in Warcraft. These would be valid things to discuss. According to you, however, it would be "deserving of flames" simply because of the subject matter, regardless of intent. Which I can't condone. I can't condone your "acceptable flaming" policy in general, and I can't condone your "everyone who comments on a [obvious] similarity is a troll" policy.
It doesn't matter if you condone it. What matters is whether or not it's the reality of the situation. So far, I have yet to see someone truly compare DnD and WoW without using it as part of their argument as to why they consider the newest edition to be a failure or to have problems, and every time it's been stated in a way that doesn't go into detail and is almost inviting flames. That, by definition, is trolling. The fact the WizOs continue to allow it to happen and they allow people to get away with flaming those people to a degree shows a de facto policy of it being okay to flame people who compare DnD to WoW as long as you don't go too far in the flaming.
Thus, the argument you have against me is wasted, since right now I have the action and inaction of the WizOs to use to back up my stance. As long as this de facto policy exists, all arguments against flaming people for posting that comparison are going to eventually run up against the wall of it being unofficially okay to do. Want to stop it? Then stop wasting time talking to me about it and start getting on the WizOs to do something. As long as they continue to allow it, it will continue to be a problem.
It doesn't have to. Flaming is unacceptable on these forums, regardless of what I say.
Then why are people getting away with it?
I must have missed that. I just see extremist "flame endorsement", which advocates ignoring the rules of the forum in favour of what you feel is acceptable behaviour.
Post #70 on this thread.
Ok here we go. Another piece of evidence of what I'm campaigning against on this thread.
A) You feel flaming is acceptable in certain circumstances.
B) You feel that advocating this makes you some kind of “defender of the forum” or servant of the community.
C) You don’t actually care what the rules of the forum are, or, more accuratly, how they relate to your “flaming is ok if you can justify it” stance.
Or, maybe, I'm using a tactic of trolling in a way to argue against it as well as provide support for my stated suggestions on how to solve it. But, then, most people wouldn't stop to consider that, which is what makes using the tactic even more fun.
Look at my posts. Admittedly, I started with something that was definitely worded to draw arguments against it. And yet, the cornerstone of my argument is the lack of action on the part of WizOs to deal with the problem. And, no matter what, it's on their heads to solve it; I can report posts all day long, but that doesn't mean anything if the WizOs aren't going to deal with it and if four more of the same nature are added for every one dealt with like that. The problem thus becomes the feeling that the WizOs are not actually doing anything, which results in some people who were being nice getting more and more towards the feeling that it's better to simply flame. You can see that if you stop and watch the progression of attitudes upon this forum.
That emphasizes another problem: The rules have only as much weight as the enforcement of them does. It doesn't matter if the rules say that using the word "hotdog" is banned if I could post something that uses "hotdog" in every sentence without a mod even editting it. And as long as the feeling of a lack of enforcement is there, the current problems are going to continue.
And the solution to this problem I keep seeing? "Use the ignore button." That's not a solution. That's just a stopgap measure until someone changes accounts and trolls on it.
*shrug*
I don't see that as trolling, emwasick. I mean, I can understand why it's frustrating. I know I've certainly been involved in threads like that before. Sometimes, though, people don't want a fix; they just want to vent.
I kind of get wanting to vent, but why do it everyday or almost everyday for weeks or months on end? Yes, the game came out, some people were unpleasantly surprised, and they want to say so in front of as many fans as possible. I think that's unproductive, except possibly from a therapeutic standpoint that I am unqualified to comment on. Doing it regularly (especially after the predictable results occur) seems like trolling.
Maybe I'm being hard on people, but if all folks want is emotional catharsis, I don't think a forum is a great venue.
If someone genuinely wants to change the direction that D&D will take in the future, emwasick, Batshido, and so on are just *not* the right people to talk to. Again, writers have email and blogs on this site and elsewhere.
I kind of get wanting to vent, but why do it everyday or almost everyday for weeks or months on end? Yes, the game came out, some people were unpleasantly surprised, and they want to say so in front of as many fans as possible. I think that's unproductive, except possibly from a therapeutic standpoint that I am unqualified to comment on. Doing it regularly (especially after the predictable results occur) seems like trolling.
If it's the same person, then yeah - you might have a case for trolling. This goes back to what I said earlier about reporting it and giving as much information as possible to the mods. Reporting your sample post and saying, "trolling" will probably not result in anything. But reporting it and providing a well-thought out explanation of why you think it's trolling - including links to other threads the same user started - will go a long way to help the moderators take the appropriate action.
No :D
I see this as another prime reason why tempers are high and everyone is so touchy.
You think this is funny, and probably others do too.
I see it as an unproductive slap in the middle of a serious discussion.
The smiley not withstanding, as I see it the only intent of your post is to provoke.
If it's the same person, then yeah - you might have a case for trolling. This goes back to what I said earlier about reporting it and giving as much information as possible to the mods. Reporting your sample post and saying, "trolling" will probably not result in anything. But reporting it and providing a well-thought out explanation of why you think it's trolling - including links to other threads the same user started - will go a long way to help the moderators take the appropriate action.
Yes, sorry if I was unclear. When someone with a current-month join date and no posting history puts down an angry rant full of typos, we should all just nicely let it sink into oblivion. Maybe that person will come back around with real questions, or maybe he'll just send his books back to Amazon and be done with it. Whatever, says I.
But there are folks who make criticism of 4e their hobby- they seek out problems with the game and post something everyday. They never want solutions. This is what I mean.
If you think reports linking to that poster's other threads could result in some action from CS, then I will certainly give it a try.
I don't think that is necessarily trolling at all emwasick. I mean, it could be. But it may well be an honest opinion. Too many here jump to the conclusion that a person is trolling. If faced with either option, give the benefit of the doubt.
Raging and flaming is maybe sincere, that don't make it acceptable, mind you.
I don't see that as trolling, emwasick. I mean, I can understand why it's frustrating. I know I've certainly been involved in threads like that before. Sometimes, though, people don't want a fix; they just want to vent.
Do not disrupt chat, forums, blog comments or other communication channels. For example:
* Spam through repeated posts, or off-topic content by word or intent to forums or comments (scrolling, flooding, polling, or by "bumping" a post more than once in 48 hours)
* Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)
* Advertise trades or sales outside of the designated areas
If they really want to vent and not start a discussion why not say so? At least that way no one will bother responding.
I think you could make a decent argument that specifically posting something that you don't want to discuss is a violation of the CoC, despite not being trolling. It could be trolling if they want to start a flame war, but intent is hard to prove.
Isn't the point of these forums to discuss D&D? Therefore aren't they violating the CoC by posting in a forum designated for discussion of D&D and expecting people not to discuss?
I don't think that is necessarily trolling at all emwasick. I mean, it could be. But it may well be an honest opinion. Too many here jump to the conclusion that a person is trolling. If faced with either option, give the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying that people are dishonest about their opinions. I'm quite sure that some people do want 4e to be more like 3e. But there is dishonesty in repeatedly refusing any suggestions to fix the problems. Such refusals make it very clear that some posters want there to be problems to complain about. It gives them a soapbox to stand on, from which they can say anyone who likes the new system is retarded/doesn't role-play/only likes combat/is a power-gamer/isn't playing the real D&D/whatever. Someone who complains for weeks or months and rejects all help is a troll.
It actually reminds me a bit of some of the Baseball forums I visit, being a Twins fan. Fans from other teams will occasionally visit a Twins forum and smack talk. It seems that no matter the forum, people are finding it more and more acceptable to shout their views at other people.
-That's the beauty of baseball. Without nobody shouting and screaming at you...Well, it's no fun. Half of the fun is screaming talking smack back.
-That's the beauty of baseball. Without nobody shouting and screaming at you...Well, it's no fun. Half of the fun is screaming talking smack back.
On the baseball field, maybe. But it's très fail and annoying on the web, to say the least.... you get tired quickly.
-You missed the entire point.
And?
And?
His comment had nothing to do with the obvious wording and more to do with something a little less obvious.
He could have chosen a more obvious way to do it, but his current method works well enough.
-Figured this thread could use a brief moment of levity. Carry on with the jousting, by all means. ;)
I'm not saying that people are dishonest about their opinions. I'm quite sure that some people do want 4e to be more like 3e. But there is dishonesty in repeatedly refusing any suggestions to fix the problems. Such refusals make it very clear that some posters want there to be problems to complain about. It gives them a soapbox to stand on, from which they can say anyone who likes the new system is retarded/doesn't role-play/only likes combat/is a power-gamer/isn't playing the real D&D/whatever. Someone who complains for weeks or months and rejects all help is a troll.
The issue is many people have played the system, don't particularly like it, and would like to voice that opinion in the 4e threads. While it is perfectly fair to offer fixes to the problems posters identify, they are not obligated to agree that the fixes make the game better. It just might be that 4e isn't for them. That doesn't mean they are saying people who like 4e are bad or possess any of the characteristics you listed, it just means they don't prefer it. 4E has been out a little over a month, and it is going to probably take a few more months for people to post all their feelings (good and bad) on it.
The issue is many people have played the system, don't particularly like it, and would like to voice that opinion in the 4e threads. While it is perfectly fair to offer fixes to the problems posters identify, they are not obligated to agree that the fixes make the game better. It just might be that 4e isn't for them. That doesn't mean they are saying people who like 4e are bad or possess any of the characteristics you listed, it just means they don't prefer it. 4E has been out a little over a month, and it is going to probably take a few more months for people to post all their feelings (good and bad) on it.
So, explain this to me.
The advice that keeps getting thrown out to the people who like 4E is that they should just stay out of threads that are negative or whatever since it's unlikely they'll have anything to add.
Why does that same advice not apply to those posters who don't actually want to discuss the game? If they're just looking to air grievances, why is that somehow acceptable when disagreeing with them isn't? That's a pretty serious double standard.
Why don't we just rename it the "Primal Scream Therapy" forums and get it over with?
The issue is many people have played the system, don't particularly like it, and would like to voice that opinion in the 4e threads. While it is perfectly fair to offer fixes to the problems posters identify, they are not obligated to agree that the fixes make the game better. It just might be that 4e isn't for them. That doesn't mean they are saying people who like 4e are bad or possess any of the characteristics you listed, it just means they don't prefer it. 4E has been out a little over a month, and it is going to probably take a few more months for people to post all their feelings (good and bad) on it.
If they just want to post their opinions and not discuss them they are posting in the wrong forum. It is the General Discussion forum. They should get a blog if they want to post opinions rather than discuss them.
If they just want to post their opinions and not discuss them they are posting in the wrong forum. It is the General Discussion forum. They should get a blog if they want to post opinions rather than discuss them.
I think the General DIscussion forum on the Wizards board, is an ideal place for people to post feedback about the new system. I suspect that wizards feels the same way.
I am not saying they don't want to discuss them, just that it is unlikely for either side to convince the other and no one should take it personally if their arguments fail to change people's opinions. I have had several productive discussions with the more open minded posters in the general forum. It is when someone proposes a fix to one of my specific complaints, and then grills me when I feel their fix doesn't make the game better for me, that I have a problem. I have seen numerous instances where someone complains that there are not enough skills for their tastes in the new system. Obviously there are ways around this problem, and people are more than happy to post suggestions. But as helpful as these might be, they usually are not going to sway someone who wants specific skills to be part of the game with no need for extra sweat on their part. Yet, in many such instances, I have seen posters harrass the OP with statements like " I just showed you how you this isn't a problem in the game, why do you continue to hate 4e". that get progressively more aggressive. All I am saying, is allow for people to have their own opinion at the end of the discussion without giving them the third degree.
I think the General DIscussion forum on the Wizards board, is an ideal place for people to post feedback about the new system. I suspect that wizards feels the same way.
There are lots of ways to voice concerns to Wizards. Only one, however, really stands a solid chance of starting a flame war. If those people really wanted to get their message to Wizards, they should shoot them an email or send a letter. If they just go spout off in the forums their message is going to get lost in the swamp of hundreds of other posts about the same thing.
It's a form of catharsis, that's all it is. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense for it to go in the forums where it's going to touch off a flame-war. If the end goal isn't an informed discussion and exchange of ideas, it doesn't belong in a discussion forum. Primal scream therapy works just as well in an empty room.
I am not saying they don't want to discuss them, just that it is unlikely for either side to convince the other and no one should take it personally if their arguments fail to change people's opinions. I have had several productive discussions with the more open minded posters in the general forum. It is when someone proposes a fix to one of my specific complaints, and then grills me when I feel their fix doesn't make the game better for me, that I have a problem. I have seen numerous instances where someone complains that there are not enough skills for their tastes in the new system. Obviously there are ways around this problem, and people are more than happy to post suggestions. But as helpful as these might be, they usually are not going to sway someone who wants specific skills to be part of the game with no need for extra sweat on their part. Yet, in many such instances, I have seen posters harrass the OP with statements like " I just showed you how you this isn't a problem in the game, why do you continue to hate 4e". that get progressively more aggressive. All I am saying, is allow for people to have their own opinion at the end of the discussion without giving them the third degree.
So, what you're saying is that they have the right to air their grievances without anyone daring to disagreeing with them. Got it. Glad we had this talk.
IAll I am saying, is allow for people to have their own opinion at the end of the discussion without giving them the third degree.
Again I ask, what response would you like to posts like that? You previously stated that you don't like people making constructive comments about how to change the game, you don't like people saying - great that's your opinion, if you don't like 4e better play 3e.
What else is left? Nobody comment at all? Only people who agree with the original poster should be allowed to post? Other people should apologize for having different opinions? I'm failing to see what you think is a reasonable response to such a post.
Because, obviously anyone who doesn't lke the system is having a knee-jerk reation and is un-intelligent as well.
9/10 times, yep. And that 1/10 is getting scarcer. At least they aren't as bad as the "middle-of-the-aisle" crowd that claims, falsely, the intellectual high ground.
-That's the beauty of baseball. Without nobody shouting and screaming at you...Well, it's no fun. Half of the fun is screaming talking smack back.
o/t: *grins* Must be a Josh Hamilton fan?
*Yes, that is the right link, it isn't there anymore.
[thread=1050922]NEW 4E motivator[/thread] was started to continue on the same subject and it to was subject to the same behavior by the same poster derailed and locked.
See this thread on the subject.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1051340
[/
]Now this poster claimed they where expressing their opinion on a flaw in the 4th alignment system. However, it is quite possible that they where simply posting to disrupt rather than actually having a problem with 4th alignment.
Seeming 4th zealots may be just the same. Posting to disrupt rather than having a problem with threads criticizing 4th edition. Of course they may also be pro 4th poster that have been kicked too often. Of course that is no excuse.
Whenever you see baiting, flaming, or trolling you should report it, rather than respond in kind. It shouldn't matter whether it is pro or anti 4th.
If you really must respond don't to so insulting manner. two wrongs certainly don't make a right and it tends to make all pro 4th posters looks bad.
The issue is many people have played the system, don't particularly like it, and would like to voice that opinion in the 4e threads. While it is perfectly fair to offer fixes to the problems posters identify, they are not obligated to agree that the fixes make the game better. It just might be that 4e isn't for them. That doesn't mean they are saying people who like 4e are bad or possess any of the characteristics you listed, it just means they don't prefer it. 4E has been out a little over a month, and it is going to probably take a few more months for people to post all their feelings (good and bad) on it.
You're right- 4e is not for some people. Those people should send letters to WotC making their feelings clear. No one on these boards has any power to change the game in the future. Posting problems with the game and subsequently rejecting all solutions is just trolling.
People who don't like 4e and don't want to find ways to make it work should, if they are rational and in control of their actions, have a very short relationship with the 4e forums. It's painfully obvious that nothing good can come of such a relationship. There is nothing inherently wrong with such people, but there is something wrong if they cannot pry themselves away from daily discussion of something they don't want any part of.
I had a thread, [thread=1046960]4th Edition Motivators*[/thread], and a single poster started starting making trouble and got it locked and then deleted.
*Yes, that is the right link, it isn't there anymore.
[thread=1050922]NEW 4E motivator[/thread] was started to continue on the same subject and it to was subject to the same behavior by the same poster derailed and locked.
See this thread on the subject.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1051340
[/
For the record, the second thread was cleaned up and re-opened.
I think the General DIscussion forum on the Wizards board, is an ideal place for people to post feedback about the new system. I suspect that wizards feels the same way.
No, it's not an ideal place at all. By going to the forums and refusing to directly contact the people who make the game, you announce your intention to confront fans of D&D rather than people who make D&D. Posting the same complaints everyday and rejecting all solutions is an awesome way to rob yourself of credibility.
Posting the same complaints everyday and rejecting all solutions is an awesome way to rob yourself of credibility.
But it's also an awesome way to start trouble, which is why it's so attractive to certain posters.
Again I ask, what response would you like to posts like that? You previously stated that you don't like people making constructive comments about how to change the game, you don't like people saying - great that's your opinion, if you don't like 4e better play 3e.
What else is left? Nobody comment at all? Only people who agree with the original poster should be allowed to post? Other people should apologize for having different opinions? I'm failing to see what you think is a reasonable response to such a post.
I never said people can't have a constructive conversation. Where I draw the line is people who offer a solution and flip out when you don't agree with the solution. I don't mind people offering solutions and asking questions. Basically, I am just saying don't flame someone because they disagree with you. If you want an example of good posts. Look at the way Steerspike (ed: should read LORD STEEL) has been handling himself on the Is D&D Dead, thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1061283&page=11
I never said people can't have a constructive conversation. Where I draw the line is people who offer a solution and flip out when you don't agree with the solution. I don't mind people offering solutions and asking questions. Basically, I am just saying don't flame someone because they disagree with you. If you want an example of good posts. Look at the way Steerspike has been handling himself on the Is D&D Dead, thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1061283&page=11
There are no posts by steerpike on that page.
Edit: Working backward now. On page 6. Still no steerpike.
Edit 2: Final impression; previous statement stands. Judging from a complete lack of steerpike, the only appropriate way to respond to threads bashing 4E is with a nodding head or not at all.
T... the only appropriate way to respond to threads bashing 4E is with a nodding head or not at all.
No one has said that, to the best of my recollection.
What everybody is saying is that replying with flames is just as wrong and has no justification.
If somebody posts a thread that's critical of something in 4e (the alignment system, just to use an example), you are more than welcome to post a rebuttal, as long as you do so in a non-flaming manner. If the OP then turns around and flames you for having the audacity to respond, then report his post and move along. If the OP responds with counter-points, however, then you're on your way to an interesting discussion.
Just remember that counter-points aren't flaming, and the OP is allowed to disagree with you and continue to think the new alignment system is bad.
There are no posts by steerpike on that page.
Edit: Working backward now. On page 6. Still no steerpike.
Edit 2: Final impression; previous statement stands. Judging from a complete lack of steerpike, the only appropriate way to respond to threads bashing 4E is with a nodding head or not at all.
Sorry, Lord Steal (damn this dyslexia!).
Sorry, Lord Steal (damn this dyslexia!).
dyslexia fun is
No one has said that, to the best of my recollection.
What everybody is saying is that replying with flames is just as wrong and has no justification.
If somebody posts a thread that's critical of something in 4e (the alignment system, just to use an example), you are more than welcome to post a rebuttal, as long as you do so in a non-flaming manner. If the OP then turns around and flames you for having the audacity to respond, then report his post and move along. If the OP responds with counter-points, however, then you're on your way to an interesting discussion.
Just remember that counter-points aren't flaming, and the OP is allowed to disagree with you and continue to think the new alignment system is bad.
Already said what you should do about it. If you don't like what the thread is talking about, stay the **** out.
That's one. I'm sure I could find more if I didn't have actual work to do.
The OP has stated several times that he doesn't think that people who like 4E should expect any sort of reasonable response from those who don't in those threads. The only logical conclusion that an be reached is that we're supposed to treat those threads as some sort of online therapeutic exercise and respectfully slink away while those posters lambast the new edition and it's fans.
But then, we're also supposed to offer ideas and not get defensive when they get us flamed.
There are some pretty major flaws in this plan, and they start with the slant towards the anti.
No one has said that, to the best of my recollection.
What everybody is saying is that replying with flames is just as wrong and has no justification.
If somebody posts a thread that's critical of something in 4e (the alignment system, just to use an example), you are more than welcome to post a rebuttal, as long as you do so in a non-flaming manner. If the OP then turns around and flames you for having the audacity to respond, then report his post and move along. If the OP responds with counter-points, however, then you're on your way to an interesting discussion.
Just remember that counter-points aren't flaming, and the OP is allowed to disagree with you and continue to think the new alignment system is bad.
This is exactly what I am trying to say.
Sorry, Lord Steal (damn this dyslexia!).
Lord Steel's not actually doing anything besides asking the OP (and you) to talk about your feelings, and then nodding solemnly while you do. He's not proposing fixes, he's not trying to explain the new system and he's not even answering any questions.
In this instance, he's effectively the therapist presiding over your session. Is that the expectation now?
Edit: Just to clarify, I think the way he's doing it is fine. I just think that the assumption that people who like 4E should just butt out or nod in agreement with everything someone who's taking shots at the system or it's fans is unfair and frankly unrealistic.
The OP has stated several times that he doesn't think that people who like 4E should expect any sort of reasonable response from those who don't in those threads. .
No I am not. I am saying, don't flame. If someone gives their viewpoint, and you offer a counterpoint, don't get mad at them if they continue to disagree. You simply might not have convinced them of your position. what I have seen frequently is the OP getting flamed because he doesn't accept a posters rebuttal to his criticism of 4e.
That's one. I'm sure I could find more if I didn't have actual work to do.
The OP has stated several times that he doesn't think that people who like 4E should expect any sort of reasonable response from those who don't in those threads. The only logical conclusion that an be reached is that we're supposed to treat those threads as some sort of online therapeutic exercise and respectfully slink away while those posters lambast the new edition and it's fans.
But then, we're also supposed to offer ideas and not get defensive when they get us flamed.
There are some pretty major flaws in this plan, and they start with the slant towards the anti.
Alright - so you found one. I did say "to the best of my recollection." I'm an old man, after all.
Neither Zinny nor the OP of this thread set the moderation policy of this forum; nor do they set the editorial standard of what can and cannot be discussed.
As long as your replies are not flames or trolls, you're certainly free to reply to any thread. Going back to my fictional "Why I don't like the 4e Alignments" thread, I would strongly encourage you to add your voice to the mix if you have some strong counter-arguments to make. If the OP doesn't like your reply, well... tough nuggies. As long as you didn't flame or troll ("Obviously, you're a freakin' moron if you can't see why this system is better"). If you receive flames in reply, report it. Let the moderators do their job.
And I'll continue to echo this, too: when you report it, don't just say "flaming." Explain why you think it's flaming. It makes it easier for the moderator to deal with the situation.
So what you are saying is that you either
A) Do not know what the changes are for.
B) Do not care what they are for.
or C) Do not know or care what they are for.
...It is fairly obvious that... no...
Please, explain what you think the changes bring to the game. What they effect and how it is good/bad.
I'd like an informed opinion on your thinking here so I do not assume things about you.
what I have seen frequently is the OP getting flamed because he doesn't accept a posters rebuttal to his criticism of 4e.
And what I see at least as frequently is replies to an innocent looking question from the OP getting flamed for daring to state disagreement.
The onus lies on both sides here, but your posts keep engendering a slant against the people who like the new game.
And what I see at least as frequently is replies to an innocent looking question from the OP getting flamed for daring to state disagreement.
The onus lies on both sides here, but your posts keep engendering a slant against the people who like the new game.
I am expressing an "anti" slant because there is so much more heat coming from the pro 4e camp at the moment. This may not have been the case at some point in the past, but it is now.
Lets try it another way, then. This is the sort of post that troubles me (from the Is D&D Dying Thread):
That's a post asking for clarification before he makes the assumption you're a random troll.
How is that not exactly the thing we're talking about doing here? It probably could have been stated in a mildly less confrontational manner, but it's just trying to get the lay of the land before judging the poster in question.
That could be considered baiting. Report it, explain why you think it's baiting, and see if CS agrees. I'm unsure what else you think this thread will accomplish. That poster has been pretty clear he doesn't want to moderate his posting style.
I know that several people have explained this to you, including zherog and myself.
What else do you seek to accomplish in this thread?
I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. I really cannot understand what more can be accomplished here.
That's a post asking for clarification before he makes the assumption you're a random troll.
How is that not exactly the thing we're talking about doing here? It probably could have been stated in a mildly less confrontational manner, but it's just trying to get the lay of the land before judging the poster in question.
I don't mind he asking for clarification on my position. But I already said I didn't agree with his assesment, and he basically listed three possibilities that were attacks on me. That is what I take issue with.
I am expressing an "anti" slant because there is so much more heat coming from the pro 4e camp at the moment. This may not have been the case at some point in the past, but it is now.
I'd ask you to go look at the forums, but you're just going to come back with the same confirmation bias, I'm afraid.
Trolls exist. They're not fictional. Anti posters drop in from other forums just to bait and harass pro posters. It happens. I understand that your personal view on this may be colored by the fact that you have felt attacked by the pros and not the antis, but there's at least as much heat flying from the side you're defending as there is towards it.
If you remove the anti trolls from the forum, it will stabilize. There's nothing inherent in the pro mindset that is creating this hostility.
The onus lies on both sides here
Yes, exactly. Both "sides" agreed to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the Code of Conduct when they signed up for those accounts. The Code of Conduct can pretty much be summed up as: Don't be an asshat. That applies equally to everybody. However, Customer Service can only deal with the people who are being asshats if somebody reports the post and explains the asshattery. No report, no moderation.
This forum is much too large for the mods to patrol and look for things on their own. They rely on us to report poor conduct.
I don't mind he asking for clarification on my position. But I already said I didn't agree with his assesment, and he basically listed three possibilities that were attacks on me. That is what I take issue with.
Then report it. It's as simple as that.
Then report it. It's as simple as that.
I do.
I don't mind he asking for clarification on my position. But I already said I didn't agree with his assesment, and he basically listed three possibilities that were attacks on me. That is what I take issue with.
I also later posted (again) asking for you to clarify your stance.
You have yet to do so. I don't get angry at people on the Internet, it serves no purpose to do so. That does not mean I have to be nice to trolls, non-trolls or anyone in between.
Again, report me if you think I'm out of line. Whining to other posters will not solve your problem.
And you still haven't answered my questions.
I also later posted (again) asking for you to clarify your stance.
You have yet to do so. I don't get angry at people on the Internet, it serves no purpose to do so. That does not mean I have to be nice to trolls, non-trolls or anyone in between.
Again, report me if you think I'm out of line. Whining to other posters will not solve your problem.
And you still haven't answered my questions.
Your next post was equally insulting, which is why I didn't reply to it.
Yes, you do have to be nice to people. Flaming and baiting are against the CoC and that is exactly what you were doing.
I don't, as a rule, answer loaded questions.
I do.
And if no action is taken then...
1) You didn't explain yourself clearly to CS as to why you thought it was baiting. Move on and the next time someone tries to bait you, try to be more clear.
2) You were wrong -- it wasn't baiting. Take a breather and read the post aloud to yourself in the friendliest tone you can imagine. Now see if you can answer it without rising to any bait you perceive
I'm still unsure what more you think can be accomplished here.
And if no action is taken then...
1) You didn't explain yourself clearly to CS as to why you thought it was baiting. Move on and the next time someone tries to bait you, try to be more clear.
2) You were wrong -- it wasn't baiting. Take a breather and read the post aloud to yourself in the friendliest tone you can imagine. Now see if you can answer it without rising to any bait you perceive
I'm still unsure what more you think can be accomplished here.
I think this thread has actually been very productive, for both sides. I have learned more about the the pro 4e side's concerns, and I have met some of the more reasonable pro 4e posters.
Fabius, you harass people who you don't agree with. You refuse to acknowledge that there may be any truth to points that go against your way of thinking. You constantly seek out new people to disagree with when the old ones wise up to the fact that you're just looking for a fight.
Please show me examples of that behaviour. Especially the first point.
It was the half-dozen angry PMs I got from you attacking my personal character over the course of 3 hours during the ToB debates that made me put you on my ignore list. That's trolling, sorry.
Please send me the PMs in question, if you still have them. As far as I know, I never send you a PM save the one a few days ago in which I asked you to come up with actual proof for your accusations, let alone one where I insulted you.
And if you have proof, I have to ask myself why you didn't report me, if I am a recurring violator of the CoC.
[Sorry to hijack the thread. I'd tried it over Batshido's PM box, but obviously it's full.]
Krown. I think I have already explained what I don't like about it. Like I said we just disagree on what the changes achieve. And we also disagree on whether they make the game better or not. And since this is an obvious attempt to bait me, I will pass on responding.
I'm not trying to bait you (if you think I am, report me). I was, however, trying to see what it is you don't agree with.
It has been shown to you that 3.x was more VG then 4e on healing.
It has been shown to you that skills and rules on what you'd like to do are in 4e.
It has been shown to you that 'one frame, many branches' has made balance and allowed all classes to shine.
It has been shown to you that changes you dislike where made for reasons you won't except.
Is it baiting to want to know why? If anything, I find your continued posting here as a testament to your baiting people who enjoy the game.
and said poster still has yet to say he's not here for the hell of it. I asked why, I tried to show reason and I was buttering it up to him (even offering to go step by step.
He gave no reasons aside from 'saying' he's already been there.
He won't acknowledge proof, other then to say he doesn't agree...
What is that supposed to make people think?
and said poster still has yet to say he's not here for the hell of it. I asked why, I tried to show reason and I was buttering it up to him (even offering to go step by step.
He gave no reasons aside from 'saying' he's already been there.
He won't acknowledge proof, other then to say he doesn't agree...
What is that supposed to make people think?
You obviously have an interesting interpretation of what it means to butter someone up. Your posts were clearly inflammatory. As I said, those are loaded questions ("IT HAS BEEN SHOWN to you..."). You made an argument for something and I disagreed with your conclusion. Very simple. I didn't elaborate because of the hostility in your posts.
I completely Agree over and over again that 4.0 is a freaking WoW copy. they took out non combat and pretty much made it just a grind. I mean not only is it all combat based but the SYSTEM is more like WoW, in WoW you never have to really sleep, you just take short breaks which is what they made for 4.0. Its just Wizards trying to pull a WoW tabletop Game, and it freaking makes me mad.
Oh well, I will keep on trying to make my 3.9 system (a hybrid of the 2 systems).
Agreed. :D Likey the picture. I do fail for not getting the point across. They did NOT all together take out non-combat, yeah they did add "skill encounters" but instead they take out many of the Non-combat spells, except for maybe a few rituals and cantrips.
What I am saying its even more combat based then 3.5, and in a way is more WoW based, Every time I look at the powers I go "Whoa that’s like WoW" And I don't play D&D to play WoW tabletop.
EDIT: WTF is with so many people saying "You have not read the books"? it is like the most common response EVER and is pretty stupid really.
Ouch got burned. Stings. Eh I don't care what yall think, I did hit the hot buttons. I also think that there is MUCH improvement (at-will is a good idea at low levels) and I also like the new skill system, +5 is all anyone really needs, and the level bonus will keep those picked skills high. But yeah...still don't like the Feel
No I am not. I am saying, don't flame. If someone gives their viewpoint, and you offer a counterpoint, don't get mad at them if they continue to disagree.
Here are several people trying to be helpful in the same thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16351981&postcount=38
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16352000&postcount=40
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16354535&postcount=128
And here is the OP's response to all of them:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16355444&postcount=141
One snark, one mention and one ignore. If people are going to put in time to try and help someone enjoy the game, it gets old real fast if they are put down for trying to help. In general it is considered polite to thank someone for taking time to try and help you even if you don't end up following their advice.
You simply might not have convinced them of your position. what I have seen frequently is the OP getting flamed because he doesn't accept a posters rebuttal to his criticism of 4e.
Can you provide an example? I can provide an example of a poster getting put down for making suggestions:
asking for help
help
putting down the help
thanking someone else for saying the same thing
It is hard to find examples of actual flaming because they tend to get deleted. But that exchange is at least unpleasant.
It seems like you are saying that people should either agree with a poster's dislike of the 4e system, or provide constructive responses and then sit back and enjoy getting flamed for being helpful. In my experience the posters aren't politely disagreeing. They are putting people down for spending time to create houserules that would allow the OP to experience the game they want. It seems like it would be easier for people to say from the start that they aren't interested in suggestions if they aren't. That way no one wastes time trying to create houserules to help them and they don't have to get offended that someone would try to help them.
You obviously have an interesting interpretation of what it means to butter someone up. Your posts were clearly inflammatory. As I said, those are loaded questions ("IT HAS BEEN SHOWN to you..."). You made an argument for something and I disagreed with your conclusion. Very simple. I didn't elaborate because of the hostility in your posts.
I am blunt, hostility is a point of view.
I never called you names, I never openly threatened you and I was asking for your stance.
I don't go out of my way to suck up to anyone. This does not mean I am unreasonable.
You have yet to answer my questions.