It seems a cut-and-paste response, and a knee-jerk one.
I'm just saying, these are the 4e boards. A message board exists for discussion. The experiences, opinions, and preferences of the gaming community do have an effect on the evolution of the game, and of subsequent editions. If a guy or gal starts trolling or flaming, cool. Shut him down. Please. Otherwise, benefit of the doubt and civility really ought to be the rule of the day.
I'm not agreeing with the, *ahem* theoretical OP that I described above, and you may not either, but that doesn't mean that he isn't entitled to discuss his experiences with you.
We have to, um, 'put on our VCL hats' and 'suggest' that the thread be closed because someone decided that it can 'only go one way'?
You do know that VCLs are an actual, established authority, right?
And that part of their job is to identify potentially problematic threads so that they can be dealt with?
Edit: And this thread, if deemed appropriate, probably belongs in Community Business rather than here.
You do know that VCLs are an actual, established authority, right?
And that part of their job is to identify potentially problematic threads so that they can be dealt with?
I do understand that. And as I said, if someone begins to 'flame', get personal, get rude, or provoke, then the established authority ought to shut him or her down, surely.
I don't understand, though, why we take action against some lines of discussion because someone thought they could 'only go one way', as the staple description goes. The theoretical topic that I described is a fantastic example.
Is it really that hard?
You always have to include the posting history of opening posters of such threads. In the case of our dear robot, he's been bashing 4E since he came to the boards, in multiple guises and did only recede back into oblivion after being banned several times.
And I've sort've come to guess that this is the case, however: civility and benefit of the doubt are the rule of the day in the real world, and I'm not sure I understand why it ought to be different here, or anywhere. You don't fight fire with fire.
Kill 'em with kindness? Anyone?
Also considering the tone and attitude of said poster, a discussion was not really merited, I think.
The attitude was perhaps defensive and a little opinionated, but the OP did present a reason that he felt his opinion, which is shared by others, might be as prevalent as it is. His tone was not aggressive. Perhaps defensive, but nonhostile.
It's really broader than this one robot fellow, though. If we could, I'd like to promote an attitude of 'let's take this apart and look at it'. We do it for rules questions, we do it for behind-the-math topics and developer-innovations. Can we not do it for everybody?
I do understand that. And as I said, if someone begins to 'flame', get personal, get rude, or provoke, then the established authority ought to shut him or her down, surely.
I don't understand, though, why we take action against some lines of discussion because someone thought they could 'only go one way', as the staple description goes. The theoretical topic that I described is a fantastic example.
The "theoretical topic" you describe is obviously a reference to Psychic Robot's most recently deseased effort. When you start out a thread by saying 4E "went overboard", "doesn't cut it", is "generic", isnt DnD anymore, and that "everyone i game with hates 4E"...all without really elaboarating...then you are just trying to pick a fight.
If someone want to discuss specifically what they individually are having trouble grasping, then the thread is fine (unless it subsequently turns into a flame war). We've had many productive threads on topics such as whether Healing Surges "feel" like D&D, whether Vancian spellcasting should not have been removed (and whether it was indeed removed).
But general threads that serve little purpose beyond allowing someone unhappy to vent at the community is not going to be well-received. That's not what these forums are for, and there are plenty of forums on the internet for people who want to engage in that sort of behavior.
Please note that goes for any position. The VCLs have had threads closed that are anti-4E and threads closed that are anti-anti-4E. (This thread, by the way, should be and probably will be, transfered to Community Business.)
Edited to add: The threads in question would have been moderated regardless of who commenced them. Editorial moderation is based on what is written, not on who is writing. We leave it to Customer Service to keep track of what forum members engage in persistently disruptive behavior.
And I've sort've come to guess that this is the case, however: civility and benefit of the doubt are the rule of the day in the real world, and I'm not sure I understand why it ought to be different here, or anywhere. You don't fight fire with fire.
Kill 'em with kindness? Anyone?
The attitude was perhaps defensive and a little opinionated, but the OP did present a reason that he felt his opinion, which is shared by others, might be as prevalent as it is. His tone was not aggressive. Perhaps defensive, but nonhostile.
It's really broader than this one robot fellow, though. If we could, I'd like to promote an attitude of 'let's take this apart and look at it'. We do it for rules questions, we do it for behind-the-math topics and developer-innovations. Can we not do it for everybody?
The thing is, if Batman always walked up to the Joker having a polite little discussion on why he commits crimes, Batman would be long dead.
The Grognards fight dirty. It's our perogative to NOT give them benefit of the doubt.
The attitude was perhaps defensive and a little opinionated, but the OP did present a reason that he felt his opinion, which is shared by others, might be.
You and he both mention these mysterious 'others'. I have to wonder who these 'others' are. So far as I know, they are:
1. Numerous
2. Everywhere
3. Completely silent
If someone cannot own up and say that their opinions are theirs and theirs alone, and are not necessarily supported by anyone, then I really don't see how a discussion with them is worth my time. If they feel their position is so weak that they have to back it up with non-existent 'others', then they're probably not looking for a discussion anyway.
I don't mean to call you out or anything, because you're pretty good about stating your opinions as your own opinions without the backing of invisible supporters, but this is something that really irks me. I mean heck, our hypothetical OP even said that his gaming group didn't count, as it was merely anecdotal evidence, and then went on to say his opinion was back by 'many others'. Contradictory much?
I've been looking for a single case where I can successfully disprove any of the nasty opinions...
Is it really that hard?
Yes. In fact it's impossible. If I put forth the opinion that I don't like Jolly Ranchers there is nothing you CAN do to "disprove" my opinion unless I was lying when I said I don't like them. So long as the stated opinion is not a lie it cannot be disproven.
And if my opinion is based on false or irrelevant data, so what? Opinions are not necessarily subject to any logic stronger than personal whim. You can't "prove" they like 4e when they don't anymore than they can "prove" that you hate 4e when you don't.
The thing is, if Batman always walked up to the Joker having a polite little discussion on why he commits crimes, Batman would be long dead.
The Grognards fight dirty. It's our perogative to NOT give them benefit of the doubt.
That's stupid. Grognards don't KILL people, they're just asshats (EDIT: Sometimes). You don't walk up to asshats IRL and beat them up; that's called Assault and it's illegal. In the same line of thinking, you don't just attack people because of who they ARE; that's prejudice, and will get you BANNED.
And I've sort've come to guess that this is the case, however: civility and benefit of the doubt are the rule of the day in the real world, and I'm not sure I understand why it ought to be different here, or anywhere. You don't fight fire with fire.
Kill 'em with kindness? Anyone?
The attitude was perhaps defensive and a little opinionated, but the OP did present a reason that he felt his opinion, which is shared by others, might be as prevalent as it is. His tone was not aggressive. Perhaps defensive, but nonhostile.
It's really broader than this one robot fellow, though. If we could, I'd like to promote an attitude of 'let's take this apart and look at it'. We do it for rules questions, we do it for behind-the-math topics and developer-innovations. Can we not do it for everybody?
I disagree. The first half of his post was pretty well put, but then he ruined it with the second half that contained snarky comments. Had he not bothered with those, which were completely uncalled for, it wouldn't have stirred up the pot as much as it did, and perhaps it may have actually led to a good discussion.
You're relatively new posting on the 4E forums, I believe (at least, I've only noticed your posts in the past few weeks), and personally, I really like your attitude. You have the right way of going about these discussions in a civil manner: you've been giving 4E a chance, discussing its pros and cons in well thought-out arguments, and you've been politely listening to the opinions of others. For all that, I'm thankful.
Our robotic friend, however, has been know to start threads in which he doesn't attempt to listen to reason, coming into the thread in a agressive and/or defensive manner from the very start. In the end, said threads end up being nothing more than "$E sucks!" I can think of a few other recurring posters around here that do much the same thing.
Mind you, I'm all for civil discussion, and robot's thread had a certain potention for a good discussion about sacred cows, but some people here solely exist to cause trouble.
Yes, because this discussion will enrich our gaming lives.
Escef is kind of joking here, but the point he is referring to is a big one.
There is no real point to the discussion anymore. We don't "need" to know why any particular person doens't like 4e (or likes it for that matter).
The discussion simply does not lead to anything productive.
I personally am sick and tired of looking at edition war threads, and I'd just preferr they be locked down as soon as they start.
And I've sort've come to guess that this is the case, however: civility and benefit of the doubt are the rule of the day in the real world, and I'm not sure I understand why it ought to be different here, or anywhere. You don't fight fire with fire.
Kill 'em with kindness? Anyone?
The attitude was perhaps defensive and a little opinionated, but the OP did present a reason that he felt his opinion, which is shared by others, might be as prevalent as it is. His tone was not aggressive. Perhaps defensive, but nonhostile.
It's really broader than this one robot fellow, though. If we could, I'd like to promote an attitude of 'let's take this apart and look at it'. We do it for rules questions, we do it for behind-the-math topics and developer-innovations. Can we not do it for everybody?
That's stupid. Grognards don't KILL people, they're just asshats (EDIT: Sometimes). You don't walk up to asshats IRL and beat them up; that's called Assault and it's illegal. In the same line of thinking, you don't just attack people because of who they ARE; that's prejudice, and will get you BANNED.
1. It's a metaphor.
2. I'm not suggesting that they get whacked. simply, that if you attempt to give a polite defense of 4e, you will be vehemently destroyed.
3. I really don't have a 3.
Yes. In fact it's impossible. If I put forth the opinion that I don't like Jolly Ranchers there is nothing you CAN do to "disprove" my opinion unless I was lying when I said I don't like them. So long as the stated opinion is not a lie it cannot be disproven.
And if my opinion is based on false or irrelevant data, so what? Opinions are not necessarily subject to any logic stronger than personal whim. You can't "prove" they like 4e when they don't anymore than they can "prove" that you hate 4e when you don't.
Explain to me WHY you don't like Jolly Ranchers, how they make you feel, and what would improve them in your opinion, and do it without being sarcastic, elitist, or any of those baseless attitudes that annoy other posters. It's not that hard.
I'm not proving you don't LIKE 4E or that you DO like 4E; I'm trying to disprove some of the silly, baseless arguments that are created about 4E. The reason I am attempting to do this is because when someone decides they don't like 4E and comes here to post, they don't explain in the Jolly Rancher method I asked for above, but instead cling to one of the many silly baseless arguments some of the Trolls have propagated.
1. It's a metaphor.
2. I'm not suggesting that they get whacked. simply, that if you attempt to give a polite defense of 4e, you will be vehemently destroyed.
3. I really don't have a 3.
1. It's still prejudice.
2. That's called trolling, and THAT is when you report them.
3. You're silly! :D
We can't just talk about it?
There is something real and present when the question comes from a poster with a history of bashing the edition than when it comes from someone else. Posting history is relevant. Who is talking has as much if not greater impact on what is being said than what is being said.
The "theoretical topic" you describe is obviously a reference to Psychic Robot's most recently deseased effort. When you start out a thread by saying 4E "went overboard", "doesn't cut it", is "generic", isnt DnD anymore, and that "everyone i game with hates 4E"...all without really elaboarating...then you are just trying to pick a fight.
Crimson Lancer has picked up on what I'm trying to open up a dialogue about, I think. I believe that the OP expressed a sentiment that he and others feel is true. If he'd stopped there I could understand your attitude, but he didn't. He provided a reason, and he didn't make a personal attack or baseless assumption in his original post that I could see. He described a sense of the game that he and others have experienced, and opened a line of discussion about it. We could've agreed or disagreed respectfully and civilly, but we didn't.
My Suggestion on this whole matter is as follows:
1. Forbid Discussion of 3.5 on these boards.
2. Open up a separate board on the site ("Outdated Editions" or something similar)
3. Frack! Once, again, there is no three.
Crimson Lancer has picked up on what I'm trying to open up a dialogue about, I think. I believe that the OP expressed a sentiment that he and others feel is true. If he'd stopped there I could understand your attitude, but he didn't. He provided a reason, and he didn't make a personal attack or baseless assumption in his original post that I could see. He described a sense of the game that he and others have experienced, and opened a line of discussion about it. We could've agreed or disagreed respectfully and civilly, but we didn't.
The thing is, he could've opened the discussion without the use of an inflammatory tone, and we could've had a discussion. He came in and said "I hate 4E!", whe he could've said "Let's have a discussion about what we do and don't like about sacred cows."
The thing is, if Batman always walked up to the Joker having a polite little discussion on why he commits crimes, Batman would be long dead.
The Grognards fight dirty. It's our perogative to NOT give them benefit of the doubt.
It is, though, because we aren't Batman, and no evil can be done here that we can't shut down. In real life, we give other human beings the benefit of the doubt and reserve punishment for the guilty and hostile attitudes the rude or disruptive.
I think it is our perogative to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I am not advocating the tolerance of hostile, jerkish, trolling, flaming behaviour. I'm just advocating a little civility.
I don't mean to call you out or anything, because you're pretty good about stating your opinions as your own opinions without the backing of invisible supporters...
Thank you. But...
...but this is something that really irks me. I mean heck, our hypothetical OP even said that his gaming group didn't count, as it was merely anecdotal evidence, and then went on to say his opinion was back by 'many others'. Contradictory much?
...I'm not claiming an invisible army. I was referring to the poster's claim.
Myself, I know as many people who happily play both versions of the game as I do people who cling to 3.5.
Explain to me WHY you don't like Jolly Ranchers, how they make you feel, and what would improve them in your opinion, and do it without being sarcastic, elitist, or any of those baseless attitudes that annoy other posters. It's not that hard.
WHY don't I like Jolly Ranchers? Because I don't like hard candy. My solution is to not eat hard candy. The problem with pointless edition wars (and they really are pointless), is that we have a bunch of people who (if you wish to follow the analogy) don't like Jolly Ranchers because they hate hard candy, so Jolly Ranchers should stop making hard candy and make gelatin based candy instead and call those Jolly Ranchers. Which, quite bluntly, is retarded. Because there are already PLENTY of gelatin candies available. But no, these folks won't be happy until Jolly Ranchers are gelatin based. Because they refuse to eat candy that doesn't say "Jolly Ranchers" on the packet.
There is nothing to be gained from these discussions. And people aren't even content to simply like what they like and let others like what they like. Everyone's got to convince everybody else that their opinion is "wrong". Why? So you can feel justified in having the opinion you have?
This is a bloody D&D message board. Not a
ing psychology class. Put aside the drama and game.Speak for yourself. The Dark Knight and I have never been seen at the same time.
Fair enough, and noted.
You don't walk up to asshats IRL and beat them up; that's called Assault and it's illegal. In the same line of thinking, you don't just attack people because of who they ARE; that's prejudice, and will get you BANNED.
I tend to avoid internetisms, but 'QFT'. This is the summation of my point, minus the part about getting band and plus a point about because this is how we should behave as decent, intelligent folks.
WHY don't I like Jolly Ranchers? Because I don't like hard candy. My solution is to not eat hard candy. The problem with pointless edition wars (and they really are pointless), is that we have a bunch of people who (if you wish to follow the analogy) don't like Jolly Ranchers because they hate hard candy, so Jolly Ranchers should stop making hard candy and make gelatin based candy instead and call those Jolly Ranchers. Which, quite bluntly, is retarded. Because there are already PLENTY of gelatin candies available. But no, these folks won't be happy until Jolly Ranchers are gelatin based. Because they refuse to eat candy that doesn't say "Jolly Ranchers" on the packet.
There is nothing to be gained from these discussions. And people aren't even content to simply like what they like and let others like what they like. Everyone's got to convince everybody else that their opinion is "wrong". Why? So you can feel justified in having the opinion you have?
This is a bloody D&D message board. Not a
Dude, what the
are you talking about? Jolly Ranchers are Awesome!- I do not agree with locking every argumentative thread, but I understand that there are people who have been given the power to regulate it.
- I find that there are several hypocrits on this board, not a single one who acts as mature as they demand other people to be, who cite rules and regulations, the benefit of "progress" for their game, and use terms like "Fallacy" or "Illogical" repetatively and borishly solely in the name of winning their own biased view point.
- Interestingly.. I have recently suggested destroying a few more "sacred cows" of the game and people seemed appalled that I would say such a thing. I'd be delighted beyond belief to capture one of the people I know is a criminal of "change is always good, so shut up traditionalist" in this web ((the few that responded, are unfamiliar to me)). I look forward to it.
- I respect that everyone on here has a view of what D&D is, and is not. I don't agree with someone like Vaalingrade either, but I wouldn't expect him to silence his voice on issues he thinks are important.
- When you censor someone.. you diminish the world. Because, one day, someone with the power is going to censor you and they may silence you forever.
- My advice.. keep speaking your opinion Psychotic. In whatever way pleases you (not in whatever way someone else on these boards deems "reasonable".) Keep getting banned (if you have).. because someone has the power to do so.. and keep coming back. I don't agree with you, and I likely won't. I'll be starting a 4th Edition campaign when the PHB II comes out.
BUT, the world won't change if you give in to the people who want to silence you. It may not change even if you still speak, but, if you really believe strongly that your game has changed and if it really bothers you.. then keep fighting for it.
Speak for yourself. The Dark Knight and I have never been seen at the same time.
I know for a fact that you're not Batman.
Show
Because I am. 
And I've got an understudy around here somewhere, so that puts you 3rd in line. :P
And I've got an understudy around here somewhere, so that puts you 3rd in line. :P
...I'm not claiming an invisible army. I was referring to the poster's claim.
Myself, I know as many people who happily play both versions of the game as I do people who cling to 3.5.
Maybe I wasn't being quite clear. I know that you don't claim to have invisible supporters. This poster does. The "this is something that really irks me" was in reference to our robot friend's claim of "many others", not anything you've said in this thread or any other. Sorry for any confusion. I sometimes have difficulty parsing my thoughts correctly.
I know for a fact that you're not Batman.ShowBecause I am.
And I've got an understudy around here somewhere, so that puts you 3rd in line. :P
There is something real and present when the question comes from a poster with a history of bashing the edition than when it comes from someone else. Posting history is relevant. Who is talking has as much if not greater impact on what is being said than what is being said.
If there were more than nerd rage at stake here, I'd agree with you, but in the real world the attitude you're describing is called predisposition, prejudice, or bias. I understand that there is a place for bias and even prejudice, as the Batman analogy demonstrates rather humorously, but this is not one. This is a forum where people come to talk. If you regularly ignore or punish ignorance reward civil discourse, even the ignorant will learn to pursue civil discourse (or leave).
Fair Enough. But then again, I know YOU are not Batman. He is dead, circa Friday.
Yeah, but I'm DC. I'm posting from an alternate universe, and will be riding Supes' contrails home in a month or three.
Status quo: Preserved.
Fair Enough. But then again, I know YOU are not Batman. He is dead, circa Friday.
Civility be damned.
You shut your god****** mouth. You shut it and you never say that again. :P
Yeah, but I'm DC. I'm posting from an alternate universe, and will be riding Supes' contrails home in a month or three.
Status quo: Preserved.
:D You, sir, are awesome.
Civility be damned.
You shut your god****** mouth. You shut it and you never say that again. :P
Ummmmmm... I really have no response other than Day-um sun! Too bad I wasted my awesome on Batshido.
- When you censor someone.. you diminish the world. Because, one day, someone with the power is going to censor you and they may silence you forever.
Agreed, and props on a very cool CG alignment.
But:
- My advice.. keep speaking your opinion Psychotic. In whatever way pleases you (not in whatever way someone else on these boards deems "reasonable".) Keep getting banned (if you have).. because someone has the power to do so.. and keep coming back. I don't agree with you, and I likely won't.
I don't agree that Psychotic Robot or anyone else should speak in any way that pleases him, because he agreed to a Code of Conduct.
But so long as anyone behaves civilly, I think that we ought to meet him or her with civility. I wish we would.
- I do not agree with Psychotic Robot, but I support every opinion he has ever made.
- I do not agree with locking every argumentative thread, but I understand that there are people who have been given the power to regulate it.
- I find that there are several hypocrits on this board, not a single one who acts as mature as they demand other people to be, who cite rules and regulations, the benefit of "progress" for their game, and use terms like "Fallacy" or "Illogical" repetatively and borishly solely in the name of winning their own biased view point.
- Interestingly.. I have recently suggested destroying a few more "sacred cows" of the game and people seemed appalled that I would say such a thing. I'd be delighted beyond belief to capture one of the people I know is a criminal of "change is always good, so shut up traditionalist" in this web ((the few that responded, are unfamiliar to me)). I look forward to it.
- I respect that everyone on here has a view of what D&D is, and is not. I don't agree with someone like Vaalingrade either, but I wouldn't expect him to silence his voice on issues he thinks are important.
- When you censor someone.. you diminish the world. Because, one day, someone with the power is going to censor you and they may silence you forever.
- My advice.. keep speaking your opinion Psychotic. In whatever way pleases you (not in whatever way someone else on these boards deems "reasonable".) Keep getting banned (if you have).. because someone has the power to do so.. and keep coming back. I don't agree with you, and I likely won't. I'll be starting a 4th Edition campaign when the PHB II comes out.
BUT, the world won't change if you give in to the people who want to silence you. It may not change even if you still speak, but, if you really believe strongly that your game has changed and if it really bothers you.. then keep fighting for it.
Let me ask you. Are you Psychotic Robot?
Ummmmmm... I really have no response other than Day-um sun! Too bad I wasted my awesome on Batshido.
Ehh, this whole damn 'death of Batman' arc. Don't get me started.
Who is this writer, anyway? This is all getting ret-conned by 2010 right? That's what they say, I think.
EDIT: By they, I don't mean the same people. Obviously, marvel and DC are two VERY different companies.
DOUBLE EDIT: Grant Morrison I believe is the writer.
I know for a fact that you're not Batman.ShowBecause I am.
And I've got an understudy around here somewhere, so that puts you 3rd in line. :P
WHY don't I like Jolly Ranchers? Because I don't like hard candy. My solution is to not eat hard candy. The problem with pointless edition wars (and they really are pointless), is that we have a bunch of people who (if you wish to follow the analogy) don't like Jolly Ranchers because they hate hard candy, so Jolly Ranchers should stop making hard candy and make gelatin based candy instead and call those Jolly Ranchers. Which, quite bluntly, is retarded. Because there are already PLENTY of gelatin candies available. But no, these folks won't be happy until Jolly Ranchers are gelatin based. Because they refuse to eat candy that doesn't say "Jolly Ranchers" on the packet.
There is nothing to be gained from these discussions. And people aren't even content to simply like what they like and let others like what they like. Everyone's got to convince everybody else that their opinion is "wrong". Why? So you can feel justified in having the opinion you have?
This is a bloody D&D message board. Not a
Discussion enhances the mind. Doing nothing BUT gaming for the sake of enjoyment is no different than chronic masturbation. If you can't get any deeper than your opinion, or refuse to, than yes, don't waste your time by arguing it. No problem. Those people, I ignore or report.
Meanwhile, people who actually want a discussion deeper than stating an opinion any two-year old can come up with should be doing so in a civil manner. Otherwise, the environment becomes hostile and pollutes the rest of the Boards.
- I find that there are several hypocrits on this board, not a single one who acts as mature as they demand other people to be, who cite rules and regulations, the benefit of "progress" for their game, and use terms like "Fallacy" or "Illogical" repetatively and borishly solely in the name of winning their own biased view point.
',: |
Subtle.
I'm not "winning" anything. I enjoy enlarging the perceptions of other people. I enjoy enlarging my own perceptions. I don't demand anything, either; people should TRY to be mature and logical, for obvious reasons. I would, indeed, be a hypocrite would I hold everyone to those parameters 100% of the time.
- Interestingly.. I have recently suggested destroying a few more "sacred cows" of the game and people seemed appalled that I would say such a thing. I'd be delighted beyond belief to capture one of the people I know is a criminal of "change is always good, so shut up traditionalist" in this web ((the few that responded, are unfamiliar to me)). I look forward to it.
I haven't met anyone who says, "Change is always good." I have met people who say, "Shut up and stop being a jerk. If you're going to make a point, do it without being rude." Which seems to make a tiiiiiny bit of sense.
- My advice.. keep speaking your opinion Psychotic. In whatever way pleases you (not in whatever way someone else on these boards deems "reasonable".) Keep getting banned (if you have).. because someone has the power to do so.. and keep coming back. I don't agree with you, and I likely won't. I'll be starting a 4th Edition campaign when the PHB II comes out.
BUT, the world won't change if you give in to the people who want to silence you. It may not change even if you still speak, but, if you really believe strongly that your game has changed and if it really bothers you.. then keep fighting for it.
Posting in a manner that would get you either jailed, sent to an asylum, or beaten in real life doesn't seem to be backed by any common sense to me. OR logic, for that matter. Also, Godwin's Law: Hitler had a flawed opinion, too!
Cool. I was just pondering when he was going to show up.
Maybe he won't, because he's offline, because he can't talk about what he wants to talk about, even when he bites the bullet and swallows the hostility in favor of actual dialogue. Just saying, we give people the benefit of the doubt because anyone can change, and because it rewards socially acceptable behaviour.
I mean, I'm not defending whatever his apparently awful history is like, but you can't really argue with me, here, 'cause nobody's attitude is going to improve in a knee-jerk-hostile environment. Y'know?
CL: Please Don't mention Change in your posts: Bark OObayma Might show up.
Leaves Hat on.
- When you censor someone.. you diminish the world. Because, one day, someone with the power is going to censor you and they may silence you forever.
- My advice.. keep speaking your opinion Psychotic. In whatever way pleases you (not in whatever way someone else on these boards deems "reasonable".) Keep getting banned (if you have).. because someone has the power to do so.. and keep coming back. I don't agree with you, and I likely won't. I'll be starting a 4th Edition campaign when the PHB II comes out.
Censorship is denying someone the ability to express his/her own opinion by the means he/she has created. Saying whatever you want on *someone else's message board* isn't a right. No one is stopping people from being rude or combative *on their own websites*.
It's quite reasonable for the owner of something to set standards that determine the way others use his/her property. I don't expect to be able to swear about the flaws of women and minorities in a family restaurant. I hope no one defends that sort of behavior as something I have a right to.
There are plenty of forums that will let trolls talk down to people who play the "wrong" RPG. This doesn't have to be one.
:D You, sir, are awesome.
I know.
He pulls this whole "I'm posting from an alternate dimension, and my kidney meds are messing up" cranky bit. It's a bear to work with.
I'm going to take this as a compliment.
Puts on Not-VCL Hat
CL: Please Don't mention Change in your posts: Bark OObayma Might show up.
Leaves Hat on.
lol, what?
I know.
I'm going to take this as a compliment.
>.>
<.<
Yes. That's exactly what it was, sir.
Please don't make me run the trainer on level 5 again.
Discussion enhances the mind.
Therein lies the problem, no one is actually interested in discussion.
It reminds me of being a little kid and listening to my parents fight. They didn't have arguments. Argument is an intellectual process. They had screaming matches. Know who wins a screaming match? No one. It's pointless, solves nothing, neither side listens or $cares about anything concerning the other. It's about trying to bully the other side into adopting your point of view.
And I was long ago sick of seeing it here.
Therein lies the problem, no one is actually interested in discussion.
It reminds me of being a little kid and listening to my parents fight. They didn't have arguments. Argument is an intellectual process. They had screaming matches. Know who wins a screaming match? No one. It's pointless, solves nothing, neither side listens or $cares about anything concerning the other. It's about trying to bully the other side into adopting your point of view.
And I was long ago sick of seeing it here.
Me, too. I think we're arguing from two sides of the same point. Or we would be if points had sides. I just think that rather than try to shut down every topic that smells like it could become a shouting match, we instead encouraged civil discourse and regularly enforced unbiased consequences for crappy behaviour.
This is a forum where people come to talk.
It is a forum in which people expect to be able to come and talk *with each other*. But the "hypothetical OP" in multiple screen names has consistently demonstrated that his intention is not to come here to talk, but rather to come here and spread hate speech. Sure, it's not even remotely at the level of the hate speech that is defined by various states with regard to violations of civil rights. But it is hate speech. He doesn't like 4e. We get it. We got it. We're done with it.
If you regularly ignore or punish ignorance [and] reward civil discourse, even the ignorant will learn to pursue civil discourse (or leave).
I believe *most* of us wish he would do the latter, because he has all too consistently demonstrated that he is incapable of the former.
It is a forum in which people expect to be able to come and talk *with each other*. But the "hypothetical OP" in multiple screen names has consistently demonstrated that his intention is not to come here to talk, but rather to come here and spread hate speech. Sure, it's not even remotely at the level of the hate speech that is defined by various states with regard to violations of civil rights. But it is hate speech. He doesn't like 4e. We get it. We got it. We're done with it.
And I'm sure that you're right - I gather that the guy is extraordinarily unpopular, but that's life. If he violates your CoC, you're within your rights to shut him down. If he doesn't, you're not.
This isn't so much about him, though, as it is about how our collective attitude in dealing with 'unpopulars' is affecting the attitude of the boards and the moderator's "rate of fire", as it were. In short, I don't think we need to live by a 'when it doubt, shut 'em down or move 'em somewhere obscure' policy with regards to every other thread topic. I really wish the attitudes were a little more relaxed and had a little more perspective around here. I know the internet is serious business and all, but this forum just seems to have gone a little crazy with the fear-aggression.
Therein lies the problem, no one is actually interested in discussion.
I believe the fact that I haven't attacked you or even really your arguments, nor the manner in which you've presented them, says otherwise. I'm in the middle of nowhere, with no geek for 20 miles in any direction that I know of; the ONLY thing I want is some intelligent discussion.
we all like "Brand Name X" apple pie. "Brand name X" even made the recipe available online so people could make the pie themselves.
"Brand Name X" changes the default recipe and adds cinnamon.
I like the change. cinnamon IN apple pie? DELICIOUS!
others don't like the change. s'cool, i can accept that people don't like cinnamon in their pie.
i go on a forum to talk about the pie i like... "Brand Name X" pie in particular.
now someone who doesn't like the change goes on and start saying that it's no longer apple pie because they added cinnamon and it's a travesty against all piehood. and makes another thread saying the same thing. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. ad nauseum.
and then he goes on the defensive trying to act innocent.
it really gets annoying. i know you don't like the new pie, but all this time he could rather be either making his own pie and eating it. but no, he's got to go online and tell us the pie we've been eating and enjoying is wrong and the company made a bad choice, ect...
all i want to do is talk to people about my pie without someone making accusations about my palette.
While it may be true that some (most) people will never change.. nothing will certainly change if everyone is just silenced. If we took everyone not mature (educated) enough to form rational, reasonable arguments and shipped them all off.. well, first.. I'm sure you would lose large portions of friends and family (no matter how much personal bias says no) plus, there is always someone smart who thinks that your manner of arguing is infantile and wants you shipped off in turn.
We all have personal bias that coerce us into devolving into mindless, argumentative dullards. They may be few, and it may be a long road before the mindset is reached, but we all have something.. better I think, to get involved in the "stupid" tantrums and teach by example no?
pie ...
I'm not so sure that this is a good example. I mean, we're all always willing to talk pie. Any pie. :P :D
... the ONLY thing I want is some intelligent discussion.
May I recommend a case of Disassociative Identity Disorder? Or perhaps finding the mystical character sheet that defines you and altering your race to "Mog" ("Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend.")? Or even going the route of Beast Wars Megatron ("Why do you always talk to yourself?" "Perhaps it's because I have a penchant for INTELLIGENT conversation?")?
You expect to alight an intelligent conversation by burning rags drenched in nerd-rage? Dude, seriously, nice goal, horrible approach.
but all in all: you can have your opinion, just don't be jerk about it.
also, it's 6pm here. i'm hungry and i've got a game to run in an hour.
change "pie" to D&D, "Brand Name X" to WotC, ect...
but all in all: you can have your opinion, just don't be jerk about it.
also, it's 6pm here. i'm hungry and i've got a game to run in an hour.
Wait, your PHB came with cinnamon?
...I think I got ripped off.
You expect to alight an intelligent conversation by burning rags drenched in nerd-rage? Dude, seriously, nice goal, horrible approach.
What rage? I haven't even gotten angry in weeks on these Boards, except at CustServ for some silly mistakes they made. No big. Perhaps we should just begin again. You DO realize I didn't actually create that post in that Thread that got deleted, don't you? I haven't been screaming or flinging my opinion in anyone's face the entire day. I haven't even pulled out the Bricks!
This is silly. Are you trying to make me feel guilty or something for some reason? I'm really confused.
...nothing will certainly change if everyone is just silenced.
And nothing will change if we let people mindlessly scream at each other. But if we let them have an edition war, that's what we're going to get. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see pointless battles quashed so that something useful to the community can be talked about. Don't know if you recall, but the last month or two leading up to, and the first few months immediately after, the release of 4e had D&D General clogged with edition war threads. NO ONE could actually ask a simple question without it either A) being ignored in favor of the edition wars, or B) having said question turn into an edition war.
What rage?
The rage that some very vocal people seem to feel about the issue. And the rage that is summoned in response to it.
In this instance, you're like a little kid playing with a loaded gun someone left lying around. And it goes off. Even if you didn't hit anybody, the two gangs having a tense confrontation just around the corner each think someone in the other gang shot at them. It cannot end well.
And nothing gives me the right to know what's best for anything on these boards. How I would solve it? I'd try to make it something comical. I'd create a section for it. Right next to Astrid's Parlor. You know what I'd call it?
The Blood War
And THEN, the first year would be arguments over who are the Baatezu and who are the Tanarri.
I'm all for civil discourse, and I'd love to have a civil, open-minded discussion of the two editions and the pros/cons of each. However I feel that currently tempers on both sides are running too hot, still, for such a thing to be possible. People on both sides tend to jump immediately to defend their edition, at the expense of all others.
That said, I can see little good coming of posting an anti-4e/pro-3.x thread on the 4e General board, same as little good could come of posting a pro-4e/anti-3.x thread on the Previous Editions General board. We have the PE boards for a reason, guys.
That said, as always in these edition debates, I remain neutral. (I'm still running 2e, 3.0, 3.5, and 4e games.)
The rage that some very vocal people seem to feel about the issue. And the rage that is summoned in response to it.
In this instance, you're like a little kid playing with a loaded gun someone left lying around. And it goes off. Even if you didn't hit anybody, the two gangs having a tense confrontation just around the corner each think someone in the other gang shot at them. It cannot end well.
Hmm. Despite the subtle "little kid" quip, an interesting point. I'll remember that, thank you, Escef.
The rage that some very vocal people seem to feel about the issue. And the rage that is summoned in response to it.
In this instance, you're like a little kid playing with a loaded gun someone left lying around. And it goes off. Even if you didn't hit anybody, the two gangs having a tense confrontation just around the corner each think someone in the other gang shot at them. It cannot end well.
Actually, It will end well. A few less gang members, and cleaner streets.
See, I'm definately not a "We" and I don't know who "Them" are.
And nothing gives me the right to know what's best for anything on these boards. How I would solve it? I'd try to make it something comical. I'd create a section for it. Right next to Astrid's Parlor. You know what I'd call it?
The Blood War
And THEN, the first year would be arguments over who are the Baatezu and who are the Tanarri.
FTW!!
Actually, It will end well. A few less gang members, and cleaner streets.
And the children after you will do what? Ahh, right, join the gangs.
Doesn't work in NYC, doesn't work at WotC.
Dude, the example was cool. I was jus' sayin' that we all like pie. :D
Speak for yourself.
Hmm. Despite the subtle "little kid" quip, an interesting point. I'll remember that, thank you, Escef.
Actually, the little kid part was meant to imply that you weren't malicious about it, you just found something that you thought might be fun to play with.
If you thought I was trying to make a negative implication as regards your intelligence or maturity, I apologize. 'Twas not my intent.
This isn't so much about him, though, as it is about how our collective attitude in dealing with 'unpopulars' is affecting the attitude of the boards and the moderator's "rate of fire", as it were. In short, I don't think we need to live by a 'when it doubt, shut 'em down or move 'em somewhere obscure' policy with regards to every other thread topic. I really wish the attitudes were a little more relaxed and had a little more perspective around here. I know the internet is serious business and all, but this forum just seems to have gone a little crazy with the fear-aggression.
Actually, how often do you see a thread shut down here, these days? Our not so hypothetical thread is the only one I can remember in the last little while, though I don't check the general forums as often as off-topic, a magical land where everything is wonderful and the crazies are benign.
As for moving threads... Well, a lot of the stuff that gets posted here just should not be here. All the time I see rules questions, class comparisons, race comparisons, homebrew stuff, or complaints about any one of the aforementioned, most of which have their own boards where they will get attention from people actually interested in the subject matter. I don't think moving threads has anything to do with disagreeing with the subject matter and moving them somewhere obscure. If the mods disagreed with the thread they'd simply shut it down.
First, much respect to those of you who still have hopes for constructive 3E vs. 4E debates. Your unwavering faith that the next one might not be worthless does you credit. You're optimists, it's a virtue.
But, these threads get closed because no good ever comes out of them. Despite the high hopes of an actually enlightening debate, what happens in reality is all sorts of tiresome stuff like whining, snubbery, bad faith, tantrums, insults, frustration and anger. All of this would not be worth giving a flying duck about if it did not spill over to other threads and contribute to the general attitude of defensiveness and rudeness that was finally dying down after months and months of nerd rage about 4E.
It's a pragmatic decision by the mods. An unmoderated board as big as this (I'm talking post-by-post moderation) just can't hold an intelligent discussion about most emotionally charged topic without it turning to tears, even if it's the fault of a minority. Like it or not, there are immature/naive/hot-tempered people on this board, and they too are invited to these threads (when they don't start them in the first place), and if they come (and they will), they'll ruin them.
(I'm not saying that there's no intelligence down here, that there are no smart people, or that no intelligent exchange is possible. Just not intelligent debates on emotional topics, as the smart voices always get drowned out by the inevitable over-the-top drama.)
I too think it's a loss that some subjects are forbidden. I even actually believe that an intelligent conversation about 3E vs 4E is possible, and I have seen some start as such here. However, they invariably devolve into your run-of-the-mill, nothing-new, 1,686,544th edition war.
And that's reason enough to close them. Again, I'm not saying it's not a loss. I'm not saying that you smart, emotionally mature people can't discuss sensitive issues. I'm just telling why we can't have nice things. This board is just not the proper venue for it.
See, I'm definately not a "We" and I don't know who "Them" are.
And nothing gives me the right to know what's best for anything on these boards. How I would solve it? I'd try to make it something comical. I'd create a section for it. Right next to Astrid's Parlor. You know what I'd call it?
The Blood War
And THEN, the first year would be arguments over who are the Baatezu and who are the Tanarri.
Actually, we already have a comical edition war thread over in off-topic. There's a link to it in my sig.
And that's reason enough to close them. Again, I'm not saying it's not a loss. I'm not saying that you smart, emotionally mature people can't discuss sensitive issues. I'm just telling why we can't have nice things. This board is just not the proper venue for it.
Well, if that's the truth, and I hope it isn't, then that's sad. Borderline pathetic.
Well, if that's the truth, and I hope it isn't, then that's sad. Borderline pathetic.
It is sad, I agree. But it's just them saying "children, as you can't behave, we're putting our foot down: no more katana threads."
However, there are other venues to have this discussion. For example, you could try the forum where Robot snatched the original post from. On the other hand, it might also demonstrate to you more clearly than I ever could, why Wizards has that policy in place. ;)
DOUBLE EDIT: Grant Morrison I believe is the writer.
I hate that guy. He always has to make dramatic changes instead of incremental ones and they often make little sense with past history.
Wrecked my enjoyment of the X-men for a while that's for sure.
And I've sort've come to guess that this is the case, however: civility and benefit of the doubt are the rule of the day in the real world, and I'm not sure I understand why it ought to be different here, or anywhere. You don't fight fire with fire.
Kill 'em with kindness? Anyone?
The attitude was perhaps defensive and a little opinionated, but the OP did present a reason that he felt his opinion, which is shared by others, might be as prevalent as it is. His tone was not aggressive. Perhaps defensive, but nonhostile.
It's really broader than this one robot fellow, though. If we could, I'd like to promote an attitude of 'let's take this apart and look at it'. We do it for rules questions, we do it for behind-the-math topics and developer-innovations. Can we not do it for everybody?
actually in the real world you often do fight fire with fire.
you also judge what a person says based on his previous words and deeds
The ironic thing is that this thread is standard forum pathology. You can see it on every forum out there, if you wait long enough. A troll develops. He runs multiple screen names, and acts obnoxious to a lot of people for a long time. Sometimes he violates the forum code of conduct, sometimes he skirts it by being as obnoxious as possible without technical violation. He probably has the list of generic "first post trolling" comments for that particular thread memorized, and repeats them ad naseum (every forum has generic first post trolling comments, here its video game or WoW references, etc, you know the rest). Either way, his history as a known troll starts to affect how people treat him. Mods are quicker to judge him guilty than they would a newbie or a regular. Regulars recognize him, and flame him right out of the gate when they'd respond intelligently and with only slight annoyance to a newb posting the same comments.
The key is remembering that this is reasonable on their parts. The fifth identical thread isn't a new conversation. Its the same old conversation, brought up again with intent to annoy.
And then, after this goes on a while, you get this thread. Someone who gets their kicks from admonishing others, or who doesn't know the context, or more likely both, writes exactly this post.
Well, if that's the truth, and I hope it isn't, then that's sad. Borderline pathetic.
It's getting better, but only because moderation has gotten quicker.
We're not drowning in trolls anymore, but we do have the occasional shower.
Ehh, this whole damn 'death of Batman' arc. Don't get me started.
Who is this writer, anyway? This is all getting ret-conned by 2010 right? That's what they say, I think.
the only thing dc im liking at the moment is secret 6
Actually, the little kid part was meant to imply that you weren't malicious about it, you just found something that you thought might be fun to play with.
If you thought I was trying to make a negative implication as regards your intelligence or maturity, I apologize. 'Twas not my intent.
Thanks, Escef! I really appreciate the benefit of the doubt.
It is sad, I agree. But it's just them saying "children, as you can't behave, we're putting our foot down: no more katana threads."
However, there are other venues to have this discussion. For example, you could try the forum where Robot snatched the original post from. On the other hand, it might also demonstrate to you more clearly than I ever could, why Wizards has that policy in place. ;)
Damn Katana Trolls! I left for that sillyness, and then (fortunately) wasn't here for the Edition Shift.
I posted that original post in that Thread, and the link so people could see the responses. I was simply amazed that some posters were telling me that places like that were viable sources of information when they wanted to argue that "other people all KNOW how bad 4E is/it's not really DnD." Like the 4E Boards were some kind of Conspiracy Theory Boards, where the Mods didn't want us to know The Truth!
Of course, lo and behold, I go check out these Boards, and the post I linked to was the tiniest TIP of that horrifying iceberg.
think about it this way:
we all like "Brand Name X" apple pie. "Brand name X" even made the recipe available online so people could make the pie themselves.
"Brand Name X" changes the default recipe and adds cinnamon.
I like the change. cinnamon IN apple pie? DELICIOUS!
others don't like the change. s'cool, i can accept that people don't like cinnamon in their pie.
i go on a forum to talk about the pie i like... "Brand Name X" pie in particular.
now someone who doesn't like the change goes on and start saying that it's no longer apple pie because they added cinnamon and it's a travesty against all piehood. and makes another thread saying the same thing. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. ad nauseum.
and then he goes on the defensive trying to act innocent.
it really gets annoying. i know you don't like the new pie, but all this time he could rather be either making his own pie and eating it. but no, he's got to go online and tell us the pie we've been eating and enjoying is wrong and the company made a bad choice, ect...
all i want to do is talk to people about my pie without someone making accusations about my palette.
I believe the contrary... an apple pie without cinnamon is an abomination... AND IS NOT AN APPLE PIE...
(While this may be my stance on apple pie, it has nothing to do with my stance on the edition wars.... :P )
I believe the contrary... an apple pie without cinnamon is an abomination... AND IS NOT AN APPLE PIE...
(While this may be my stance on apple pie, it has nothing to do with my stance on the edition wars.... :P )
true, on a side note I just ate a mcdonalds apple pie that was coated in cinnamon ... it is one of the few things i find decent at mcdonalds
Damn Katana Trolls! I left for that sillyness, and then (fortunately) wasn't here for the Edition Shift.
I posted that original post in that Thread, and the link so people could see the responses. I was simply amazed that some posters were telling me that places like that were viable sources of information when they wanted to argue that "other people all KNOW how bad 4E is/it's not really DnD."
Which is kind of the whole point. These places are perfect examples of why you don't let edition wars burn uncontrolled. WotC is not willing to put the unrealistically huge effort of moderating them, painstakingly separating the posts which have some merit from the noise, so they forbid them. It's expedient.
Nothing to do with censorship or loss of any freedom. Not when starting your own blog is a few mouse clicks away.
true, on a side note I just ate a mcdonalds apple pie that was coated in cinnamon ... it is one of the few things i find decent at mcdonalds
Are you saying that my edition of choice is pre-fab and cheap? You are, aren't you!
It's generally a sign of exasperation.
Which is not an excuse. I for one, have been verbally insulted by two or three rather 'reputable' longtimers for what I'd hoped were and inteded to be fair and plainly-worded questions. As far as I know, I've never wronged or attacked anyone here in any way, so I didn't appreciate it. I've since been advised that it's the result of something that has become apparent to me: a very toxic and fairly paranoid social environment. I really think that if we used real-world social rules and acceptability levels, we'd be alright.
Which is not an excuse. I for one, have been verbally insulted by two or three rather 'reputable' longtimers for what I'd hoped were and inteded to be fair and plainly-worded questions. As far as I know, I've never wronged or attacked anyone here in any way, so I didn't appreciate it. I've since been advised that it's the result of something that has become apparent to me: a very toxic and fairly paranoid social environment. I really think that if we used real-world social rules and acceptability levels, we'd be alright.
But you are stirring the pot. Even if you are doing so in an 'innocent manner'
But you are stirring the pot. Even if you are doing so in an 'innocent manner'
With all due respect, how am I 'stirring the pot'? Did you read the original post?
Which is not an excuse. I for one, have been verbally insulted by two or three rather 'reputable' longtimers for what I'd hoped were and inteded to be fair and plainly-worded questions. As far as I know, I've never wronged or attacked anyone here in any way, so I didn't appreciate it. I've since been advised that it's the result of something that has become apparent to me: a very toxic and fairly paranoid social environment. I really think that if we used real-world social rules and acceptability levels, we'd be alright.
Dude, you're kind of an abrasive person. I'm sure you don't see yourself that way, but I'd bet money that >50% of the forum does.
ummm...yeah. you kinda are.
Dude, you're kind of an abrasive person. I'm sure you don't see yourself that way, but I'd bet money that >50% of the forum does.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I can't say I agree.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I can't say I agree.
Neither can I. I am an abrasive prick! Usually only when I feel like being one, but that tends to happen fairly often. Rake? Not so much. He's honestly and openly asking legitimate questions, and if not for the anonymity of the Internet, his ideas would make perfect sense.
Unfortunately, Rake, that anonymity means that the Boards will never follow the rules of the societal norm we all follow IRL.
Neither can I. I am an abrasive prick! Usually only when I feel like being one, but that tends to happen fairly often. Rake? Not so much. He's honestly and openly asking legitimate questions, and if not for the anonymity of the Internet, his ideas would make perfect sense.
Unfortunately, Rake, that anonymity means that the Boards will never follow the rules of the societal norm we all follow IRL.
lol, Gabe's Law, isn't it? Something like that.
Are you saying that my edition of choice is pre-fab and cheap? You are, aren't you!
YES I AM NOOB :p
just kidding but alas to many conversations on d&d or the web in general have this feel
EDIT: Oops! My bad, that's Kipling's "IF."
In the same line of thinking, you don't just attack people because of who they ARE; that's prejudice, and will get you BANNED.
I tend to avoid internetisms, but 'QFT'. This is the summation of my point, minus the part about getting band and plus a point about because this is how we should behave as decent, intelligent folks.
Actually, this is very wrong.
# The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event. The word has commonly been used in certain restricted contexts, in the expression 'racial prejudice'. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
# An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts; Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prejudice
# prejudiced - emanating from a person's emotions and prejudices
# prejudiced - being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand; "a prejudiced judge"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
For the given case to be prejudice, we would require a brand-new poster, who insults the community and asks why not everyone hates the new edition, and we ignore the fact that several self-styled haters have made new accounts to troll, and then consider this brand-new poster to have nothing useful to contribute.
In this case, the analogy would be;
A ten-time convict of B&E is discovered in your home, with your month-old PS3 in a pillowcase.
It isn't prejudice when you make a conclusion based on who someone is, it is prejudice when you make a conclusion based on what someone is similar to.
We are all geek/nerds, because we play this game. It is not prejudical to refer to a poster as a geek/nerd, because it is true. It is not prejudice to call someone with an XY chromosome male, because that is how we define male.
It is wrong to say, "Because you're a geek, you must be good with computers."
It is wrong to say, "Because you're black, you're a criminal."
It is wrong to say, "Because you're female, I don't have to pay you as much as the males."
It is NOT wrong to say, "Because you are a multiple-time convicted criminal, I can't trust you as much as a high-school graduate."
It is NOT wrong to say, "You have not treated us with respect, therefore, you are expected to start respecting people before we can treat you with respect."
Now, I don't condone starting any type of wars and I believe we should all follow the CoC that we agreed to but giving somebody, even known CoC violaters (not gonna call them trolls or grognards which violates the CoC and is rude) at least a benefit of the doubt is preferred to people just openly demanding for the thread to be closed right away.
I understand that many of my fellow posters here have been here a long time and seen a lot of bad wars, (which they might even have been a part of). But their are probably new members everyday that just want to say their opinion or vent a little bit but do not know the forum and its society and gets flamed mercilessly and rudely by posters who have an holier than thou attitude or an elitist attitude.
I've openly asked people why can't we all just act civil and maturely. Because "they*" won't? Sorry that's just not an acceptable answer to me.
Edit:
* they as in rude posters.
Last time you say this guy, he was a druggie.
First thing he asks you for when you see him again is $40.
It isn't to apologize for what he's done, it isn't to convince us he's got a different intent, and it isn't to discuss something different (like, can I get a hand with making a 3e wizard/adding a patio).
That said, two qualifiers on the subject of P_R's new thread.
1) I haven't been back early enough to catch the thread, and I haven't seen a link to it from this thread, so I've been basing this on past behavior (As House
2) The first reaction anyone should have to those posters is to report them.
2) The first reaction anyone should have to those posters is to report them.
First reaction or Knee jerk reaction?
First reaction or Knee jerk reaction?
Indeed.
The world will never become a better place if you just shoot everyone who disagrees with you.
I've openly asked people why can't we all just act civil and maturely. Because "they" won't? Sorry that's just not an acceptable answer to me.
My bet goes with you as well, for every thread that starts with a poster who doesn't insult other people and is flamed in return, I'll argue that 4e is stupid for a month.
stuff about predjudice
lol, thank you. Been waiting for this to come along. This would be why I stated that in some cases, predjudice and bias are appropriate, but this is not one. It remains true that the real world operates on principles that are not evident here. Principles that include the notion that we give people the benefit of the doubt, and we only punish the crime, not the potentially guilty.
Indeed.
The world will never become a better place if you just shoot everyone who disagrees with you.
First reaction to the posters who "shoot first" should be to report them, not flame them. Self-defense is the reason they're getting flamed in the first place.
(Since logic doesn't work on them, nor does flaming, but venting makes you feel better)
My bet goes with you as well, for every thread that starts with a poster who doesn't insult other people and is flamed in return, I'll argue that 4e is stupid for a month.
ur on....
umm it's been awhile but check this one out....most notably rude or insulting to me where number 6 and 8.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1129095
Principles that include the notion that we give people the benefit of the doubt, and we only punish the crime, not the potentially guilty.
1st) Only Christian belief (not all, and certain non-Christian sects) actually punishes the crimes.
I believe the Roman Catholic term is "Hate the sin, not the sinner".
In the "Real World", governments punish those who (hopefully) have been proven guilty.
Certain posters have been proven guilty of trolling (by getting banned).
2) Benefit of the doubt means to look for another reason for the action. Handing a murderer a gun is NOT giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's suicide.
3) Potentially guilty is what the ignore feature is for.
Been there, done that... although I enlisted...
In what, the Air Force?? Don't they usually BEAT the snark out of people??
My bet goes with you as well, for every thread that starts with a poster who doesn't insult other people and is flamed in return, I'll argue that 4e is stupid for a month.
ummm okay here's another one.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1119258&highlight=bydchon
I went for a somewhat humorous take on items that I had real concerns with and not knowing the forum society was taken aback by some of the rude or elitist posts. I was really trying to be nothing but polite and vent and hopefully find people that could sympathize with me. One poster even said the "thread-maker is actually less critical than the repliers for once, when usually all thread-makers regarding negative points about 4e are babbling complainers instead of curious folk."
So there's another one where someone wasn't openly trying to insult people from the get go.
Nice, Bydchon. I will say that most people have nowhere near my talent of interpreting the tone of text, but even afterwards, everyone got defensive and aggressive. :S
LOL thanks Crimson I appreciate it and to samurai I'm not trying to be a jerk with you, just taking you up on ur bet LOL. No offense or insult meant.
EDIT: Samaritan not samurai....D'oh!
ur on....
umm it's been awhile but check this one out....most notably rude or insulting to me where number 6 and 8.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1129095
I saw the thread.
Although I know you are being snarky and really don't care... no, not the Air Force... the U.S. Army.
I see nobody has "beat" the snark outta you!
Uhh, no with two parents and a family lineage of US Armed Forces service, I was being dead serious. The only reason I couldn't enlist is due to a chronic heart problem. They won't take me anywhere, so no, I haven't had the chance to get it beaten out of me yet (though my Dad's pretty good at doing it verbally! ;)).
LOL thanks Crimson I appreciate it and to samurai I'm not trying to be a jerk with you, just taking you up on ur bet LOL. No offense or insult meant.
EDIT: Samaritan not samurai....D'oh!
Hey, I don't mind the complement ;)
I saw the thread.
OMG!
You made me laugh!!
You!
Me!
(Heh. It rhymes. XD)
One poster even said the "thread-maker is actually less critical than the repliers for once, when usually all thread-makers regarding negative points about 4e are babbling complainers instead of curious folk."
The other posters were more critical than you, not insulting you.
There's a big difference between the two.
Here I am...
LOL hater U always get me 'achuckling!
and samarui-tan since that was one of my first posts I thought they (the more critical posters) were being rude but I definitely have a more defined definition of being rude on this forum!
EDIT:
Is defined definition an oxymoron?
I just can't win with you LOL. Your good, too good! To be honest the "leet speak" RTFM i'm pretty sure the F doesn't mean friggin but um well u know and I'm pretty sure its impossible to find some one LESS respected than me!
EDIT:
I should not that even though i've been a member since 07, I didn't have consistent access (read to poor to get internet) so I was more of a part time lurker. I've only been an active forumite since my first, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, thread.
Probably true about the 'F', but I object to the overuse of cursewords in conversational speech. I mean, really, if you replace every instance of a curse-word with 'bloop' or 'monkies', exactly how intelligent do you think it would sound?
As for the second... you're not even on my warning list for people to put on Ignore.
and samarui-tan since that was one of my first posts I thought they (the more critical posters) were being rude but I definitely have a more defined definition of being rude on this forum!
EDIT:
Is defined definition an oxymoron?
(You do realize if WotC wanted to, they could have sued you for libel for that post. "Critical" is hardly the issue here ;) )
More repetitive redundancy, but... meh.
Probably true about the 'F', but I object to the overuse of cursewords in conversational speech. I mean, really, if you replace every instance of a curse-word with 'bloop' or 'monkies', exactly how intelligent do you think it would sound?
As for the second... you're not even on my warning list for people to put on Ignore.
So you object to the OVER USE of curse words. So you wouldn't even say bloop or monkies at all right. You would just say RTM not RTBloopingM? right?
And honestly, I somehow, in a totally dumb way, feel validated for not being on ur warning list LOL.
(You do realize if WotC wanted to, they could have sued you for libel for that post. "Critical" is hardly the issue here ;) )
More repetitive redundancy, but... meh.
Hey, you do realize that I could have been sued for much worse than that! LOL I'm actually worse in person than on the internet! LOL.
Repetitive and redundant sound about right for describing me! Not really....but yeah.
So you object to the OVER USE of curse words. So you wouldn't even say bloop or monkies at all right. You would just say RTM not RTBloopingM? right?
Two options fallacy. (Got the name wrong, don't care)
I do not go to either extreme (using curse-words as common or never using curse-words). As you repeated, I do not object to the use, I object to the over use. :P
That's stupid. Grognards don't KILL people, they're just asshats (EDIT: Sometimes).
I don't know. I refuse to turn my back on Warweaver. He's over there, in his corner, giggling. I'm not entirely sure he hasn't killed before. Notice, he first showed up about the same time Hokus disappeared. Coincidence? I think not. The new Hokus is simply a marionette, powered by anger and a thirst for human blood. Also, kittens, but they make up only a fraction of it's power source.
I just don't understand why no one else sees it.
I don't know. I refuse to turn my back on Warweaver. He's over there, in his corner, giggling. I'm not entirely sure he hasn't killed before. Notice, he first showed up about the same time Hokus disappeared. Coincidence? I think not. The new Hokus is simply a marionette, powered by anger and a thirst for human blood. Also, kittens, but they make up only a fraction of it's power source.
I just don't understand why no one else sees it.
THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU PEOPLE FOR MONTHS NOW!
In what, the Air Force?? Don't they usually BEAT the snark out of people??
not the air force, While I was in the army one of my best friends joined the air force... once we compaired notes I smacked him for taking the easy route :P
not the air force, While I was in the army one of my best friends joined the air force... once we compaired notes I smacked him for taking the easy route :P
I don't like to be mean to people for no reason, but they don't joke about it being the "Chair Force" for no reason!
I don't like to be mean to people for no reason, but they don't joke about it being the "Chair Force" for no reason!
Yeah, but the only person I've ever met crazier than a marine was a PJ. You gotta give it to them, they're hard core.
I tend to avoid internetisms, but 'QFT'. This is the summation of my point, minus the part about getting band and plus a point about because this is how we should behave as decent, intelligent folks.
Responding the way we do IS decent and intelligent. It's so decent and intelligent it makes me chomp at the bit wanting to explode. Long story short - we ARE polite. Period.
I mean, I'm not defending whatever his apparently awful history is like,
And what is his most terrible of sins? He doesn't like 4e. He states it. Often not very well.
That drives some of these people around here into a foaming-at-the-mouth, frothing frenzy.
Wich is hilarious.
Personally I can't wait for the eventual edition change where all these people find themselves in his place. I'm laughing at them now & I'll laugh even harder then....
And what is his most terrible of sins? He doesn't like 4e. He states it. Often not very well.
That drives some of these people around here into a foaming-at-the-mouth, frothing frenzy.
Wich is hilarious.
Personally I can't wait for the eventual edition change where all these people find themselves in his place. I'm laughing at them now & I'll laugh even harder then....
Based on context, you're talking about PR, based on content, you're talking about Warweaver :P
And what is his most terrible of sins? He doesn't like 4e. He states it. Often not very well.
That drives some of these people around here into a foaming-at-the-mouth, frothing frenzy.
Wich is hilarious.
Personally I can't wait for the eventual edition change where all these people find themselves in his place. I'm laughing at them now & I'll laugh even harder then....
Yeah, the trolling and flaming have nothing to do with it. Everyone who likes 4E is just so immensely insecure that they have to bash people who don't like thier system. In fact, we go to the 3E boards and make hate topics telling people why 3E is not D&D, because we are so petty.
Wait...
And what is his most terrible of sins? He doesn't like 4e. He states it. Often not very well.
That drives some of these people around here into a foaming-at-the-mouth, frothing frenzy.
Wich is hilarious.
Well, I'm pretty sure that his most terrible sin is probably baiting and hostility and attacking people's opinions, unless everyone here is lying, but even if it is, why say something like this:
Personally I can't wait for the eventual edition change where all these people find themselves in his place. I'm laughing at them now & I'll laugh even harder then....
I sort've hope that the next edition puts both it's predecessors to shame and makes a larger percentage of the gaming community happy. I don't really think it's hilarious. I think it sucks that I can't talk about the things I thought were 3.5's strengths without some longtimer making rude comments. I think it's pathetic that I can't speak on behalf of 4.0's ability to draw in new blood, to be good for the hobby, to be easier to learn, without someone declaring that I am backhandedly calling him a n00b for playing.
I sort've hope that the next edition puts both it's predecessors to shame and makes a larger percentage of the gaming community happy.
Don't we all? :D
I don't really think it's hilarious. I think it sucks that I can't talk about the things I thought were 3.5's strengths without some longtimer making rude comments. I think it's pathetic that I can't speak on behalf of 4.0's ability to draw in new blood, to be good for the hobby, to be easier to learn, without someone declaring that I am backhandedly calling him a n00b for playing.
This is just the way the forums are. It is pathetic, but it's a fact of the internet. Best bet is to try to ignore this sort of thing. Responding only makes it worse. Unfortunatly, no matter how eloquitly make a call for sanity, it will not work on anyone.
I think it sucks that I can't talk about the things I thought were 3.5's strengths without some longtimer making rude comments.
You can. My bet is open for any poster who wants to see me fail; Find a thread where the respected posters are attacking an OP for a polite, thoughtful/thought-provoking, and 3.5-4e thread, within the first page.
You can.
I respectfully disagree.
My bet is open for any poster who wants to see me fail; Find a thread where the respected posters are attacking an OP for a polite, thoughtful/thought-provoking, and 3.5-4e thread, within the first page.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1137417&page=3
I'm not interested in winning a bet, but will page 2 and 3 suffice? I'm not the OP, but that's a nonfactor. We've got william telling me that I'm giving the OP bad advice by suggesting that 3.5 is worth looking into as the system might be a better fit for a character concept the OP is interested in.
Then on page three we can see Vaalingrade and Salla suggest that I am a liar.
Can you show me where I was rude, jerky, or a liar?
This is the kind of stuff I'm down on.
Well, I'm pretty sure that his most terrible sin is probably baiting and hostility and attacking people's opinions, unless everyone here is lying, but even if it is, why say something like this:
No, his greatest sin would be attacking a forumgoer's wife for saying something positive about 4e during a playtest before anyone else had even seen the game.
And then reopening the thread twice after the first one was locked.
Can you show me where I was rude, jerky, or a liar?
"The inability to use spells as creatively as previous editions encouraged is one of 4.0's deepest flaws, unfortunately."
That's the statement I think started the disagreement with you. In 4e, you're no longer limited to wizards to make creative uses for powers. The ritual illusions in the PHB combined several major illusion spells into one to make it more efficient.
You went on to claim that in 4e you can be the best at combat and the best at skills. That is an untruth. Check the Optimization forums if you do not consider it an untruth. Feats used for skills are feats not used for combat. You also apparently claim that there is a binary decision (combat-centric and unoptimized), when it is entirely possible to optimize a character for non-combat, and to make a combat-oriented character unoptimized. Sure Strike is a bit of a poster child.
One reason for the request of the first page (instead of several pages) is to prevent the other posters time to form their opinion of the OP (this is prejudice we're talking about). Salla seems to be carrying a grudge from another thread (a reportable offense) and Vaal did not say that you were lying. The implication is there, but I feel confrontation is better than resentment.
Wow, I'm quite the popular fellow. Didn't realize I could make such a stir. (Except for that one time on FaceBook.)
I'll give you a hint, though: it's not the banning that keeps me away. It's the boredom. You guys become tiresome after a little bit, especially when I attempt to have intelligent discourse and you resort to shrieking like 5-year-old girls because I am trying to explain something from an objective point-of-view.
Cases in point: see my signature links on hit points and exception-based design.
Y'know, it's never occured to me before, but now that i see you type it, it's so obvious.
All I have to do is state that I'm approaching a subject from an objective point of view, no matter how true that is and refer to past threads I've started where my point still remains heavily contested and generally seen as downright wrong, and I'll always have the moral high ground.
Genius.
The chans are boring. Stupid wastes of time. "Fail" is merely something I've--
Stolen from the chans in a sad attempt to forge an obnoxious internet persona.
Lo que comprendo (amigo) is that people around here are more concerned with who is posting something than what he's saying.
*gasp*. You mean that when a poster posts in a consistent manner and stance that offends people, doing nothing to assuage people that their viewpoint has in fact changed, and makes yet another thread in the same manner they will, in fact, treat that poster with the same disdain? I am shocked and appalled, sir.
Is it just me, or have you changed your sig a few times in the past month? (Love the spoiler block, but bullet hole thing is a nice perspective-maker)
I guess I'm not known for changing my sig often, am I? I guess I have altered it a couple times recently. One of the reasons I mention the hole in my office window is because, although my job makes it unlikely, there is still a chance I could snuff it because of a stray bullet or a "lucky" mortar. And when I see all the edition war bull crap, I just sit back and think, "To what end?" I admit, sometimes I lose myself and get stupid every now and again. But getting (or regaining) perspective is important.
Anyway, thanks, man.
Then why can't those people go where they DO feel they belong instead of trying to spread the pain?
Being the current victim of a six month harassment campaign by an incorrible 4venger gnoll, where every post gets me attacked for the sake of attacking, and forcing much of my conversation to be private, I'm here out of stubborness.
Don't get me wrong, the Mods do a great job of deleting his trolling posts in a timely manner...but the fact still remains not everyone is intimidated away from here.
I can only speak for myself, but I have been staying away from arguing (trolling some would say) about the editions. Since I no longer really play D&D, I simply don't care that much anymore about which edition does what the best. 4E is simply not the game for me...
Anyway, even though one might not play "D&D", there is still a plethora of good insight, information, and ideas found here that will work for any RPG system.
Like I said before... it really isn't the editions that rub me wrong, it's mainly some of the posters and their attitudes...
But, I am sure most of you feel the same about me;)
Then why post here at all? I mean, your first post in this very thread had nothing at all to do with the topic, and added nothing to the discussion.
If 4e is not the game for you, fine, we get it, please move on. Nothing we say or do will suddenly MAKE IT the game for you. If you enjoy all the information you get about 4e from these forums* then by all means LURK, but that doesn't mean you have to post.
*Although considering how 4e is not the game for you, as you so put it, I doubt this is true at all.
Dude... I have been waaaayyyy tamer than usual, and I have not attacked anyone (unlike you and some others).
I realize you don't like me, and rest assured, the feeling is mutual... just get over it!
Flaming and baiting me into these conversations with you is helping nothing...
Falming and baiting the community with your passive agressive name and sig isn't helping anything either.
And I honestly couldn't care less whether you like me or not. You're stubborn, arrogant and above all egotistical. You think we want to hear that you think 4e is terrible over and over again? You think we want you to disrupt threads with off-topic nonsense?
Hint, we don't.
As long as you refuse to stop posting here, I may as well just add you to ignore in all seriousness. I doubt I'll miss your intellectual interjections.
Perhaps that's the truest crime of the "escapist". Since they spend so much time dealing with things that aren't real.. when their words have real world implications.. they simply don't have the mental comprehension to apply any form of real understanding since all their understanding is relegated to "fantasy".
Here's to hoping that today's "Big Fish" don't find bigger fish in their very little pond someday.
If people examined some of their statements, took them out of the context of being about a game, and examined versions of those statements used in real life contexts.. I think they may be terrified at the implications of their comments.
Perhaps that's the truest crime of the "escapist". Since they spend so much time dealing with things that aren't real.. when their words have real world implications.. they simply don't have the mental comprehension to apply any form of real understanding since all their understanding is relegated to "fantasy".
Here's to hoping that today's "Big Fish" don't find bigger fish in their very little pond someday.
I know that in the days ahead, I will regret this deeply, possibly to the bottom of my soul while praying for the sweet embrace of amnesia to excise it from my brain, but it really has to be asked:
What in the world are you talking about? It clearly has to do with the ongoing grudge theme against fantasy in general and escapism in particular, but I can't for the life of me see what that has to do with this thread at all save for this thread seeming to be left unmoderated as a steam valve.
If you ever said this to someone in real life, about real life issues, you would very likely get knocked flat on your arse.
Do not talk about it in a way that, when stripped of all context and meaning and put in an entirely different context and meaning, might be... bad? I don't know, but I'm sure it's kin to Godwin.
"Then why can't those people go where they DO feel they belong instead of trying to spread the pain?" - Vaalingrade
If you ever said this to someone in real life, about real life issues, you would very likely get knocked flat on your arse.
Oh, yes, and questioning people's mental capacities is always a friendly way to make friends IRL. ',: |
Admit that you, and people like you, are not interested in anyone elses opinion. Your "pond" is 4th Edition and it'll be gone in a decade or so and if, like these "dissenters" you find that 5th is something you hate.. I'll be sorry for you, because I hope your opinions don't fall on deaf ears as yours are being deaf to others.
"Then why can't those people go where they DO feel they belong instead of trying to spread the pain?" - Vaalingrade
If you ever said this to someone in real life, about real life issues, you would very likely get knocked flat on your arse.
If there was a guy that came to a gathering dedicated to something I enjoy in real life -- just to scream and get in other people's faces for liking that thing (Because this is the context of the situation, you see, but that's not the point of the attempt at an inflammatory comment) -- and then, when confronted with the fact that he's an obnoxious jackass screamed that he does it because he feels that he doesn't belong in the place he came to attack -- you're damn right I'll tell him to go somewhere he thinks he does belong.
Edit: WOO! There it is! Making the 'no coloreds' crack to the black guy. You're GLORIOUS.
Some people just don't want others talking in what they have deemed "theirs".
Look, nobody is "In your face." You can skip people's posts all you want.
If it's okay for you to tell people to skip people's posts, how is not okay for Vaal to tell you to skip forums?
You see no difference between a whole forum, and a thread?
Not when the whole Forum is devoted to what that person hates most, NO.
You ignore a post that you don't feel is worth answering, because you don't like it.
You ignore a Thread you don't feel is worth posting in, because you don't like it.
You ignore the Forum devoted to the game you don't like, because nothing constructive can come of it.
How is this hard?
"Then why can't those people go where they DO feel they belong instead of trying to spread the pain?" - Vaalingrade
If you ever said this to someone in real life, about real life issues, you would very likely get knocked flat on your arse.
And I'd be right there next to him to slap the droppings out of them if they lifted a hand to him.
Now, can we dump the pretentious, unnecessary testosterone?
Umm. Unless I'm mistaken, message boards are not the real world. Not that courtesy should not be used, but everything said here should be looked at through a non-RL filter. People behave differently here because it is a different place. That "you wouldn't say that to my face" stuff doesn't mean a whole lot. They're not speaking to your face, are they? ;)
Doesn't really matter. Everyone remains entitled to civility and the benefit of the doubt. You're creating a platform from which one can declare that he or she is allowed to be a jerk, because it's the internet.
Now, can we dump the pretentious, unnecessary testosterone?
That would be nice.
Doesn't really matter. Everyone remains entitled to civility and the benefit of the doubt. You're creating a platform from which one can declare that he or she is allowed to be a jerk, because it's the internet.
I'm not saying that they are allowed (though they certainly are - they just shouldn't). What I am saying is that they will. Look, we can talk about how we should all behave in RL 'till we die of PC boredom. But it ain't gonna change how people behave here. This isn't RL so people will behave differently. Telling them they wouldn't do the same in RL is a "duh" kind of statement. They know they wouldn't. Hell, it's precisely the reason they do so here. ;)
Doesn't really matter. Everyone remains entitled to civility and the benefit of the doubt. You're creating a platform from which one can declare that he or she is allowed to be a jerk, because it's the internet.
No. You neglect the reverse of the Golden Rule.
If "You treat others the way you wish to be treated." Then it follows you should "Expect to be treated the way you treat others."
Not when the whole Forum is devoted to what that person hates most, NO.
You ignore a post that you don't feel is worth answering, because you don't like it.
You ignore a Thread you don't feel is worth posting in, because you don't like it.
You ignore the Forum devoted to the game you don't like, because nothing constructive can come of it.
How is this hard?
If I was sitting down and eating in this Chinese restaurant (and I do love Chinese food), and a guy comes in, sits down, and then starts ranting and raving about how Chinese Food is awful, that we shouldn't eat it, and that the Mexican place was SOO much better., then yes, I would walk up to him and say, "Why don't you go find a place that serves Mexican food, and stop being an ass to everyone here just because we do like Chinese food?"
So I don't see how the whole, real life vs. internet thing fits in here...
So, we don't promote the right for people to express their dissaproval. That's all I'm getting at.
And since I need to be clearer.. I hope, that when it comes time for the current "majority, or Big Fish" to be unhappy that their 4th Edition (the little pond) is gone, I hope thier disapproval falls on more understanding ears(the new big fish).