I would ask that the moderators and cm step in and moderate these boards a little more aggressively to deter "gang activity" and mob rule, which seems to have taken hold. I need not name this group, i only ask that Wotc better police their forums and reign in this group of violators of the code of conduct driving away possible customers. I have seen many people who probably walked away from these forums with a negative view of this company, its products, and their "fans".
Please take action before it is too late.
Please take action before it is too late.
I agree. We need to start perma-banning the people who come to the forums purely to troll. I've said this from the beginning.
Edit: It's sad that I come to the Community Business forums purely to check and see if anybody who hates 4E has started another thread about how horrible it is for a forum to exist for people who like the game to talk about it, and for that forum to be populated by it's fans. This is really getting old.
If they mod your unnamed group aggressively they would also have to aggressively mod the posters who just as aggressive about being against the new edition...
Edit: It's sad that I come to the Community Business forums purely to check and see if anybody who hates 4E has started another thread about how horrible it is for a forum to exist for people who like the game to talk about it, and for that forum to be populated by it's fans. This is really getting old.
Funny you should mention this Bat... same reason i stick my nose in here each night.. and probably the same reason many others do too....
If you see someone insulting, flaming, harassing, bullying, or acting in any way that is counter to the CoC, report the post.
I should also point out that, contrary to what appears to be becoming a popular opinion in some quarters, disagreement with a position is not the same as flaming, bullying or harassing.
CM cannot do anything about posters flaming, baiting and insulting other posters. That is the job of CS. And CS will not be able to do anything unless people report the posts. WizOs don't roam the forums looking for posts. They work off of the reports that get sent to them.
Exactly. Twice yesterday 4E fanboys ambushed threads in the previous editions forum to troll & bait. The WizO acted quickly after the reports and booted the offenders & their posts.
Exactly. Twice yesterday 4E fanboys ambushed threads in the previous editions forum to troll & bait. The WizO acted quickly after the reports and booted the offenders & their posts.
Dammit. There's no call for that. Trolling people who don't agree with you is stupid on either side of the fence.
Everybody had been good about not being *******s to the previous edition guys in their house for so long, I'm disappointed to hear that this is happening now.
Aside from that, this thread, much like all the others, is defamation of character and full of more holes then a pin cushion.
Consider it reported and asked to be closed.
(I know, I know... what a bully thing to do)
Dammit. There's no call for that. Trolling people who don't agree with you is stupid on either side of the fence.
Everybody had been good about not being *******s to the previous edition guys in their house for so long, I'm disappointed to hear that this is happening now.
It wasn't a 4E Avenger. Both guys (according to their profiles) were newbies.
Or, at least newly created accounts (withing a month or two).
If you see someone insulting, flaming, harassing, bullying, or acting in any way that is counter to the CoC, report the post.
And when you report the post, be sure to give a solid description. Don't say "flaming." That doesn't really help the mods figure things out. Give a bit of a reason why you think it's flaming. If there's history, provide it. The more details you provide in your report, the better able the mods are to deal with the situation.
It wasn't a 4E Avenger. Both guys (according to their profiles) were newbies.
Or, at least newly created accounts (withing a month or two).
Avenger or not it's still stupid.
You guys don't deserve that kind of thing anymore than we do.
I'm glad you got a quick response and it got taken care of.
CM cannot do anything about posters flaming, baiting and insulting other posters. That is the job of CS. And CS will not be able to do anything unless people report the posts. WizOs don't roam the forums looking for posts. They work off of the reports that get sent to them.
If you see someone insulting, flaming, harassing, bullying, or acting in any way that is counter to the CoC, report the post.
I should also point out that, contrary to what appears to be becoming a popular opinion in some quarters, disagreement with a position is not the same as flaming, bullying or harassing.
I agree with the OP here. The nail has been hit, on the head.
I believe there sould be more "roaming the boards" by moderators. Why wait for a report? That's passive. As the OP notes, we need more aggressive moderation. In my personal opinion, the way the moderation of the boards is set up now is not working. We need actual moderators, not customer service over the boards.
Just wanted to throw my two coppers in ;).
I agree with the OP here. The nail has been hit, on the head.
I believe there sould be more "roaming the boards" by moderators. Why wait for a report? That's passive. As the OP notes, we need more aggressive moderation. In my personal opinion, the way the moderation of the boards is set up now is not working. We need actual moderators, not customer service over the boards.
Just wanted to throw my two coppers in ;).
While I agree, I dont think this is going to happen. Likely because management has CS and CM doing other things and does not think it is a good use of time to have their employees scouring the board for every asshat poster out there.
Can't just see Nordberg hanging over their cube wall "yyeeeeahhh, I need you to stop roaming the board banning posters and fill out these TPS reports. I need those by 4pm. yyeeeeeeaaahhhhh"
While I agree, I dont think this is going to happen. Likely because management has CS and CM doing other things and does not think it is a good use of time to have their employees scouring the board for every asshat poster out there.
Can't just see Nordberg hanging over their cube wall "yyeeeeahhh, I need you to stop roaming the board banning posters and fill out these TPS reports. I need those by 4pm. yyeeeeeeaaahhhhh"
Yeah, seems apparent that actual moderation of the boards is a secondary aspect of their duties now (what's their primary again?). I honestly don't think the "wait for the call" attitude helps (much).
Also, the posters they are relying on to send them reports are often immersed (for whatever reason) in the very problem the WizOs are trying to moderate. We simply cannot police ourselves (maybe some boards can, I don't know). That's what the current moderation policy is sorta evoking: "Report the post (yourself). Until this happens, don't bother us, 'cause we can't take any action." Very, very passive attitude there, I think.
Also, reporting a post often demands a judgment call. Consider what mudbunny says here: "I should also point out that, contrary to what appears to be becoming a popular opinion in some quarters, disagreement with a position is not the same as flaming, bullying or harassing." In the middle of an edition war, its easy to jump the gun and report a post for the wrong reason. That doesn't help and prolly does more harm than good; certainly it's a waste of somebody's time. Ineffective way to moderate a board, I'd say.
Again, we cannot police ourselves (be great if we could ;)). Until moderation is given primary concern (right now, under the WizOs, it's a secondary concern), these boards won't improve.
And even if not, it'd be at least a week before the trolls who reregister after every ban get back.
I fought terrorists, I am NOT one, but I will show when people are lying, trolling and doing nothing but trying to ruin the game for the rest of us.
Funny... the OP hasn't responded to this thread she/he started.
These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. I find this very disturbing as these forums seem to degenerate to a lower level on a daily basis. I have seen several posters cowed/driven away by this group and i think that is bad for business. This has become a very unpleasant place to visit and i suspect i am not the only one who feels this way...
Personally, I disagree, it seems to me that the D&D fundamentals boards are getting friendlier nearly every day, especially the general discussion forum. Two weeks ago it was hard to find a thread in the general discussion forum where someone didn't bring up an edition comparison. Now they seem to be limited to threads where an edition comparison was made by the OP. There are are also several threads both for and against fourth edition that are very civil and enjoyable to read.
When you say the forums have become an unpleasant place to visit, when are you comparing them to?
Insulting, flaming and harassing are against the CoC, simply report the post, explaining why you think it is against the CoC and it should be dealt with.
In addition, I think you may be blaming the wrong people. I have seen members of this "mob" putting pressure on each other to not say something stupid. There are pro-4e trolls, I'm not denying that, I just don't think they are part of this "mob" you are referring to.
...
I fought terrorists, ...
Thank You!
P>S> I no longer get into the 4e or not to 4e debate anymore. I'm just tired of arguing about it. I like to play 4e, I have no need or desire to justify why I like playing. I'll just leave them alone.
Yeah, I see no reason to stoup to their level... sad, some others couldn't see that.
Are you trying to scold people for rudeness with one hand while making gestures with the other? "Their level" indeed.
Aside from that, this thread, much like all the others, is defamation of character and full of more holes then a pin cushion.
Of whose character? The OP mentioned no-one by name; on the first read through I thought he was asking for the general level of animosity to be policed more thoroughly. After seeing your post, I re-read his and still come to that conclusion. Maybe you know who he's talking about because you have some context with this particular poster, but when he denigrates WotC's "fans", he could be talking about surly 3.x Grognards as easily as he could 4vengers.
Consider it reported and asked to be closed.
Someone appealing to community management for flame-bait censorship should be censored, should he?
When you say the forums have become an unpleasant place to visit, when are you comparing them to?
According to my member profile, I haven't logged in here since '05. I'm posting here since I'm on a sick day and have nothing better to do and I've run out of Heroes re-runs to watch.
I have lurked a fair bit since then, and I may say that since having first come back to DnD in 2001, I have never experienced the WotC boards as a pleasant place to visit. Maybe there is a higher level of ambient vitriol since the division of the DnD community with 4e, but it was never nice.
i only ask that Wotc better police their forums
Let me relay a story of mine about the policing of the boards around here.
There once was a clever fellow who posted on these boards by the name of Arturic. He would entertain us with tales of his terrible group of players, much like Ab3 did over on RPG.net. He came up with his "Shovel Awards", caricatures of gamers he would like to hit over the head with a shovel and bury in his back yard; WHAM*dig*dig*dig* was his innovation. Search for him: he does have some good schadenfreudic comedy in there.
So one day he was telling a story that wasn't quite as ridiculous as usual, and another poster and I mentioned that the gamer he was making fun of may not have been unreasonable; that perhaps Arturic was overreacting. Arturic didn't take to that well and included this other poster and me in his rant. We went back and forth a little bit.
I may have been completely in the wrong. Perhaps my memory of the event is so biased that I should try to find him and apologize for my behavior. But whatever the case was, I was offended and reported the thread to the WizOs. They did not appear in the thread, nor reply to my report, so I emailed them and asked about it. Again, silence. I wrote a third inquiry. Nothing. So I dropped it and ceased to consider the WizOs a court of appeals.
I may have gotten lost in the shuffle of emails to WizOs, but my experience is that appeals to the management around here is fairly ineffectual. Perhaps other people have different stories to relate; good for them if they find these boards a well moderated and well-mannered community. Me? I assume in coming here that I'll find posters flaming others, posters dealing snark disguised as umbrage, and posters struggling to keep their head above those waters. And I'd lay odds that it won't change anytime soon.
Exactly. Twice yesterday 4E fanboys ambushed threads in the previous editions forum to troll & bait. The WizO acted quickly after the reports and booted the offenders & their posts.
Good. Pro-4e people ****ing all over the 3e forums is just as bad and just as intolerable as anti-4e people ****ing all over the 4e forums. Neither is acceptable and both must stop.
Remember folks…
Look at what this poster posts, you see that this poster is talking about pro-4e people and relating them to terroists.
Ok. Let me highlight the parts of the first post where he mentions pro-4e posters.
These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. I find this very disturbing as these forums seem to degenerate to a lower level on a daily basis. I have seen several posters cowed/driven away by this group and i think that is bad for business. This has become a very unpleasant place to visit and i suspect i am not the only one who feels this way...
I would ask that the moderators and cm step in and moderate these boards a little more aggressively to deter "gang activity" and mob rule, which seems to have taken hold. I need not name this group, i only ask that Wotc better police their forums and reign in this group of terrorists driving away possible customers. I have seen many people who probably walked away from these forums with a negative view of this company, its products, and their "fans".
Please take action before it is too late.
If you see nothing highlighted, it's because the original poster never mentions the pro-4e crowd. Since there's no mention of "pro-4e posters" whatsoever in his post, I'll highlight the parts of the post he alludes to someone in.
These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. I find this very disturbing as these forums seem to degenerate to a lower level on a daily basis. I have seen several posters cowed/driven away by this group and i think that is bad for business. This has become a very unpleasant place to visit and i suspect i am not the only one who feels this way...
I would ask that the moderators and cm step in and moderate these boards a little more aggressively to deter "gang activity" and mob rule, which seems to have taken hold. I need not name this group, i only ask that Wotc better police their forums and reign in this group of terrorists driving away possible customers. I have seen many people who probably walked away from these forums with a negative view of this company, its products, and their "fans".
Please take action before it is too late.
For summary's sake:
Agressive group of posters
"gang activity" and mob rule
this group
group of terrorists
"fans"
May I ask how you *know* he's talking about the pro-4e group? Are there not a bunch of trollish 3.xE partisans on these boards who could be just as guilty?
If their idea of appealing to community management is to spit in someone's face, then yes.
He's only spitting in your face if you think your group is an aggressive mobbish gangly group of terrorists masquerading as "fans". Or: maybe he's just spitting in the faces of people who are aggressive mobbish gangly terrorists masquerading as "fans", regardless of their DnD preferences.
This is the worse kind of scum-slugging, ****-poor thought out thing to do to people and it is wrong.
Not really. It would have been worse if he were to have said this:
[INDENT]These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of pro-4e posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. I find this very disturbing as these forums seem to degenerate to a lower level on a daily basis. I have seen several posters cowed/driven away by 4vengers and i think that is bad for business. This has become a very unpleasant place to visit and i suspect i am not the only one who feels this way...
I would ask that the moderators and cm step in and moderate these boards a little more aggressively to deter "g4ng 4ctivity" and mob rule, which seems to have taken hold. I need not name this group (of degenerate likers of 4e, which is all of them), i only ask that Wotc better police their forums and reign in this group of 4e terrorists driving away possible customers. I have seen many people who probably walked away from these forums with a negative view of this company, its products, and their "f4ns"[/INDENT]
Then I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. As it is, he didn't. So I don't. Why do you?
Also, as Zherog has mentioned, giving a specific reason for reporting the post really does help us to understand the problems you might have. It can get pretty busy sometimes, and we aren't always able to double check entire post history's to get to the bottom of a problem. We try, but its easy to miss something.
-I just find it amusing that people are getting angry at X Group or Y Group when the OP didn't mention any particular 'faction'.
Well...
In discussions and debates, a lot can be 'non-said' or implied between the lines. Tone, conjugaison, wording, gradiants, etc... The Language can be very subtile and arcane.
Was that the case? perhaps. Or not.
Do you disagree that the people on this board aren't terrorists?
I think the OP wasn't literally calling anyone terrorists. He was using the word in a deliberately hyperbolic way. So I didn't have a problem with it.
No, no one on these boards are terrorists.
Was that the case? perhaps. Or not.
-No, no it was not. The OP mentioned "aggressive group of posters" that "insult, flame, and harass" others. This describes people on both sides. It makes me chuckle for both sides to feel victimized and martyred, at the same time. That's what makes me chuckle. When one side argues with the other about who the victim is.
But for the record terrorism isnt about killing..its about instilling fear or unease in an area/group. And i assure you also that terror isn't always the tool of a minority either.
The atmosphere here is really hostile and unfriendly. I may have re-thought my original position on the new edition. I will admit it has merit. But that is irrelavent. My issue is with the way people are being treated on this message board in general, and the apperant inability of the moderators to control it.
All one really has to ask themselves "Am i making a conscious effort to promote harmony amongst the community?" I myself have called no one any names, nor have i engaged in baiting or flaming in this thread. But i believe this thread has illustrated my point a little better than my words ever could have.
I am opposed to the mistreatment of anyone on these boards, regardless of their edition preference. This issue transcends the edition war. I just want to see a return to some kind of normality here. I have had other names here dating back many years, and i never remember such a vitriolic unstable community.
-I just find it amusing that people are getting angry at X Group or Y Group when the OP didn't mention any particular 'faction'.
Well, he does say "I need not name this group" which indicates he is talking about one group in particular, not all who exhibit disruptive behavior. Since there is only one collection of individuals who jokingly refer to themselves as a "group", and who have previously been accused of being a "mob" or "gang" it doesn't require a great deal of consideration to determine of whom he is speaking. Even if that were not the case, all one needs do is to have read his body of posts to know of which group he speaks.
For 5e. ;)
Maybe he is referring to the Germans.
You sometink to say abvout ze Germans are havink?
Please be respectful in your responses to other posters. There is no reason to take another poster's preference in game system as an affront to your own tastes. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and deserves civility and respect.
Wow. Why is everyone acting so defensive? I can only imagine what has been deleted. VCL's closing threads that they think might be anti 4th eis really not helping. I don't need my thread closed, i need my concerns addressed. Not a very good VCL if all you do is cheerlead for your friends and have the people they dislike threads shut down. You aren't very impartial.
But for the record terrorism isnt about killing..its about instilling fear or unease in an area/group. And i assure you also that terror isn't always the tool of a minority either.
The atmosphere here is really hostile and unfriendly. I may have re-thought my original position on the new edition. I will admit it has merit. But that is irrelavent. My issue is with the way people are being treated on this message board in general, and the apperant inability of the moderators to control it.
All one really has to ask themselves "Am i making a conscious effort to promote harmony amongst the community?" I myself have called no one any names, nor have i engaged in baiting or flaming in this thread. But i believe this thread has illustrated my point a little better than my words ever could have.
I am opposed to the mistreatment of anyone on these boards, regardless of their edition preference. This issue transcends the edition war.
Why are people defensive about the fact that you referred to people on the board as terrorists? Umm... maybe because that is highly offensive? How is that not flaming?
Who is closing anti-4e threads?
This thread was almost closed because of an individual poster that took the discussion off in left field and started insulting another poster for something completely unrelated to the issue at hand, it had nothing to do with edition.
Well, he does say "I need not name this group" which indicates he is talking about one group in particular, not all who exhibit disruptive behavior. Since there is only one collection of individuals who jokingly refer to themselves as a "group", and who have previously been accused of being a "mob" or "gang" it doesn't require a great deal of consideration to determine of whom he is speaking. Even if that were not the case, all one needs do is to have read his body of posts to know of which group he speaks.
Given that the OP calls out WotC, it's new edition and it's "fans," I don't really see it being laid out any more clearly without giant neon signs.
If this wasn't an attempt to inflame the targets of his jab, he probably should have refrained from using the term "terrorist" or calling for mass bannings of the people he disagreed with.
Regardless of your intent, calling people terrorists is wrong. I don't care what side it is.
Saying some geek-rage-infested person on the INTERNET is the same as the people behind 9/11 is truly the lowest I've seen anyone sink on these broads.
I am sorry if you take offense at my use of the word "terrorist". There are many forms of terrorism, and just as many varying degrees of it.
I would also ask that if you do not wish to contribute anything civil or useful to the discussion, that you at least stop flaming/disrupting my thread. Is reporting threads with legitimate discussions being attempted your modus operandi for having them closed? I would sincerely hope that this technique is discouraged.
I am sorry if you take offense at my use of the word "terrorist". There are many forms of terrorism, and just as many varying degrees of it.
I would also ask that if you do not wish to contribute anything civil or useful to the discussion, that you at least stop flaming/disrupting my thread. Is reporting threads with legitimate discussions being attempted your modus operandi for having them closed? I would sincerely hope that this technique is discouraged.
I find it entertaining which poster you choose to accuse of disrupting your thread.
Given that the OP calls out WotC, it's new edition and it's "fans," I don't really see it being laid out any more clearly without giant neon signs.
-The OP is asking WotC to better moderate the boards, to stop flame wars and "gang fights", citing that it detracts from others' pleasant experiences, and is a nuisance, not citing any particular group or another, both sides which have 'extremists' that flame others and start fights.. Seems reasonable to me.
This topic is not contribuating anything since original post. It's biaised and rude, to say the least.
One would have to consider themselves a part of the group who is flaming/trolling and seeking to terrorise these forums to take any offense at my topic. I am not being rude, i am conducting myself in the exact opposite manner of which you speak. How exactly is my thread biased? The only group i favor are the ones able to conduct themselves like civil ,reasoning, human beings. I apologise again if that is bias.
I find it entertaining which poster you choose to accuse of disrupting your thread.
I think the one who referred to my thread as "garbage" and accused me of being "low". Yep that is the one.
-The OP is asking WotC to better moderate the boards, to stop flame wars and "gang fights". Seems reasonable to me.
nip... VCL's closing threads that they think might be anti 4th eis really not helping. I don't need my thread closed, i need my concerns addressed. Not a very good VCL if all you do is cheerlead for your friends and have the people they dislike threads shut down. You aren't very impartial. Especially since this thread is not edition specific. You aren't doing anything to alleviate the tension, and hence a very sub par job of "Leading" anything....snip
While it was debatable and open to interpretation with his first post, his second post made it very clear who he was referring to.
If you read through, everyone is agreeing with his points about better moderation. It is the other assumptions behind his post that people are disagreeing with.
I am sorry if you take offense at my use of the word "terrorist". There are many forms of terrorism, and just as many varying degrees of it.
I would also ask that if you do not wish to contribute anything civil or useful to the discussion, that you at least stop flaming/disrupting my thread. Is reporting threads with legitimate discussions being attempted your modus operandi for having them closed? I would sincerely hope that this technique is discouraged.
The only legitimate thing about this thread is the fact that it has, through your wording, compared people on these forums to some of the worst scum of the earth.
If you feel that is worthy of an unbiased discussion, well... what's that say about you?
I think the one who referred to my thread as "garbage" and accused me of being "low". Yep that is the one.
I don't think the garbage part has anything to do with you considering the number of personal attacks against him that just got deleted.
edit: What I was going to say is no longer true due to additional posts.
Given that the OP calls out WotC, it's new edition and it's "fans,"
Let's go back to the videotape!
[indent]These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. I find this very disturbing as these forums seem to degenerate to a lower level on a daily basis. I have seen several posters cowed/driven away by this group and i think that is bad for business. This has become a very unpleasant place to visit and i suspect i am not the only one who feels this way...
I would ask that the moderators and cm step in and moderate these boards a little more aggressively to deter "gang activity" and mob rule, which seems to have taken hold. I need not name this group, i only ask that Wotc better police their forums and reign in this group of terrorists driving away possible customers. I have seen many people who probably walked away from these forums with a negative view of this company, its products, and their "fans".
Please take action before it is too late.[/indent]
He calls out:
[indent]WotC...
To police its boards because of harrassment. Which seems to be happening in this thread.
new edition...
The new edition is never mentioned in this post.
'its [4e's] "fans"'...
Since he doesn't mention the new edition, you seem overconfident about which fans he's talking about.[/indent]
The neon sign you're offended at isn't there.
Maybe Uriel has a history of disliking 4e. Maybe: but he does everyone a favor by not dragging it in this thread with him. We should do the same.
Maybe Uriel has a history of disliking 4e. Maybe: but he does everyone a favor by not dragging it in this thread with him. We should do the same.
You may feel that his first post doesn't make it completely clear (obviously I disagree), but his second is pretty clear as to his intent. And when your first post is asking for the banning of "terrorists" and you've got a history of accusing one side of being overbearing in disagreeing with you, it's pretty clear what's going on.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that we need better moderation, I've said that all along. What I take offense to is the sudden rash of threads in this forum that are aimed at defaming fans of 4E en masse. This is just another in a long line, and people constantly calling our right to have our conversations in the forum that's clearly labeled to house them (and doing so somewhere that very few regular posters check) is getting pretty old. There are plenty of threads in the General Discussion forum that show 4E fans interacting amicably with non-fans, it's just the trolls that get reacted to poorly.
I will say that Wizards owes a large portion of the incredible amount of money i have spent with them to this very message board. And i am not alone. I would like to see this become a place that helps move product again, and not a gladitorial arena for Edition Warriors with very little disposable income...i speak out of concern for fans of the game irregardless of their years of experience.
I will admit to an initial reaction to the new edition that was quite negative. After digesting the material a bit more in depth, i have changed my perspective. So do not lump me in with your sworn enemies just yet. I would like to discuss the game in a courteous , calm manner. Love your enemies. Treat them with kindness and remain blameless....
I would like to discuss the game in a courteous , calm manner.
I've got no problem with that. In fact, it's one of my dearest hopes for the festering corpse that is 4E General right now.
I am sorry if you take offense at my use of the word "terrorist". There are many forms of terrorism, and just as many varying degrees of it.
I would also ask that if you do not wish to contribute anything civil or useful to the discussion, that you at least stop flaming/disrupting my thread. Is reporting threads with legitimate discussions being attempted your modus operandi for having them closed? I would sincerely hope that this technique is discouraged.
Just out of curiosity, but what legitimate discussions do you see going on here?
I see a bunch of people agreeing that there should be more moderation and a bunch of people discussing what you meant in your first post.
You may feel that his first post doesn't make it completely clear (obviously I disagree), but his second is pretty clear as to his intent. And when your first post is asking for the banning of "terrorists" and you've got a history of accusing one side of being overbearing in disagreeing with you, it's pretty clear what's going on.
I respect your opinion, but beg to differ. You are not stating my intent, as only i can do that. And since i have put forth no declaration concerning any particular "group" i fail to see your issue with my right to discuss the state of these forums. And as far as naming a "faction" i don't remember saying anything about an organised group...groups can exist through other means of association.
I think when people stop taking "sides" this place will have come a long way towards civility and peace in general.
Just out of curiosity, but what legitimate discussions do you see going on here?
I see a bunch of people agreeing that there should be more moderation and a bunch of people discussing what you meant in your first post.
Would you like to discuss my concerns? Or would you like to continue questioning the legitimacy of my thread? Your off topic posts are not appreciated, and i would politely ask you to refrain from further derailing my thread.
You may feel that his first post doesn't make it completely clear (obviously I disagree), but his second is pretty clear as to his intent. And when your first post is asking for the banning of "terrorists" and you've got a history of accusing one side of being overbearing in disagreeing with you, it's pretty clear what's going on.
I'll take your summary of his history at your word, compare it with the neon sign you read into his first post and call it quits. And considering how hot it got in here so quickly, I would allow that it is possible others were overbearing in disagreeing with him. So I'm not going to hold that against him either.
If it wasn't Uriel who started this thread, but rather me, would you be saying the same things? If not, then your issue isn't necessarily with his post, but the poster himself. Considering the amount of pruning that has gone on in this thread, he very clearly has a point about the rudeness epidemic going about. Whether you and he agree on who needs to be given forum vacations, I imagine you'll agree that the mods do need to step in when things get out of hand.
Which was his point.
I respect your opinion, but beg to differ. You are not stating my intent, as only i can do that. And since i have put forth no declaration concerning any particular "group" i fail to see your issue with my right to discuss the state of these forums. And as far as naming a "faction" i don't remember saying anything about an organised group...groups can exist through other means of association.
I think when people stop taking "sides" this place will have come a long way towards civility and peace in general.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself... In your first paragraph you talk about how you didn't mean formal groups. "Groups can exist through other means of association" What? Posting in similar manners?
In your second you talk about people stopping taking sides. Are sides that different from groups? Are sides taken only when people officially say they are on one? Or if someone simply posts, "hey, I bought my first D&D book last night and it was the fourth edition PHB and played it with my friends. It was cool but I have some questions"
Won't that put them on an unofficial side? They clearly only play one edition? Isn't that like some other people? Therefore aren't they on an unofficial side now?
Just out of curiosity, but what legitimate discussions do you see going on here?
It's a bad thing for threads to encourage Mods to increase their moderation efforts?
Forums develop their own cultures, and the culture on the WotC board may not appeal to everyone; it doesn't appeal to Uriel, and it hasn't to me in the past 4 years. Posting to encourage a change in forum culture via administration is certainly legitimate. You may not feel the need for the change, or perhaps you'd rather see the change happen in a different direction, but that doesn't dismiss his point as irrelevant.
Is that bad or wrong to consider one's history in posting in debates and discusions, toward things like bias?
Am i on trial here all of the sudden? And i believe i stated quite clearly that this thread is not edition specific.
Whether you and he agree on who needs to be given forum vacations, I imagine you'll agree that the mods do need to step in when things get out of hand.
I've got no problem with that. In fact, it's one of my dearest hopes for the festering corpse that is 4E General right now.
I've got no problem with improved moderation, in fact it's something I've called for time and time again.
What I take issue with is taking this sort of thing to the Community Business forum and using it as a soapbox to hurl insults at a particular group. This forum has become the "complain about how ****** off you are that the "Avengers" don't agree with you" forum of late. Now, maybe we should just change the title to represent the change in focus, but it seems like it should maybe explore options beyond calling out a huge swath of the posting public.
But until the policy against mass character assassination changes around here, that's what we're going to get; thread after thread of people whose feelings are sore over the people in the 4E forum disagreeing with them.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself... In your first paragraph you talk about how you didn't mean formal groups. "Groups can exist through other means of association" What? Posting in similar manners?
In your second you talk about people stopping taking sides. Are sides that different from groups? Are sides taken only when people officially say they are on one? Or if someone simply posts, "hey, I bought my first D&D book last night and it was the fourth edition PHB and played it with my friends. It was cool but I have some questions"
Won't that put them on an unofficial side? They clearly only play one edition? Isn't that like some other people? Therefore aren't they on an unofficial side now?
No, i did not contradict myself. I said "organised" groups. So many people seem to assume i am talking about some self proclaimed "group" with a roster and official membership. And yes you can be part of a group and not have any official connection to another member of said group. Like a school of fish is considered a "group" and yet they dont swim around procllaiming that if you arent a mackerel to not so kindly shut up and swim elsewhere.
This is not a thread discussing semantics either or the meaning of words, my diction or anything along these lines. I would ask you to please stop harassing me, and please return to the topic at hand.
Is that bad or wrong to consider one's history in posting in debates and discusions, toward things like bias?
Certainly not; you should consider personal historical bias in debates, including your own. If we have a history of arguing because you propose patently ridiculous changes, and that bias creeps into how I read your posts, then I am at fault when I accuse you of being ridiculous when, in the off chance, you're being reasonable.
If Uriel is an unrepentant 3e-ist and takes every opportunity to sully the new DnD, you should discount his gripes about the system. But when a thread asking for increased moderation is kept purposefully neutral, and that thread requires pruning about 25 posts of ridiculous off-topic argument, the poster's history should weigh less on the equation; his point was proven not by his argument, but by the responses to it. He doesn't deserve the grief he's getting.
But until the policy against mass character assassination changes around here, that's what we're going to get; thread after thread of people whose feelings are sore over the people in the 4E forum disagreeing with them.
I suppose that depends upon the manners of the people in the 4E forum to some degree, yes? How's the saying go? Hear a rumor once, dismiss it; hear it twice, check your sources.
Then again, there's also: If you meet more than one @*&%!$% in a week, you're it.
As for moderation... well, I have kind of moderated the heck out of this particular thread. It hasn't seemed to really help, now has it? I would love to be able to "clean up this one horse town", but realistically, without your support the only way I could do that is by banning everyone. People are going to differ in their opinions. Unless you can learn to do so respectfully, we're just a band-aid.
I've got no problem with improved moderation, in fact it's something I've called for time and time again.
What I take issue with is taking this sort of thing to the Community Business forum and using it as a soapbox to hurl insults at a particular group. This forum has become the "complain about how ****** off you are that the "Avengers" don't agree with you" forum of late. Now, maybe we should just change the title to represent the change in focus, but it seems like it should maybe explore options beyond calling out a huge swath of the posting public.
But until the policy against mass character assassination changes around here, that's what we're going to get; thread after thread of people whose feelings are sore over the people in the 4E forum disagreeing with them.
Unless this group you call the "Avengers" is somehow engaging in the behaviour i mentioned in my OP i would ask you refrain from dragging your arguments with other posters concerning your forum club into my thread. This is also not the topic at hand and i believe my thread has been derailed quite enough already by your tensions with another poster.
I suppose that depends upon the manners of the people in the 4E forum to some degree, yes? How's the saying go? Hear a rumor once, dismiss it; hear it twice, check your sources.
And if people who have been actively trolling 4E fans on the forums start them, report them and ask why they're not being banned.
People around here too often mistake disagreement for aggression. Given that the people who don't like 4E tend to find a lot of disagreement in the forum dedicated to that edition, if they're approaching it with that mindset they're going to find a lot of hallucinatory flames. They then come here full of righteous indignation claiming that they were wronged because they said something that didn't result in universal head-nodding. Thread dissolves, they storm off, next day same story new poster.
Then again, there's also: If you meet more than one @*&%!$% in a week, you're it.
I don't know if you've noticed, but this is kind of grand central station for *******s.
Edit: Out of respect for Tao and his valuable time, I'm dropping this here. I disagree with his take on the motivations behind this thread, but I'm not going to force the issue.
I don't care who the OP is talking about, it is wrong.
I am not trying to disseminate untruths about 4th edition, and had not so many people tried to make this another edition war thread i would not even have mentioned it. This game is so much fun....lets try and make it less like real life and end all the petty bickering.
As someone who almost died earlier this year from a pulmonary embolism i am here to assure you that life is incredibly delicate and much too short to waste breath spitting venom.
I am not here to insult anyone, and if this thread or it's OP is offensiveto you you really might be more a part of the problem than the solution so many of us profess to seek.
Would you like to discuss my concerns? Or would you like to continue questioning the legitimacy of my thread? Your off topic posts are not appreciated, and i would politely ask you to refrain from further derailing my thread.
It's a bad thing for threads to encourage Mods to increase their moderation efforts?
Forums develop their own cultures, and the culture on the WotC board may not appeal to everyone; it doesn't appeal to Uriel, and it hasn't to me in the past 4 years. Posting to encourage a change in forum culture via administration is certainly legitimate. You may not feel the need for the change, or perhaps you'd rather see the change happen in a different direction, but that doesn't dismiss his point as irrelevant.
What I asked was an honest question.
Every poster who has addressed the OP that I have seen has agreed that more moderation is needed - including myself. I strongly agree with that.
I am curious why the OP is being so aggressive about asking people to stop posting. What other discussion would he like to see develop in this thread. Maybe if you are more specific about what you would like to talk about the thread will move in that direction.
I think most people's problem is that we have only seen one organized group. And that group is actively working to decrease the amount of hostility in the forums.
If you are calling people in 'some' organized groups terrorists, and there is only one organized group, then you de facto calling those people terrorists.
I have seen several organised groups here on these forums. I did not state that this was an organised group i was referring to. Please read the posts in question. You will see no mention of me implicating any group, organised or otherwise.
And who i am calling what is most certainly for me to determine. The people i mentioned in my OP seek to sow chaos and dissension and openly harass other posters in an effort to discourage them from attending these forums. That is terrorism of a sort, and that was the context in which i chose to use the word "terrorist". You are taking it out of context and trying to manipulate my statements to say something i have no intention of saying,nor implying.
What I asked was an honest question.
Every poster who has addressed the OP that I have seen has agreed that more moderation is needed - including myself. I strongly agree with that.
I am curious why the OP is being so aggressive about asking people to stop posting. What other discussion would he like to see develop in this thread. Maybe if you are more specific about what you would like to talk about the thread will move in that direction.
Because many of the people who were posting just came here to threadcrap. Satisfy your curiosity?
And i don't like being insulted or harassed. Do you? You seem quick to defend your comrades, yet seem pretty indifferent to people disparaging me. I am not here to spar with anyone. I would like to see discussion, not argument. I will look in on this thread, as these are pretty slow moving boards. Perhaps someone with less personal involvement will pop in and have something constructive to add. I look forward to that. Thank you to all who have replied so far , and i look forward to engaging in further discussions of the game,
This thread is proof of that. Again and again, I mention that what you said is offensive, against coc and disrespectful to the people on these boards.
It is this type of trolling and garbage that the mods need to step up and take care of.
You've proved your point and again, I agree, WotC needs to do a better job at stopping garbage from being here.
Sadly, it seems that being offended with someone calling others a very offensive and insulting name means I'm the one causing trouble.
I would also once again, ask that people here to flame/troll and or pursue some vendetta against me or my views, to cease this harassment and find some other thread to enjoy. Thank you.
As much as i hate to cave in to the demands of people who intend to disrupt my thread, i have edited the op in hopes that the complete disruption of my ability to use this forum would be negated.
These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. ...snip
No, i did not contradict myself. I said "organised" groups.
I have seen several organised groups here on these forums. I did not state that this was an organised group i was referring to. Please read the posts in question. You will see no mention of me implicating any group, organised or otherwise.
Your first quote said "group". Post 58 clarifies that you meant an organized group.
Together I am very confused as to what you mean in your last post.
I have only seen one person disparaging you and that was after an extended discussion with that person.
Again, discussion about what? Everyone other than the wizo has said they would like the mods to do more... Is there something being discussed here that I am missing? Specifics?
Okay, I'll go first. It's not the mods, but I would like to see people who brag about violating the CoC repeatedly on a regular basis banned for good.
Due to continued unmoderated harassment, the OP has had the word "terrorist" removed, even though it was used within a proper context and in no way violated the code of conduct.
I would also once again, ask that people here to flame/troll and or pursue some vendetta against me or my views, to cease this harassment and find some other thread to enjoy. Thank you.
As much as i hate to cave in to the demands of people who intend to disrupt my thread, i have edited the op in hopes that the complete disruption of my ability to use this forum would be negated.
At this point, I agree that the pot is calling the kettle black as much.
At this point, I agree that the pot is calling the kettle black as much.
No, i am being openly harassed, and the pot is trying to get the kettle to leave him alone. And please take your off topic flame posts elsewhere. I am not harassing anybody here, and i resent the implication
No, i am being openly harassed, and the pot is trying to get the kettle to leave him alone. And please take your off topic flame posts elsewhere. I am not harassing anybody here, and i resent the implication
Your tone and manner of posting at least have an 'heat'. You tease as much, from all I read.
This 'harassement gang' thing is pure provocation and newspeak.
Your first quote said "group". Post 58 clarifies that you meant an organized group.
Together I am very confused as to what you mean in your last post.
I have only seen one person disparaging you and that was after an extended discussion with that person.
Again, discussion about what? Everyone other than the wizo has said they would like the mods to do more... Is there something being discussed here that I am missing? Specifics?
Okay, I'll go first. It's not the mods, but I would like to see people who brag about violating the CoC repeatedly on a regular basis banned for good.
I have seen people openly admit to disrupting these forums.But honestly i know the person you speak of and compared to many he is quite a slacker when it comes to disruption. But i agree that IP bans in cases such as this should be swift and vigilant. I am more concerned with people who would profess to be here to help other posters, yet engage in activities just as bad if not worse than the person you mention.
No, i am being openly harassed, and the pot is trying to get the kettle to leave him alone. And please take your off topic flame posts elsewhere. I am not harassing anybody here, and i resent the implication
I have to agree. this looks like any other thread on the subject where the same 4e gang teams up on a person they think has been unfair to the new system or its fans. Uriel makes some valid points, but they are being drowned out by the deluge of negative posts.
Your tone and manner of posting at least have an 'heat'. You tease as much, from all I read.
This 'harassement gang' thing is pure provocation and newspeak.
If it is provoking anyone, they obviously are part of the group i am referring to. People who arent engaging in the activities i mentioned in my OP have no reason to be offended, nor provoked.
I have to agree. this looks like any other thread on the subject where the same 4e gang teams up on a person they think has been unfair to the new system or its fans. Uriel makes some valid points, but they are being drowned out by the deluge of negative posts.
What valid points has he made other than it would be nice to see more moderation? We all agreed with that. Is agreeing with a person now "drowning them out"?
I have to agree. this looks like any other thread on the subject where the same 4e gang teams up on a person they think has been unfair to the new system or its fans. Uriel makes some valid points, but they are being drowned out by the deluge of negative posts.
And the same anti 4e gang come and cry at 'censorship' and 'being mobbed on'. So...
What valid points has he made other than it would be nice to see more moderation? We all agreed with that. Is agreeing with a person now "drowning them out"?
I would re-read the thread if I were you. Pay closer attention to the usual suspects' word choices.
If it is provoking anyone, they obviously are part of the group i am referring to. People who arent engaging in the activities i mentioned in my OP have no reason to be offended, nor provoked.
Except that there are a lot of people here who think that you were referring to one specific group. Are you saying that people in that specific group that as you put it:
I am more concerned with people who would profess to be here to help other posters, yet engage in activities just as bad if not worse than the person you mention.
Might people in said group be offended that you accuse them of:
be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. ... driving away possible customers.
I think you are a little too focused on what you were trying to say rather than how what you actually said came out. I am not saying that you were trying to call out a specific group, but at this point it really sounds like you did, regardless of your original intent.
If it is provoking anyone, they obviously are part of the group i am referring to. People who arent engaging in the activities i mentioned in my OP have no reason to be offended, nor provoked.
Or, it could be that anyone who knows the difference between annoying people on these threads and people who kill and do worse for twisted reasons, could see that putting them together is wrong and highly offensive.
I would re-read the thread if I were you. Pay closer attention to the usual suspects' word choices.
The usual suspects made the OP's points? I'm confused.
My basic questions was what points other than increased moderation did the OP make?
Would it help if I reframed the rest of my question to be: "most people agreed with his point about moderation"?
Except that there are a lot of people here who think that you were referring to one specific group. Are you saying that people in that specific group that as you put it:
Might people in said group be offended that you accuse them of:
I think you are a little too focused on what you were trying to say rather than how what you actually said came out. I am not saying that you were trying to call out a specific group, but at this point it really sounds like you did, regarless of your original intent.
Kirsta this is exactly the kind of post I was talking about. You and crown have just teamed up on him, largely because you chose to be insulted by his words. There was no direct insult to either side in his post. As he said, if you have not been causing problems (on either side) then you shouldn't mind. Heck I have been causing problems as an anti 4e person, and I assumed he was one of the people he had in mind. Yet I took no offense. I also didn't care that he described people like me as terrorists. It was meant to be funny, and people with a sense of humor can laugh at it.
Kirsta this is exactly the kind of post I was talking about. You and crown have just teamed up on him, largely because you chose to be insulted by his words. There was no direct insult to either side in his post. As he said, if you have not been causing problems (on either side) then you shouldn't mind. Heck I have been causing problems as an anti 4e person, and I assumed he was one of the people he had in mind. Yet I took no offense. I also didn't care that he described people like me as terrorists. It was meant to be funny, and people with a sense of humor can laugh at it.
I'm still confused as to what you meant in your earlier post.
What other points did he make?
I have done nothing other than ask the OP what he meant. I didn't say anything about sides. I have even tried desperately to get the thread back on track by asking the OP directly what direction he would like the discussion to take.
Kirsta this is exactly the kind of post I was talking about. You and crown have just teamed up on him, largely because you chose to be insulted by his words. There was no direct insult to either side in his post. As he said, if you have not been causing problems (on either side) then you shouldn't mind. Heck I have been causing problems as an anti 4e person, and I assumed he was one of the people he had in mind. Yet I took no offense. I also didn't care that he described people like me as terrorists. It was meant to be funny, and people with a sense of humor can laugh at it.
It isn't funny to have someone relate anyone to people like that.
The fact that it took so long to see that is what caused the problem in the first place.
-As someone who never goes into the 4e sections, being as that I don't play that edition of the game, it is very telling. People might not want to listen, but it's certainly telling.
I'm still confused as to what you meant in your earlier post.
What other points did he make?
I have done nothing other than ask the OP what he meant. I didn't said anything about sides.
I think we crossed our wires somewhere. I was merely observing that his OP had substance. Since he was attacked he has defended himself admirably. I may have been careless in my language. The purpose of my post was to say "back off of him". He is being pig piled on by the same people who always pig pile on people. He made a point, and instead of acknowledgeing his point, people attacked him for the terrorist comparison (an obvious attempt at humor) and things equally pedantic.
It isn't funny to have someone relate anyone to people like that.
The fact that it took so long to see that is what caused the problem in the first place.
Why? Is the word off limits now because Crown hunter says so? We use that kind of language all the time when talking about people who take a subject too far (extremist, fanatic, terrorist, etc). He obviously didn't mean it literally. You cannot read his post and think he was honestly equating anyone with a terrorist. It was hyperbolic, and well played at that. The fact that people reacted so aggresively is very telling.
I think we crossed our wires somewhere. I was merely observing that his OP had substance. Since he was attacked he has defended himself admirably. I may have been careless in my language. The purpose of my post was to say "back off of him". He is being pig piled on by the same people who always pig pile on people. He made a point, and instead of acknowledgeing his point, people attacked him for the terrorist comparison (an obvious attempt at humor) and things equally pedantic.
Apparently we did cross wires... I thought you were trying to say that there was something else that we should currently be discussing based on the OP.
My only response is:
1)I think everybody, at least the vast majority, who posted first acknowledged his major point about moderation.
2)It wasn't an obvious attempt at humor if most people missed it. It may have been an attempt at humor, but why did he defend it for so long and not clarify it as such?
-I didn't find it humorous. See the definition of terrorism. The actual definition. Not all terrorists are gun-toting, car-bombing lunatics.
Terrorism is a widely defined term, depending on which terrorism expert you consult. There are many definitions. Can you provide the one you had in mind? Also are you offended by the OPs use of the term, mine or crownhunters?
-The responses in this thread make me go:
-As someone who never goes into the 4e sections, being as that I don't play that edition of the game, it is very telling. People might not want to listen, but it's certainly telling.
Telling of what, exactly?
Terrorism is a widely defined term, depending on which terrorism expert you consult. There are many definitions. Can you provide the one you had in mind? Also are you offended by the OPs use of the term, mine or crownhunters?
-I elaborated my post via an edit.
-And, I was offended by nobody. I didn't think it an attempt at humor, but nor did I think it was the best term to use, either (in an intellectual, definition of what's going on sort of way).
Telling of what, exactly?
-That the same people bicker back and forth, accusing each other of this and that, all while everyone acts hypocritical and cliquish. Everyone needs to get their acts together, not just X, Y, and Z.
http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
-I didn't find it humorous. See the definition of terrorism. The actual definition. Not all terrorists are gun-toting, car-bombing lunatics. A poor choice of words, I think, but those who engage in activities to coerce others to follow their own personal opinions through campaigns of threats and all of that are engaging in terrorism. And, the OP things that individuals are engaging in activities to coerce others to follow their own personal opinions through campaigns of threats. I, personally, don't think it has very much room to stand on on it's own, but...
I don't think it is any more offensive than saying your a 4e avenger, commando or what have you. I think people are just looking to be offended by something.
I don't think it is any more offensive than saying your a 4e avenger, commando or what have you. I think people are just looking to be offended by something.
In your opinion.
Now that this issue has been resolved, lets stop derailing the thread and get back to the subject at hand, shall we?
Seems I posted before the site went down... look away, nothing to see here...
Baiting should be avoided by all posters and reported just the same as flaming. In addition you should try not to take the bait. The point of baiting is to get a negative response.
Trolling the same baiting. Don't respond negatively or preferably not at all.
And of course remember the two wrongs fallacy. Just because it has been done to you doesn't make it right to respond in kind.
I suggest that people read this: [post=15679705]How to be a Responsible forum member[/post], by mudbunny
This should help IDing trolls:Troll Guide: The Return
[url=ht
This should help IDing trolls:Troll Guide: The Return
While I appreciate the attempt to catalog trolls, I don't think the martialist is the man for the job. That guy gets trolled by real martial artists for a reason.
We know now that reporting things we see is the best way to help the Forums, but what else can we do?
Looking for suggestions and ideas, that's all.
We know now that reporting things we see is the best way to help the Forums, but what else can we do?
Don't take the bait. Don't respond to a troll. Post about the topic and not the poster.
That's a pretty good "short" list.
We know now that reporting things we see is the best way to help the Forums, but what else can we do?
Looking for suggestions and ideas, that's all.
-That people stop being
s.-That people stop being
Okay, now aside from the fact that we can't dictate people's behavior, how would we go about doing this?
I would also ask that if you do not wish to contribute anything civil or useful to the discussion, that you at least stop flaming/disrupting my thread.
It's not your thread.
Okay, now aside from the fact that we can't dictate people's behavior, how would we go about doing this?
You're correct -- you can only control your own behavior. So let's put it all together.
1) When you see something that you think violates the CoC, report it. Give a good, strong description of the problem to make it as easy as possible for the mod responding to deal with the problem.
2) Don't feed the trolls. They want you to reply. They want you to respond to their idiocy. Don't. They'll get bored and go away if they don't get fed.
3) Don't take the bait. By all means, engage in interesting discussions. But if you find your temperature rising because somebody posted something so outrageously wrong, take a step back and think before you respond. Maybe that person wanted to get you riled up.
4) Do your best to respond to the post, not to the poster. "Zherog, you're ideas are wrong, and here's why -- blah blah blah" is OK. You're talking about my ideas. "Zherog, you're a
moron for thinking like that, and here's why -- blah blah blah" is not OK. You're talking about me rather than my ideas.Those are all a good start. You definitely can't directly change the way somebody else posts (though you can have an indirect effect). But you can absolutely change the way you (generic, not anybody particular) post.
Okay, now aside from the fact that we can't dictate people's behavior, how would we go about doing this?
I would suggest that individuals be aware when they are ganging up on a single poster. I have dished out my share of venom here, but I always make avoid entering a pig pile. If someone is being flamed to two or more posters, don't get involved. Or come to the posters defense...even if you disagree with that poster.
-That people stop being
Easier said than done and you know that very well, maître Karsus.I would suggest that individuals be aware when they are ganging up on a single poster. I have dished out my share of venom here, but I always make avoid entering a pig pile. If someone is being flamed to two or more posters, don't get involved. Or come to the posters defense...even if you disagree with that poster.
I disagree. If somebody is getting flamed, report the posts that contain flames.
Hey saying that didn't even leave a bad taste in my mouth, oh wait there it is.... ;)
If the forums are like this now, so long after release of the new edition, what does the future hold? It doesn't seem very bright.
I personally would like to see draconian enforcement of the coc. And maybe even a few new additions to it, like insta-bans for people who continually abuse the report function.
And if anyone believes that i find people who disrupt internet forums and people who kill and maim over some misguided sense of what is right to be one and the same.... well you are either very naieve or just trying to find fault. That IS hyperbole personified.
Some official word would be nice...what does Wizards intend to do about the matter at hand? Or is this the way they want their company to be represented to the public?
All for what seems to be nothing more than the constant desire for an opportunity to stoke up some righteous indignation and lash out for the heck of it.
-Indeed, as evidence by people taking offense before the OP even clarified him/herself, as to who he/she is/was actually talking about. Like I said earlier, it's funny to see everyone claiming to be victimized.
I personally would like to see draconian enforcement of the coc. And maybe even a few new additions to it, like insta-bans for people who continually abuse the report function.
-No, you can't do that. Some people might genuinely feel upset by something that they perceive is baiting, that isn't actually baiting. That's why you can report something as much as you want, but in the end, the WizO has the final say.
I personally would like to see draconian enforcement of the coc. And maybe even a few new additions to it, like insta-bans for people who continually abuse the report function.
Wow, bans for people who report CoC violations? How does the CoC get enforced then?
I've found respect is a two way street, show some respect if you wish others to show you some respect.
There is no way I can post anything to change the way others post, A jerk is a jerk. But if your concerned about the hostile behavior found on these boards (and I believe people lurk arround here to demonstrate there intellectual superiority over you other fools;) ), then take control of your own behavior, because that's where it starts. You can't blame the moderators, there only human, at least I think so (a part of me believes there all just pickled brains in jars). The WotC message board community is hostile, you want it to change then start with yourself.
Here are somethings I'm trying to do to be a better community member;
Avoid trolls, there easy to spot. Trolls are obnoxious and beligerent and looking for a fight. You don't want to fight avoid them. Point them out at ask others to avoid them.
Avoid baiting. If someone post something that feels like a personal jab against you (or your type, group, edition, sexual preference), it probably is, don't respond. People (trolls more exactly) are looking for a confrontation.
Don't take it personal. That's easy for me, because I don't personally know any of you, I think. Really if someone makes a personal jab on these boards about my gaming, intellegence or stature, it's a laughable, desperate attempt at attention.
Respond to those posts which you find respectful. Respond respectfully. Go ahead just try it, post something nice about anothers post. Thank others for friendly advice.
Jerks and Bullies are always going to be arround. The wonderful thing about the internet and message boards is you can ignore them. It's not a play ground were the bullies are in your face and there is no where to go.
Ignore the flamers and they will have nothing to burn.
If your on these message boards then you're a part of the community. You want it changed, start with changing the way you participate with the others in the community. Stop pointing fingers at others and the moderators, we're the community, if it is hostile then we make it so.
This threat that i speak of could bring stagnation and decay upon my favorite game. No one group should be able to disrupt these forums to the degree that i have seen in recent weeks/months.
The best thing to do, then, is report the 'groups' activity's when you see them.
Especially since Wotc puts so much stock into some of the stuff that is posted here. And i think that is a hideous mistake.
They and many, many fans disagree.
If the forums are like this now, so long after release of the new edition, what does the future hold? It doesn't seem very bright.
It has only been a few months...
I personally would like to see draconian enforcement of the coc. And maybe even a few new additions to it, like insta-bans for people who continually abuse the report function.
This would encourage posters not to report so called gang activity or anything else against the coc... a little counter-intuitive to your original intent.
And if anyone believes that i find people who disrupt Internet forums and people who kill and maim over some misguided sense of what is right to be one and the same.... well you are either very naieve or just trying to find fault. That IS hyperbole personified.
Or they felt that the way you posted was inflammatory and degrading to other posters, which is against the coc.
Some official word would be nice...what does Wizards intend to do about the matter at hand? Or is this the way they want their company to be represented to the public?
Maybe if you were to explain via email, snail-mail or here on the boards, what this group is doing (in detail) and how it is effecting gamers, they might be able to take action.
Not reporting, or getting in trouble for doing so, is not the best way to handle things.
Avenger or not it's still stupid.
You guys don't deserve that kind of thing anymore than we do.
I'm glad you got a quick response and it got taken care of.
Well, you're right that we don't deserve that sort of thing. That's just sad.
Well, you're right that we don't deserve that sort of thing.
Implying that those who feel differently than you do deserve it. Real nice.
That's just sad.
You're right about that, at least.
Implying that those who feel differently than you do deserve it. Real nice.
You're right about that, at least.
I do think the 4E Avengers are being a tad bit hypocritical though. And to be fair the anti 4e crowd is getting slammed harder by them, than vice versa.
I do think the 4E Avengers are being a tad bit hypocritical though.
How? The Avengers are the ones who said that the pro-4E posters in the previous editions forums were right to have their posts deleted, and possibly even to be banned.
And to be fair the anti 4e crowd is getting slammed harder by them, than vice versa.
That's not fair. That's just confirmation bias.
That's not fair. That's just confirmation bias.
Do you guys read from the same script. It isn't confirmation bias. It is simple math. There are more 4e avengers than anti 4e rebels. Look at any thread where this sort of thing happens.
It is simple math. There are more 4e avengers than anti 4e rebels.
I didn't realize you measure getting "slammed harder" as a function of who has fewer concurring opinions in a thread.
Usually "slammed harder" is considered a measurement of the amount of vitriol being put out in a thread and that is a subjective determination that is subject to confirmation bias.
The mere fact that most people in the General Discussion board is pro-4E is neither surprising nor a matter for concern, particularly when there is another General Discussion board for fans of Previous Editions, where the pro-4E folks would certainly be outnumbered, as would be appropriate.
As for the "you guys" I am certainly not a member of any pro-4E group. The forum of which I am Forum Lead is open to fans of all editions and although I run the 4th edition Expert DM Competitions, I also coordinated the Third Edition Master DM Competitions, and I recently placed third in the 3rd Edition Hero Craftsman Competition on the Player Advice board. Just because I disagree with your perceptions of the General Discussion board, please do not assume I can be pigonholed with other "guys".
Do you guys read from the same script. It isn't confirmation bias. It is simple math. There are more 4e avengers than anti 4e rebels. Look at any thread where this sort of thing happens. It is always Batshido/Crownhunter and co leading the charge against the lone 4e hater.
Do the numbers mean more than the tone of the posts?
Also do you misspell his name on purpose? I know we have discussed spelling before... but I have never seen you spell this name correctly... and you always use the exact same misspelling.
Do you guys read from the same script. It isn't confirmation bias. It is simple math. There are more 4e avengers than anti 4e rebels. Look at any thread where this sort of thing happens.
So your notion of "getting slammed" means having lots of people disagree with you?
If I hop over to the Maple Story boards to evangelize about WoW or tell people how childish and incomplete Maple Story is "in my opinion", I should expect disagreement at the very least. People have every right to address complaints and criticisms about their hobbies and choices. The perceived legitimacy of one position ("But it *really does* suck and I *really do* hate it!") doesn't invalidate other positions.
If you don't want people to tell you you're wrong, post your ideas some place that gives you the response you want.
If you don't want people to tell you you're wrong, post your ideas some place that gives you the response you want.
I'm sure if she really wanted this, she'd have left by now.
If you don't want people to tell you you're wrong, post your ideas some place that gives you the response you want.
One of the truest things i have ever read.
One of the truest things i have ever read.
You could just talk to yourself...
I think the civility level could be higher. Even in non contested threads i often see peple outright trying to smear or tear people down. And while many of these posts are within the coc they certainly violate the spirit of community. I guess that is the thing..you can't make anybody be nice, but you can control what YOU say. I have certainly become more tolerant of other peoples viewpoints.
You could just talk to yourself...
I think the civility level could be higher. Even in non contested threads i often see peple outright trying to smear or tear people down. And while many of these posts are within the coc they certainly violate the spirit of community. I guess that is the thing..you can't make anybody be nice, but you can control what YOU say. I have certainly become more tolerant of other peoples viewpoints.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, as long as they are willing to discuss our different view points. I have had some very constructive conversations with people who don't agree with me, even people that other "Avengers" have labeled trolls.
Edit: I would also like to add that you are absolutely right about only being able to control what you say, and I too have become more tolerant of other peoples viewpoints, but there is also a point where thread hijacking does make me angry, but as of last night i have vowed to try not to reply to the trolls and drive by character assassins and jsut report them, and i hope that other follow my lead.
So your notion of "getting slammed" means having lots of people disagree with you?
If I hop over to the Maple Story boards to evangelize about WoW or tell people how childish and incomplete Maple Story is "in my opinion", I should expect disagreement at the very least. People have every right to address complaints and criticisms about their hobbies and choices. The perceived legitimacy of one position ("But it *really does* suck and I *really do* hate it!") doesn't invalidate other positions.
If you don't want people to tell you you're wrong, post your ideas some place that gives you the response you want.
Yes. I would say getting ganged up on by hostile posters is getting slammed.
This is a board for people who play 4e. And people with ocmplaints about the system, or who feel differently about it, should be treated with civility. From what I can tell, the same group of posters rushes to any forum (as if they are communicating about it through PM) to any thread they deem offensiive to 4e.
It is one thing to disagree. It is another thing entirely to orchestrate pig piles on posters with a particular point of veiw.
Yes. I would say getting ganged up on by hostile posters is getting slammed.
This is a board for people who play 4e. And people with ocmplaints about the system, or who feel differently about it, should be treated with civility.
Civility is independent of the number of people who disagree. If someone is being incivil, report the post. If a lot of people disagree with a poster in a civil manner, that's not getting ganged up upon. That's just what happens when you post an opinion in a public forum populated by more than two people.
From what I can tell, the same group of posters rushes to any forum (as if they are communicating about it through PM) to any thread they deem offensiive to 4e
Confirmation bias. It's more likely lots of people independently review the D&D boards and post topics of interest to them.
It is one thing to disagree. It is another thing entirely to orchestrate pig piles
You think it requires coordination for multiple people to scan the D&D boards for threads discussing 4E? Really? This couldn't simply be multiple people with similar interests? It has to have sinister undertones?
Confirmation bias. It's more likely lots of people independently review the D&D boards and post topics of interest to them.
You think it requires coordination for multiple people to scan the D&D boards for threads discussing 4E? Really? This couldn't simply be multiple people with similar interests? It has to have sinister undertones?
Actually they have been anything but civil. Lots of hostile posts and questioning peoples' credibility.
They all have similar "statements" in their sigs, which implies they are connected to one another somehow. I have been on boards long enough to know how it works.
Actually they have been anything but civil. Lots of hostile posts and questioning peoples' credibility.
Does using the term "confirmation bias" automatically make you intelligent or something around here?
They all have similar "statements" in their sigs, which implies they are connected to one another somehow. I have been on boards long enough to know how it works.
Is it possible that the "statements" you refer to are from this thread? Maybe the connection is out in the open for everyone to see and read any interactions between said posters?
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1062422&highlight=posting+groups+heroes
Is it also possible that some of these same posters just post a lot? On threads about D&D in general? Maybe you are only looking at certain threads and therefore only see them there?
Also do you misspell his name on purpose? I know we have discussed spelling before... but I have never seen you spell this name correctly... and you always use the exact same misspelling.
It is entirely by accident. As I mentioned before, I have dyslexia. This is a classic example of how it tends to manifest.
Actually they have been anything but civil. Lots of hostile posts and questioning peoples' credibility.
Yes, on both sides.
I have a challenge for you. Try posting for a couple of days without being confrontational. I am quite positive you'll see a huge difference in how people react to you.
Yes. I would say getting ganged up on by hostile posters is getting slammed.
This is turning silly. Should we have a conspiracy newsletter so we can designate one "avenger" per "rebel" as an official debate opponent?
Posting your opinions on the internet opens them to criticism from anyone.
This is a board for people who play 4e. And people with ocmplaints about the system, or who feel differently about it, should be treated with civility. From what I can tell, the same group of posters rushes to any forum (as if they are communicating about it through PM) to any thread they deem offensiive to 4e.
This is a board for people who play 4e. And people with happy thoughts about the system, or who have questions about how to make it even more 4wesome, should be treated with civility. From what I can tell, the same group of posters rushes to any forum (as if they are communicating about it through PM) to any thread they deem laudatory of 4e.
It works both ways.
It is one thing to disagree. It is another thing entirely to orchestrate pig piles on posters with a particular point of veiw.
Why don't we imagine what would happen if I created an account with a current month join date, a signature that calls 3e a munchkin paradise for number-bound roll-players and has some cute slogan like "Pathfinder RPG: Picking the Corpse of 3e Clean!", and post in every third thread in Previous Editions General with a thinly disguised version of my endless rant about how 3e is Diablo or 3e skills inhibit roleplay or 3e spells are uncreative?*
Do you think it would take any orchestration at all for people to instantly label me a troll and report every post I made that so much as hinted at a CoC infraction? It's pretty clear that such a course of action, even if (and this is very important) I believed I was right and needed to be heard, would properly earn me the hate, disgust, pity, condescension, or (with luck) permanent ignore-listing of a great many people. It doesn't take a conspiracy for people to get irritated.
*EDIT: Just to be crystal clear, I don't actually think those things. This is a "what not to do."
I am a very casual poster on these boards. I don't *live* here all day long. Still, the childness has gotten out of hand, even at a glance. In the past few days, I've seen thread crapping, fights, utter nonsense. Far as I can tell, the outright hostility is just between a few posters (divided into groups, the proverbial "mobs"). I know who to avoid and I don't engage in fights, but still the negativity is affecting me.
I'm going to be honest: I am ashamed to call myself a member of this community. These boards are the only ones I frequent with any regularity. I used to enjoy my time here; not so much any more. Too many topics have been needlessly derailed for my tastes. I don't come here for that.
I love D&D, I enjoy talking about D&D, but I'm gonna have to find another community for my own peace of mind. This is one of the most active communities I know, so I'm gonna miss that aspect; hope I can find another to suit me.
This has never been so much a community as one half art studio, on half gladiator pit. In fact, a lot more work was put in the the mods back in the day to prevent any sort of community feeling to grow. Then again, now there's NO work being put in at all, but that's a different question.
But it's kind of a mistake to assert the level of discourse around here was ever anything better than hovering *ever so slightly* above rpg.net. The only difference between right now and pre-ed war is that people used to try and be clever about it. Now it's all internet memes and repeating the same thing ad nauseam.
Actually they have been anything but civil.
Then report it. The volume is irrelevant if the posts get deleted, which they will if you are able to explain to the WizOs why the post in question is incivil.
Actually they have been anything but civil. Lots of hostile posts and questioning peoples' credibility.
This can (not saying is, so we don't get another misrepresentation of what I'm saying) be do to the fact that you tend to read nefarious intent into many people's posts on these boards.
They all have similar "statements" in their sigs, which implies they are connected to one another somehow. I have been on boards long enough to know how it works.
...We have a hot-line, IM windows and alert signals to warn us of incoming trolling...
Not really... personally, I look around these boards, answer questions in a number of sections and try to dispel misinformation that I see.
Yes. I would say getting ganged up on by hostile posters is getting slammed.
I say looking to avoid it (ie; don't dish what you don't want) is the best way you can go about not feeling picked on.
This is a board for people who play 4e. And people with ocmplaints about the system, or who feel differently about it, should be treated with civility. From what I can tell, the same group of posters rushes to any forum (as if they are communicating about it through PM) to any thread they deem offensiive to 4e.
I tend to notice when someone goes out of their way to insult, disparage, trash-talk and threaten people, it makes it hard to remain 'civil' with them. Being civil is a two way street. (note; attacking people's character day after day is not, IMHO, a very civil thing to do).
It is one thing to disagree. It is another thing entirely to orchestrate pig piles on posters with a particular point of veiw.
lol... I hope you don't honestly believe people 'orchestrate pig piles' against others on these boards just for kicks. That would be sad.
And in regards of my earlier statement about WOTC putting to much stock into the posts on this message board, this is a tiny tiny sliver of the rpg population here. Basing any kind of design decision on the content here is misguided and short sighted. I think more footwork and interaction with local gamer hangouts would better help them understand what customers REALLY want. There is too much "me too" and pressure to conform to others pre-packaged views here for such data to be worth jack-diddly.
I don't think anyone is going out of their way to spread "disinformation" about 4th edition.
It happens, far too much if you ask me.
Maybe dissatisfaction. Statements like '4TH EDITION LIMITS ROLEPLAY" or other such commonly attacked points of view are largely matters of taste and opinion.
Agreed, but when people say these things and state them as facts, it does nothing but cause contention in these forums.
So largely it sounds like the "mission" some people are on is to go around and "confront" people with differing points of view, which seems to border on trolling if you ask me.
I see no mission to 'confront' people anywhere on these boards... could you explain where this line of thinking is coming from?
And in regards of my earlier statement about WOTC putting to much stock into the posts on this message board, this is a tiny tiny sliver of the rpg population here. Basing any kind of design decision on the content here is misguided and short sighted.
lol. If this was the only place they came to for information on how players feel about their game, I'd agree.
I think more footwork and interaction with local gamer hangouts would better help them understand what customers REALLY want.
...Cons, playtests, reports from everything they do with gamers all go into the pot. They do get what we REALLY want from other sources aside from these forums.
There is too much "me too" and pressure to conform to others pre-packaged views here for such data to be worth jack-diddly.
Seeing as they have no need to conform to anything from a minority group, I won't comment.
Agreed, but when people say these things and state them as facts, it does nothing but cause contention in these forums.
-And, the onus of responsibility falls on those reading those statements, to not act in an uncivil manner. That's where "change" starts.
I don't think anyone is going out of their way to spread "disinformation" about 4th edition.
I think that's confirmation bias. People who dislike 4th tend to overlook or forget when other posters are misrepresenting 4th (or tend to look at their posts in the most favorabe light possible). People who like 4th tend to overlook or forget when other posters are being insulting to people with ligitimate questions or dissatisfactions (or tend to look at their posts in the most favorable light possible)
And in regards of my earlier statement about WOTC putting to much stock into the posts on this message board
I missed this statement, but rest assured, Wizards doesn't put a lot of stock in these message boards.
I don't think anyone is going out of their way to spread "disinformation" about 4th edition.
I agree that most people (okay maybe all except one) are not going out of their way to spread disinformation. That doesn't mean they aren't doing it by accident or conveniently neglecting to mention the parts that don't support their arguments.
For example (I'm pretty sure this one is just an accident):
4th edition doesn't have warlocks
14 PAGES OF PURE SUCK!
Very constructive...
Really, I understand we can all do better to make this a friendly environment, but when we're asking for peace in one thread and craping in another... it doesn't look good.
These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will. I find this very disturbing as these forums seem to degenerate to a lower level on a daily basis. I have seen several posters cowed/driven away by this group and i think that is bad for business. This has become a very unpleasant place to visit and i suspect i am not the only one who feels this way...
I would ask that the moderators and cm step in and moderate these boards a little more aggressively to deter "gang activity" and mob rule, which seems to have taken hold. I need not name this group, i only ask that Wotc better police their forums and reign in this group of violators of the code of conduct driving away possible customers. I have seen many people who probably walked away from these forums with a negative view of this company, its products, and their "fans".
Please take action before it is too late.
My apologies if a similar sentiment has been posted elsewhere... I just don't have the patience to read through 6 pages of posts...
This is a passing trend. Those of us who have been forum members for a long time remember what the boards were like upon the release of 3E (and to a lesser extent, the 3.5E release).
After the release of 3E, when this message board was in it's infancy, it was practically like the "Wild West" in here! Flaming, bullying, mob mentality, and trolling was the order of the day. I can still remember some of the "sorcerers are broken, let's fix them!" threads that generally spiraled into a flame wars and lockdowns. It got so bad that I actually left this message board entirely for a year: No posts, no reads, no lurking, NOTHING.
By the time I can back, the new edition surge had diminished, people started posting intelligently again, the trollers were banned (or gave up), and the moderators kept a handle on things. It was quite the contrast! Night and Day.
So, basically, only time can solve this problem. It's happened before, It's happening now, and it will happen again. All you can do is grit your teeth and wait it out.
That being said, this time it may last a little longer than before. Posters are now more message-board savvy than they were eight years ago... they inherently know how to toe the line between expressing an opinion and flaming (for indeed, many posters grew-up learning how). Expression and implication via text on the internet is a refined art-form these days. On the other hand, attention spans are generally shorter than they were years ago... so this could all end in a heartbeat once the "next big thing" in RPG gaming comes out.
It's interesting to see how positive behavior can impact a thread...
Very constructive...
Really, I understand we can all do better to make this a friendly environment, but when we're asking for peace in one thread and craping in another... it doesn't look good.
Whatever ,a 14 page thread downing my favorite game is just what i stated it to be. Take from it what you will. That thread really has some self important people in it spreading "disinformation" about 3.5. And as far as you seem to be going out of your way to discredit me..good luck. Roll your eyes all you want. Your no angel yourself....you've never violated the coc or said some things that could be construed as hostile?
Whatever ,a 14 page thread downing my favorite game is just what i stated it to be. Take from it what you will.
I take it as you going onto a thread and making an off-topic (inflammatory) post because you disagree... that is what happened, right? Advocating to get mods to step up for this type of thing and then doing it for any reason is counter productive to your goals, yes?
That thread really has some self important people in it spreading "disinformation" about 3.5.
Baseless accusations.... again... do you mind backing up these claims?
And as far as you seem to be going out of your way to discredit me..good luck.
You seem to be doing a fine job on your own.
Roll your eyes all you want. Your no angel yourself....you've never violated the coc or said some things that could be construed as hostile?
I've also never posted a thread crying wolf against people with opposing views or went through threads, say all 14 pages of it, just to pipe in and leave a little love... like saying (14 PAGES OF SUCK!)... or anything.
I especially wouldn't do that if I was complaining about other people's posting habits.
Whatever ,a 14 page thread downing my favorite game is just what i stated it to be. Take from it what you will. That thread really has some self important people in it spreading "disinformation" about 3.5. And as far as you seem to be going out of your way to discredit me..good luck. Roll your eyes all you want. Your no angel yourself....you've never violated the coc or said some things that could be construed as hostile?
1). The underlined part is poisoning the well. Even if correct it has no impact on whether the statement is correct.
2). This whole statement appears to be a tu quoque. Even assuming what you stated was true is isn't an excuse for bad behavior.
If someone does spread disinformation about 3rd by all means point it out. Just raise above what you think the other side is doing and lead by example. If both sides of the debate do this things will improve greatly across the board.
[edit]
I read over the thread in question. About half of it is discussing the differences between 4th and 3rd especially on skills. There are a few posts of 3rd stuff that could be considered "disinformation", but they are mainly opinion based and are an extreme minority. I did find this nice quote though.
and here we find the very crux of the edition wars (in my opinion) this is where we should agree to disagree. We obviously have very different styles when it comes to our games. Neither is necessarily wrong, it is just 3.5 is better fit for your gaming style and 4th ed is better for mine.
They either left or got banned yesterday for their behavior, but I was wondering if I needed to do anything about the accusation?
So... someone just tried to say I'm a sockpuppet for them (in hopes that I get banned, I imagin)...
They either left or got banned yesterday for their behavior, but I was wondering if I needed to do anything about the accusation?
-There's nothing you can do now. I'm assuming that the post was erased. You would have need to provide documentation when contacting CustServ. Did you take a screen shot of it?
I know I quoted it.... and yeah it's gone.
My quote is still there though.
[post=16500747]Here[/post]
Edit; I just want to make sure they (WotC mods) know that I am not the same user...
I know I quoted it.... and yeah it's gone.
My quote is still there though.
[post=16500747]Here[/post]
Edit; I just want to make sure they (WotC mods) know that I am not the same person...
They can see IP addresses, which should be the very first thing they would check when investigating a claim of sock puppetry.
Thanks, I really don't want to be banned because somebody decided to be cute and then trash people.
*checks*...
I know I quoted it.... and yeah it's gone.
My quote is still there though.
[post=16500747]Here[/post]
Edit; I just want to make sure they (WotC mods) know that I am not the same user...
-Take a screenshot of that, then, and report him to CustServ. Not that it'll really do anything, but...
-Take a screenshot of that, then, and report him to CustServ. Not that it'll really do anything, but...
lol, okay. Thanks LK, he lucked out yesterday... damn forums went down before I could do anything about it.
And whoever was trying to impersonate you certainly needs to find a hobby. I am sure Wizo's are smart enought to ban the offending users post,although i have seen such mistakes made in chatrooms.
I really would apologise for my comment in that other thread, because what i said wasn't very constructive but it is hard to maintain your composure when people needlessly try to trash 3.5 like someone is going to pull up to their house and make them play it.
And i heard that many powers were changed/deleted completely when the online outcry went up. I believe that, and it is alarming.
My OP still stands. I still oppose the group i mentioned for many reasons. Nothing i can say or do right or wrong, invalidates my claim. Thank you.
And have an awesome day!Uriel: I agree with the premise of your original post. I, too, think the negativity here (on both sides) has done quite a lot of damage.
Sadly, the "With us or against us" mentality is a big part of that. I got tired of people looking for ways to interpret my posts as rants directed personally at them, so I sought conversation elsewhere.
There are a lot of reasonable folks here; there are also a lot who are bound and determined to have someone to hate.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
These forums seem to be overrun by an aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will.
Indeed. Most of the people you are taking issue with aren't in this group, however. You might want to take a closer look at some of the people supporting your cause, and then examine your own contributions to threads as well.
Indeed. Most of the people you are taking issue with aren't in this group, however.
Which group are you speaking of when you say "this group"? The origional post of this thread, which you are quoting, does not specify a group.
You might want to take a closer look at some of the people supporting your cause, and then examine your own contributions to threads as well.
If you are going to imply that the OP is guilty of the mob mentality posting he is denouncing as a way to damage his credibility, you need to have grounds for saying such.
Which group are you speaking of when you say "this group"? The origional post of this thread, which you are quoting, does not specify a group.
Actually, it does:
aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will
And as I stated, most of the people he is arguing with in this thread are not part of that group.
If you are going to imply that the OP is guilty of the mob mentality posting he is denouncing as a way to damage his credibility, you need to have grounds for saying such.
If his credibility is being damaged, it is he who is doing it, not I.
And i heard that many powers were changed/deleted completely when the online outcry went up. I believe that, and it is alarming.
...I'm not sure what you're talking about here...?
...I'm not sure what you're talking about here...?
I think he is referring to things like Dragon Blade Cut and whatever the feat was for wizards that gave them boni to ice and acid effects (cant remember the name just now) that ended up as "Sir not appearing in this edition".
Actually, it does:
Yet he did not specify a group. He merely outlined behaviour. Go to page 3 and read Toa's post. He says it rather well, and I agree with him.
If his credibility is being damaged, it is he who is doing it, not I.
I do not see his credibility as being damaged at all, but I do see your post as an attempt to do so. If this is not your intent, then kindly do not imply things about him that are only likely to provoke a negative reaction from him. You have no grounds for your suggestion that he is the kind of poster he is talking about.
Know your audience.
Personally, I don't care for a lot of things that Paizo is doing with Pathfinder. I have told them as much in a respectful email documenting my playtesting experiences. There are other things that I do like, but overall, I don't like it any better than the established 3.5 library. When I post on Paizo's message boards, I would never concentrate on the negative aspects of my playtest experience. If I mention them at all it is within the context of my own experiences with the game and as a part of a larger discussion that seeks to address and solve specific problems that I might have. If I were to post "Paizo sucks and Pathfinder kills puppies" on their boards I would fully expect to be publicly shamed and kicked off of their message boards. That's the nature of the internet. People who act like jerks are treated like jerks and neither party feels any real remorse.
Personally, I would love to see the moderation on these boards crack down a bit harder on people who post nothing more than "4e sucks" or "3.5 is better than 4e". Statements like that are trolling for a negative response. If you plan on playing 4e, and are looking to address specific concerns, by all means... post away. I'd love to deconstruct the game and look for solutions. We used to do that with 3.5 all the time, and no one ever took issue. But if you're just going to whine that 4e isn't 3.5 and how you'll never ever play 4e because it was created by the devil himself, then you deserve what you get.
Yet he did not specify a group. He merely outlined behaviour. Go to page 3 and read Toa's post. He says it rather well, and I agree with him.
Yes, he did. He specified this group:
aggressive group of posters who seem to be able to insult, flame, and harass at will
This refers to a group of people who, regardless of what edition they support, are just posting to cause more strife. Most of the people he has since been arguing with in this thread are not part of that group.
I do not see his credibility as being damaged at all, but I do see your post as an attempt to do so. If this is not your intent, then kindly do not imply things about him that are only likely to provoke a negative reaction from him. You have no grounds for your suggestion that he is the kind of poster he is talking about.
If he is going to judge the behaviour of others, as he has throughout this thread, then he is opening up his behaviour to be judged as well.
Also, why is it acceptable to you that he implies negative things about certain people, as he did in the original version of his first post and has done repeatedly since then, and yet it is not acceptable to you when I do so?
Opinions are like *expletive deleted*, everybody has one. Post yours on an internet message board and people will post theirs in response, which very well might disagree with yours. Particularly if you post that you don't like a particular game on the forums dedicated to that game. Add in some agression or passive agression, and you get the same in response. If people are behaving agressively or passive agressively in general, people will respond agressively to almost everything that gets posted there. Its one of the reasons it is suggested to lurk in a forum for a little while before posting there.
IMO, we hear complaints like this a lot, and it really sounds that people get upset because they post their opinion and the majority of responses emphatically disagree with them. They think they are of the "correct" opinion, and get upset when most people disagree with them. That is the chance you take when posting an opinion.
The forums don't owe it to you to agree with whatever you say, and disagreeing with you in a spirited fashion is not harassment.
The forums don't owe it to you to agree with whatever you say, and disagreeing with you in a spirited fashion is not harassment.
-When/if it's the same person/group pf persons doing it over and over, regardless of the circumstances of the post, yes, yes it is. Mind you, I have no idea if that actually happens, being as that I don't use the 4e section of the boards, but...
The 'supposed' sockpuppet of the person that tried to get me banned is online right now. Should I report his post and link it to where he said it was a sockpuppet of his?
There are against the coc, right?
You can, of course, report the user if they flame, bait, troll, spam, and so on. In that instance, it doesn't matter if it's a sock puppet or not; just report the action. If it gets to the point where the user's account gets banned because of multiple infractions, the ban applies to all the user's accounts, not just the one that received the warning. In addition, it's my understanding that multiple accounts can't be used to get more warns before a banning -- if I get a warning on one of my MuPs, for example, it counts as a warning on all my accounts.
And I'm aware of the differences between a MuP and sock puppet.
I'm pretty sure that's sufficient for krownhunter to report him and expect some sort fo official action.
If you can demonstrate that Poster X has admitted to being a new name for a previously banned account, then yes -- you should report that post. As always, provide as much information as possible when you report the post. The more info you provide, the easier it is for Customer Service to deal with the problem.
Do not impersonate other persons, including members or Wizards of the Coast staff, by screen name or self-representation, or attempt to obtain sensitive information from other members. For example:
* Falsely claim an official title or to hold position relating to the Site
* Falsely claim the representation of another business or website
* Fake an existing member’s screen name by using similar-looking characters
* "Spoof" or "emote" another member’s text in a chat room
* Falsely claim to be a law enforcement officer
* Solicit passwords or personal information from other members
Basically, it's against the rules for somebody to make a new account and claim to be a MuP or sock puppet of yours (or any other user).
It's my understanding it's always been allowed -- you just weren't permitted to make any link at all between your new account and old account.
This is true and this is one of the biggest problems on this forum and has been for a long, long time. There's honestly no reason to have this rule other than an act of self sabotage. Which is odd, because this showed up before the powers that be started actively sabotaging the boards.
This is true and this is one of the biggest problems on this forum and has been for a long, long time. There's honestly no reason to have this rule other than an act of self sabotage. Which is odd, because this showed up before the powers that be started actively sabotaging the boards.
I can see how it would make it possible for someone who made an honest mistake to come back and try again. However, since it seems to take a lot of bans for someone to get banned for good, I don't see how that would really be an issue.
I have a question, is there a record of posts that were deleted anywhere? What is krownhunter supposed to report? The post where the poster in question named his sockpuppet was deleted. Unless the same Wizo that happened to delete that post, and remembers it, gets the report won't it just look like one person complaining about another? Don't those usually get ignored?
I have a question, is there a record of posts that were deleted anywhere?
In vBulletin, when a post is deleted it's not really deleted; instead, it's just hidden from view from "regular" users. Anybody in the moderator or administrator groups can see that the post is there, and if they click a button they can view the contents of the post.
Of course, this is only true if the post is deleted, not if customer service edits the offending post to remove everything but still leaves the post there.
In vBulletin, when a post is deleted it's not really deleted; instead, it's just hidden from view from "regular" users. Anybody in the moderator or administrator groups can see that the post is there, and if they click a button they can view the contents of the post.
Of course, this is only true if the post is deleted, not if customer service edits the offending post to remove everything but still leaves the post there.
Interesting. Not that it does us much good in the current "community watch" style moderation model, but it's useful to know that those posts are still there to be referenced.
It still makes it hard to provide the level of detail that seems necessary anymore to get posters looked at seriously if they have a habit of being inflammatory enough to get stuff deleted.
This person has a few accounts and trolls on them all. He admitted to it yesterday (and tried to say I was one of them) and then got banned for flaming, trolling and being a jack*** to people.
He did the same to me. I had to square it away with the mods.
He did the same to me. I had to square it away with the mods.
Well, just to be safe, I'm going to let them know and see if we can't get our IP's checked and get this situation taken care of...
A sock puppet is different form a MUP, zherog. If someone was banned and creates a new account, that's an attempt to endrun the ban and should itself be subject to discipline. I know when I discovered a user had ignored a ban by creating a new account, I sent all the information I had to Customer Service. The user got IP banned. (It didn't help that in his prior account, he had threatened to find out who I was in real life and file a false police report against me.) Haven't seen him since.
-Pssh, what exactly did you do/say? I have a troll problem that doesn't go away, no matter how many reports the user gets on his posts, no matter how many e-mails to CustServ I send, with legitimate complains, no matter how many permanent/temporary bans are placed on the user in question...
Eww. Now I feel dirty. (It was good cake though!)
ETA: Seriously, I attached like thirty links to different emails, including some links to other websites where the offender was bragging to third parties about how easy it was to get around CS bans. That person was pretty stupid. I may have gotten lucky with the amount of info I could find.
Not much. I just included digital photos I took from the inside of a certain cake at a certain holiday party of a certain game company.
Eww. Now I feel dirty. (It was good cake though!)
ETA: Seriously, I attached like thirty links to different emails, including some links to other websites where the offender was bragging to third parties about how easy it was to get around CS bans. That person was pretty stupid. I may have gotten lucky with the amount of info I could find.
I'm a little dismayed that this level of e-sleuthing is necessary to get someone permanently uninvited to this party. I know you guys have no say in this, but it's disheartening to see people coming back from bans over and over, sometimes even without a new username. I feel like we're in some ridiculous horror movie with a villain that just can't stay dead.
I'm a little dismayed that this level of e-sleuthing is necessary to get someone permanently uninvited to this party. I know you guys have no say in this, but it's disheartening to see people coming back from bans over and over, sometimes even without a new username. I feel like we're in some ridiculous horror movie with a villain that just can't stay dead.
Infuriating, eh?
It's mind-boggling that someone have so much free time to loose.. or is in a worse position than me when it come to the head, if you get my drift.
Since when isn't a user allowed to create a new account after being banned? It's my understanding it's always been allowed -- you just weren't permitted to make any link at all between your new account and old account.
And I'm aware of the differences between a MuP and sock puppet.
What constitutes a link between old and new accounts? People keep calling me a specific banned user for example when there is no possible way for them to know. Are they just trying to get me in trouble and should I report posts when the call me that user?
You may know that well, very well.
A way to recognise puppets is the identic posting patterns, grammar, habitudes, etc....
You may know that well, very well.
That still can't confirm that the person is a puppet. There are 6 billion+ people on the planet, are you sure that 2 of them can't have similar posting patterns, grammar, habits and attitude?
What constitutes a link between old and new accounts? People keep calling me a specific banned user for example when there is no possible way for them to know. Are they just trying to get me in trouble and should I report posts when the call me that user?
That still can't confirm that the person is a puppet. There are 6 billion+ people on the planet, are you sure that 2 of them can't have similar posting patterns, grammar, habits and attitude?
1). They admit to it on the boards.
2). Same IP address.
Only customer service can check the first. I've seen someone get smacked for the first one. In that case WizO told use to hit the report button when 1 happens.
1). They admit to it on the boards.
2). Same IP address.
Only customer service can check the first. I've seen someone get smacked for the first one. In that case WizO told use to hit the report button when 1 happens.
Don't people have those newfangled IP maskers these days?
Don't people have those newfangled IP maskers these days?
It's extremely easy to bypass IP maskers and get to the person real IP actually.
Since when isn't a user allowed to create a new account after being banned? It's my understanding it's always been allowed -- you just weren't permitted to make any link at all between your new account and old account.
What constitutes a link between old and new accounts? People keep calling me a specific banned user for example when there is no possible way for them to know. Are they just trying to get me in trouble and should I report posts when the call me that user?
I'll preface this by saying I'm not a mod, and I've never been a mod on this forum. My "knowledge" on the subject comes from being here for seven years. (seven years?
yikes!)IP Address doesn't matter. You're allowed to make a new account, so of course you'll have the same IP. However, that's one of the tools the mods will use to verify you're the same person.
You can't say "I was so-and-so." This is true whether you do it in a post or PM. What you say off the boards (in an e-mail for example) is outside the scope of moderation.
You can't use other identifying marks to indicate who you were. For example, if I were to get banned I couldn't include a link to the picture of Elan in my sig.
And so on. That's the sort of thing they're talking about.
As for somebody accusing you of being another poster... I'll recommend two things.
1) If it's done once, simply ignore it.
2) If it's continual, report them for baiting. I can't stress enough, however, how important it is to give a lot of detail in the box when you report something. If you just say "baiting" chances are nothing will come of it. If you explain why that post is specifically baiting you, there's a much better chance of some action being taken.
Since when isn't a user allowed to create a new account after being banned? It's my understanding it's always been allowed -- you just weren't permitted to make any link at all between your new account and old account.
So, it's against board policy for bans to actually stick?
That explains 90% of the problems around here. What is the banhammer for if not to remove the offending poster?
So, it's against board policy for bans to actually stick?
That explains 90% of the problems around here. What is the banhammer for if not to remove the offending poster?
You do realize of course how incredibly cruel what you are suggesting is right? What if those people who got banned wanted to post about an idea they had for some homebrew material? See the problem there?
You do realize of course how incredibly cruel what you are suggesting is right? What if those people who got banned wanted to post about an idea they had for some homebrew material? See the problem there?
No.
You do realize of course how incredibly cruel what you are suggesting is right? What if those people who got banned wanted to post about an idea they had for some homebrew material? See the problem there?
Then they shouldn't have gotten themselves banned in the first place. If they couldn't act like a civilized adult the first time around, what are the odds they're going to do it on the second, third or fourth go-around?
If we're banning based on behavior, why let them come back? They've already demonstrated a complete lack of civility if they got banned in the first place, do we expect them to suddenly become respectful forum members? More likely the lack of ban enforcement is just going to encourage them to come back and be even bigger *******s, since nothing can actually be done to stop it.
If they wanted to contribute, they should have thought about that before they did whatever got them banned. Swing the hammer, swing it hard, make it stick.
What constitutes a link between old and new accounts? People keep calling me a specific banned user for example when there is no possible way for them to know. Are they just trying to get me in trouble and should I report posts when the call me that user?
You might find this difficult to believe, but its pretty easy to spot sock puppets based merely on writing style, tone and word choices.
This might be where people get their wild theories about you.
You might find this difficult to believe, but its pretty easy to spot sock puppets based merely on writing style, tone and word choices.
This might be where people get their wild theories about you.
It's also helpful when they use the same avatar for multiple accounts, have similar links in their sig, the same birth date and hold all the same positions and objectives.
Oh, and when the PM you with a list of their sock puppets and why they named them certain things. That helps too.
It's also helpful when they use the same avatar for multiple accounts, have similar links in their sig, the same birth date and hold all the same positions and objectives.
Oh, and when the PM you with a list of their sock puppets and why they named them certain things. That helps too.
Apparently I am not nearly as important as you since I havent gotten the sock puppet list memo
Then they shouldn't have gotten themselves banned in the first place. If they couldn't act like a civilized adult the first time around, what are the odds they're going to do it on the second, third or fourth go-around?
If we're banning based on behavior, why let them come back? They've already demonstrated a complete lack of civility if they got banned in the first place, do we expect them to suddenly become respectful forum members? More likely the lack of ban enforcement is just going to encourage them to come back and be even bigger *******s, since nothing can actually be done to stop it.
If they wanted to contribute, they should have thought about that before they did whatever got them banned. Swing the hammer, swing it hard, make it stick.
You raise some very strong points, Batshido. And to counter them, I'll go to the old stand-by of anecdotal evidence. ;) I have seen people on this very forum who got their account banned, only to come back under a new name and post productively.
Now, it's been a while. And the forum has changed drastically from what it was years ago -- more posters, more threads, more posts, and all that stuff. So what's true in the past probably isn't true now.
What's the best way? I don't know. I can see merits of both styles. If you forced me to pick, though, I'd probably go the "one account, you lose it that's too bad" route.
...and there you have one of the main reasons I don't come around anymore.
Uriel: I agree with the premise of your original post. I, too, think the negativity here (on both sides) has done quite a lot of damage.
Sadly, the "With us or against us" mentality is a big part of that. I got tired of people looking for ways to interpret my posts as rants directed personally at them, so I sought conversation elsewhere.
There are a lot of reasonable folks here; there are also a lot who are bound and determined to have someone to hate.
No Caelic.... come back. These boards are a cesspool of garbage without you.
You raise some very strong points, Batshido. And to counter them, I'll go to the old stand-by of anecdotal evidence. ;) I have seen people on this very forum who got their account banned, only to come back under a new name and post productively.
Now, it's been a while. And the forum has changed drastically from what it was years ago -- more posters, more threads, more posts, and all that stuff. So what's true in the past probably isn't true now.
What's the best way? I don't know. I can see merits of both styles. If you forced me to pick, though, I'd probably go the "one account, you lose it that's too bad" route.
The problem isn't the people who have one bad day and get banned. It's the ones who make a career of it. I've seen a few occasions of otherwise decent posters having a "meltdown" and getting banned. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Such lost souls can be brought back into the fold via something like a Temp Ban/Ban/Perma Ban/IP Ban progression. They screw up once, they can come back. After that they get tougher and tougher sanctions until it's simply impossible for them to post here.
People that are intentionally using sock puppets to harass other posters should jump to the very end of that list immediately, imnsho. Those posters are beyond help and need excised from the community.
If you don't have solid enforcement, you effectively have no control over what's posted here. Even if you ban repeated offenders and people who are just here to harass others, they just come back. If there's no internal mechanism to divest the forum of that sort of individual, you're left with unofficial community enforcement, or as the OP of this thread called it "Mob Rule."
If the mods can't stand up to the trolls and bad eggs in any substantial way, the posters are going to take it upon themselves to do so. A lack of formal, official enforcement leads to active vigilantism. Bans should be bans, not slaps on the wrist. If they don't actually mean anything, they don't have any effect; why keep them around?
For all the outcry against people who take an active stand against trolling around here, it really does look like that's the only option we're left with in the current model. That's unfortunate, to say the least.
Apparently I am not nearly as important as you since I havent gotten the sock puppet list memo
I wish I weren't, honestly. Somehow I became some sort of symbol to the trolls in C&C. I got muppet declarations at least once a week.
Apparently I am not nearly as important as you since I havent gotten the sock puppet list memo
I never got one, but I once called somebody out on it and they confirmed it by PM.
The same person also seem to forget that they've already declared who they are in at least two separate threads under thier current smurf.
At this point, they pretty much only exist to lampshade the horribly poor style of moderation we've got here that doens't know what temp bans and perm bans are for.
I never got one, but I once called somebody out on it and they confirmed it by PM.
No doubt about it I need a better PR dept.
No doubt about it I need a better PR dept.
I've got some people. They'll hook you right up.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. Also please keep in mind that the most effective response to a patron who gets your goat is no response at all.
Also please keep in mind that the most effective response to a patron who gets your goat is no response at all.
But... what about when somebody gets my chicken? Or my cow? A man's gotta draw a line somewhere, ya know! ;)
But... what about when somebody gets my chicken? Or my cow? A man's gotta draw a line somewhere, ya know! ;)
-Cows are certainly more valuable than chickens and goats.
But... what about when somebody gets my chicken? Or my cow? A man's gotta draw a line somewhere, ya know! ;)
Well, is it a sacred cow? 'Cause some people will fight to the death to preserve their sacred cows.
-Cows are certainly more valuable than chickens and goats.
Bull. I say chickens are more valuable because of the eggs.
But then again a spade is a spade...unless its a diamond i guess.
-- Same Icon
-- Picked up exactly where the prior account left off, in nearly every conversation, espousing the exact same ideas
-- New posts begin immediately where the posts of the prior account ended - same day, similar time frame.
?
EDIT: In addition, can Wizards pleeeaaase start IP banning. This is patently ridiculous.
I remember calling a blatant troll post raving against 4th E a sock puppet, and the post was deleted. I was admonished by the Wizo that it was against the COC to do so.
But then again a spade is a spade...unless its a diamond i guess.
It is against the CoC to call someone a troll or sockpuppet. They prefer people simply report the post. You can also get in trouble for taking bait from someone.
I have noticed that even people who are new to the forums and post reviews that are criticisms of 4e and are not graceful in their review (which should be okay because not everyone is perfect in their discourse) get swamped by people with "suggestions" as to why they are wrong. Normally, this could be looked at as just debunking misconceptions, but when 5 or 6 people respond all at once, in the same manner, with the same points, it's mobbing the guy with peer pressure into either shutting them up or converting them.
Back to the main topic:
I have noticed that even people who are new to the forums and post reviews that are criticisms of 4e and are not graceful in their review (which should be okay because not everyone is perfect in their discourse) get swamped by people with "suggestions" as to why they are wrong. Normally, this could be looked at as just debunking misconceptions, but when 5 or 6 people respond all at once, in the same manner, with the same points, it's mobbing the guy with peer pressure into either shutting them up or converting them.
This is the issue I have with what is going on. It is one thing to have a polite back and forth. But the intensity and quantity of the replies, puts unwary critics in a very uncomfortable position.
This is the issue I have with what is going on. It is one thing to have a polite back and forth. But the intensity and quantity of the replies, puts unwary critics in a very uncomfortable position.
You said it better than me with the last part: It creates an uncomfortable environment for criticism.
So, if one were looking for, let's say, an individual who has created multiple new accounts, perhaps after each was banned, would it be sufficient to report a post to CS, with the following information (theoretically):
-- Same Icon
-- Picked up exactly where the prior account left off, in nearly every conversation, espousing the exact same ideas
-- New posts begin immediately where the posts of the prior account ended - same day, similar time frame.
I agree with wrecan. That's good evidence, and reasonable cause for you to report the person.
Again, though, remember that making a new account isn't itself a violation (barring a rule change I don't recall hearing). The post you're reporting should also have some other violation -- trolling, flaming, whatever.
I can understand not being sure when a troll comes back with a brand new bag each time, but honestly, come on.
But the intensity and quantity of the replies, puts unwary critics in a very uncomfortable position.
What can be done? If you say something that 30 people disagree with, you have to expect 30 replies. To mischaracterize that as being ganged up upon is not helpful. Should there be a limit to how many replies are made to a thread?
If the problem is that people perceive the fact that many people disagree with them as "ganging up" then I think the problem is in the perception rather than the reality.
If the "intensity" is inappropriate, report it. But you'll never do anything about the fact that lots of people disagree with you.
If the "intensity" is inappropriate, report it. But you'll never do anything about the fact that lots of people disagree with you.
But thats just it, it's not lots of people. It's the same people over and over who seem to be dedicated to quashing criticism. What can be done? These people know who they are, they can just have ONE person debate with the critic. Alternatively, people can see that one person is responding and let that one person respond and leave the conversation alone unless there is something that the responder to the critic is wrong about.
juggyslash, this seems biaised. forums are also set that anyone can speak, anyone on *both* sides.
But thats just it, it's not lots of people. It's the same people over and over who seem to be dedicated to quashing criticism. What can be done? These people know who they are, they can just have ONE person debate with the critic. Alternatively, people can see that one person is responding and let that one person respond and leave the conversation alone unless there is something that the responder to the critic is wrong about.
I'm sorry, but whether or not I agree with anything people post, I would never expect a web forum to turn itself into a "wait your turn" affair.
I'm not sure which threads are being discussed here. Can someone point me (link) to some examples of a new poster coming on, and being "assailed with the same critiques from a multitude of posters"?
But thats just it, it's not lots of people. It's the same people over and over who seem to be dedicated to quashing criticism. What can be done? These people know who they are, they can just have ONE person debate with the critic. Alternatively, people can see that one person is responding and let that one person respond and leave the conversation alone unless there is something that the responder to the critic is wrong about.
QFT. It is typically the same group of posters. Now I have just come in on a ban, so I am not going to point fingers at anyone here. But just go to the General Forum, look at any forum where the OP offers a vaguely negative review of 4E, and you will see it is the same group of people.
Also, just because lots of people disagree with a poster, that doesn't make the poster wrong.
But thats just it, it's not lots of people. It's the same people over and over
That's the "quantity". So what?
If they are repeating themselves in multiple posts, report it as spamming. If it's the same 30 people disagreeing with you, there's nothing to be done. (Well, maybe you could try not posting the same criticism over and over -- then the 30 people would only get to disagree with you once.)
These people know who they are, they can just have ONE person debate with the critic.
No, they can't. People ar eidnividuals and each of them will have their own take on the criticism being offered. We can't compel people who have similar opinions to pretend they have identical opinions and designate one spokesman. Disabuse yourself of any such notions right now and save yourself a lot of grief in the future.
just because lots of people disagree with a poster, that doesn't make the poster wrong.
Nobody says it does. But you can't stop "the same group" of people from posting as individuals. That's the essence of individuality.
Is that really what this thread is about? You want a group of people with similar views to be forced to appoint a spokesperson and everybody else is forbidden from posting in a thread once once of them posts? Do you really think that's a feasible solution?
That's the "quantity". So what?
No, they can't. People ar eidnividuals and each of them will have their own take on the criticism being offered. We can't compel people who have similar opinions to pretend they have identical opinions and designate one spokesman. Disabuse yourself of any such notions right now and save yourself a lot of grief in the future.
True. People should all be allowed to respond to a post. But having the same group of 5-7 posters licking their lips, waiting for the opportunity to pounce on an unwary poster who steps on a land mine, is hardly a good way to conduct oneself on the forums. Especially when the attack is so fierce and fast, the OP's argument is torn apart without any attention being paid to the substance of it. Some people do come on here and make wild accusations about 4E. But not every critic does. Anyone who dares violate the sensibilities of the said group of posters, gets mauled with venemous posts. Frequenlty accusing the OP of never having read the rules, never having played the game, or simply not understand it. If the OP continues to disagree he is bashed as someone who just doesn't understand logic and reason. Who can't comprehend that they have lost an argument (when in fact they have not).
Nobody says it does. But you can't stop "the same group" of people from posting as individuals. That's the essence of individuality.
Is that really what this thread is about? You want a group of people with similar views to be forced to appoint a spokesperson and everybody else is forbidden from posting in a thread once once of them posts? Do you really think that's a feasible solution?
Personally I think the mods should step in when they see the same group of posters effectively bullying members who say unpopular things on the board (unpopular, not offensive). Especially when the group of posters have oddly similar sigs that indicate their intense devotion to 4E.
This thread, again, have a sulfurous taste of hypocrisy - a way to block hearing the opposite opinions.
No. I admit I am guilty of retaliation. But it is retaliation that emerged out of deep frustration after having been bullied and made to feel like a fool by that band of posters. Also, there simply isn't an equivelent group of anti 4e posters going around trashing positive reviews of the edition or bullying people into not playing.
Personally I think the mods should step in when they see the same group of posters effectively bullying members who say unpopular things on the board (unpopular, not offensive). Especially when the group of posters have oddly similar sigs that indicate their intense devotion to 4E.
I actually agree here, in theory.
If a new thread isn't obviously insulting or offensive, posters should not be saying as much. I also find the obviously inflammatory sigs (on BOTH sides of things at this point) to just be in poor taste - they set a very bad tone for the whole of the forums.
Now, I say in theory, because I still am not sure exactly what you're talking about. Do you have links to any example threads that I can look at?
Personally I think the mods should step in when they see the same group of posters effectively bullying members
If there is bullying you can report that. The number of people disagreeing with you is not bullying. CS is never going to do anything about the fact that many people (even the same people every time you make a criticism) disagree with you.
There's not effective way to define a rule to police such a thing and I would never advocate that anybody ever try. I find the very suggestion that someone could get sanctioned for agreeing with other people on the thread because he happened to be the, say, seventh person agreeing, to be downright offensive.
Especially when the group of posters have oddly similar sigs that indicate their intense devotion to 4E.
There's nothing odd about people adopting similar sigs. All the Forum Leads have oddly similar sigs because -- shocker -- we all agreed to be forum leads.
If the sig is offensive report it. If thirty people with similar sigs disagree with you in a way that doesn't violate the CoC, deal.
No. I admit I am guilty of retaliation. But it is retaliation that emerged out of deep frustration after having been bullied and made to feel like a fool by that band of posters. Also, there simply isn't an equivelent group of anti 4e posters going around trashing positive reviews of the edition or bullying people into not playing.
But there *is* a group of the same ever posters who seems to bring the arguments that run wild in that thread, and have nothing really constructive apparently to say on 4th ed...
There is really bullies? on one side only or both? or at all? Because I feels something really unfair from this.
just look at that post of yours;
Especially when the group of posters have oddly similar sigs that indicate their intense devotion to 4E.
Who is the bully there?
If thirty people with similar sigs disagree with you in a way that doesn't violate the CoC, deal.
An interesting response from you which shows your true colors on this matter. I'm curious, are you a VCL?
No. I admit I am guilty of retaliation. But it is retaliation that emerged out of deep frustration after having been bullied and made to feel like a fool by that band of posters.
If people are insulting you, report it. Don't rise to bait.
If they are making you feel like a fool without violating the CoC, that's a good indication that you should take a step back and re-examine your position.
Especially when the attack is so fierce and fast, the OP's argument is torn apart without any attention being paid to the substance of it.
If you tear apart someone's argument, you have paid attention to the substance of it. You just don't agree and you bring up facts or arguments that contradict it.
Unfortunately, having an unpopular opinion means by definition that many people disagree with you. If that's intolerable, find a community with views closer to your own. I'm sorry, but if you disagree with people, that means people disagree with you and may say so.
An interesting response from you which shows your true colors on this matter. I'm curious, are you a VCL?
This post illustrated well what I meaned.
Who are the bullies?
I actually agree here, in theory.
If a new thread isn't obviously insulting or offensive, posters should not be saying as much. I also find the obviously inflammatory sigs (on BOTH sides of things at this point) to just be in poor taste - they set a very bad tone for the whole of the forums.
Now, I say in theory, because I still am not sure exactly what you're talking about. Do you have links to any example threads that I can look at?
Basically go into the General forum. Look up any of the threads on pages 1,2,3 with titles like "4E out a month" "4E a review" "My Groups Reaction" etc. Usually the titles are pretty obvious. I don't want to discuss specific threads, because that inevitably leads to discussions of specific posts and posters. I am coming off a ban and just want to play things safe.
Now, if you are unaware of the situation. There has been something of an edition war on these boards for a while. Both sides have been lobbing hostility at one another. It in all likely was caused by people who came on and posted negative reviews after they bought the books. I don't know. I wasn't actively posting at that time. I do know that I came on, was initially favorable toward 4E. But changed my mind (after playing for a couple of weeks or so). I posted my feelings, and felt that I was attacked by a group of posters who appeared to be on the boards to get rid of the critics. I became hostile in turn, and said some nasty things. After some serious back and forths, and getting banned several times. I just want to be able to have a peasant discussion with other posters, without people automatically assuming a hostile posture.
Personally I think the mods should step in when they see the same group of posters effectively bullying members who say unpopular things on the board (unpopular, not offensive). Especially when the group of posters have oddly similar sigs that indicate their intense devotion to 4E.
Agreed. If any group of people post in a style that is systematically aggressive, intimidating, and patronising... that effectively treats anyone who disagrees with them like some sort of demon or scum... then it should be made clear that this is not acceptable in these forums.
I used to like coming to these forums. Now it seems like all I ever see are arguments and name-calling. I feel like if I express my honest opinion on anything, I'll be jumped on by self-appointed forum warriors. Why do people have to be so disdainful towards each other? It's just a game. It's not worth treating people badly for the sake of something like this. (Not that there are ever any especially good reasons for treating people badly - but this does seem flimsier than most.)
I hardly regard all the damage as being inflicted by "one side," of course, but the point still stands. There is a certain basic level of respect that needs to be given from everyone to each other, simply because we are all human beings. Let's all look to ourselves to do this.
If you tear apart someone's argument, you have paid attention to the substance of it. You just don't agree and you bring up facts or arguments that contradict it.
Unfortunately, having an unpopular opinion means by definition that many people disagree with you. If that's intolerable, find a community with views closer to your own. I'm sorry, but if you disagree with people, that means people disagree with you and may say so.
This is the sort of reaction I am talking about. Clearly I should have stated my position more eloquently. I made a bad word choice. I mean people sieze on your argument, and attack some of its elements while ignoring the real substance of it.
Disagreeing is fine. But attacking people en masse, with hostility, and accusations about them ("you haven't played", "If you really need the game designers to do all the work for you"), is ruining this forum. Also taking someone's position, and reducing it to something silly like (well unlike you I don't need rules for playing craps with old ladies who have 6 ranks in basket weaving"), doesn't move the argument in a meaningful direction.
Now, if you are unaware of the situation. There has been something of an edition war on these boards for a while. Both sides have been lobbing hostility at one another. It in all likely was caused by people who came on and posted negative reviews after they bought the books. I don't know. I wasn't actively posting at that time. I do know that I came on, was initially favorable toward 4E. But changed my mind (after playing for a couple of weeks or so). I posted my feelings, and felt that I was attacked by a group of posters who appeared to be on the boards to get rid of the critics. I became hostile in turn, and said some nasty things. After some serious back and forths, and getting banned several times. I just want to be able to have a peasant discussion with other posters, without people automatically assuming a hostile posture.
You forget that the war was started also much by peoples who made 'critics' who had nothing constructive but pure 'fanraging' or trolling.
And you are accusating again the Avengers and cie of cleansing, when the reality is more complicated.
I am tired of seeing an unfairness in that whole mess, that one side seems to be treated in victims as they really in fact partaked in the same things.
Estelindis, the problem is the internet in itself. It's all so easy, so anonymous...
I'm surprised it took nine pages to figure out that this is just a thread asking for moderators to limit how many people with the word "4venger" in their sig can post to a thread.
Naturally, I imagine that there should be no limit on "Anti posters"?
If you're going for equality you better have it both ways. Sorry.
Secondly there's no grand "4venger conspiracy" we don't sit around, pming or instant messaging each other, pointing out threads to come in and post our opinions in.
Disagreeing is fine. But attacking people en masse, with hostility, and accusations about them ("you haven't played", "If you really need the game designers to do all the work for you"), .
Debating and criticizing in those ways is not bad in itself. Let's analyse the examples...
"You haven't played" - well, if one make a rather wild or cliché or wrong arguments and have *not* played the game or even read the book, it's weak indeed.
"If you really need the game designers to do all the work for you" - stated in a rude way, but if you said that in a nonagressive maner, like... 'Do you need in reality to wait for the designers's versions?', well, it's fine.
The problem here is that you can be both black and white, and while there is rudeness yes, there is also attempts to use that to censor and fight the opposite oinions.
Antis, you are tied to the *same* rules as the Pros.
Estelindis, the problem is the internet in itself. It's all so easy, so anonymous...
Well said.
True words, even if they are sad ones. 
It's strange, the unconscious suppositions we pick up... I mean, if asked explicitly whether we think that those we're responding to are actually soulless machines rather than living, breathing humans, none of us would actually think so. Yet, when we can't see the person in front of us and look into their eyes, it's so easy to fall into a pattern of behaviour that treats them as if they were not human just like us.Anyway, I hope things get better in the forums. For now, I think we'll just comfort ourselves that we've got a great game to play, and nothing that anyone says on an online message board can change that. ;)
Basically go into the General forum. Look up any of the threads on pages 1,2,3 with titles like "4E out a month" "4E a review" "My Groups Reaction" etc. Usually the titles are pretty obvious. I don't want to discuss specific threads, because that inevitably leads to discussions of specific posts and posters.
Hm. Okay, well, I took at look at D&D4: Two Months In. Other than obvious baiting in a few posts (along the lines of "Good to hear 4E sucks"), and off-topic responses to that, each reply has had something unique to offer. The OP itself though is unique, perhaps, because it is not aggressively anti-4th-edition - the opinions presented in it are at least supported.
I just want to be able to have a peasant discussion with other posters, without people automatically assuming a hostile posture.
I agree completely. Everyone seems to jump-the-gun on things at the moment.
Hm. Okay, well, I took at look at D&D4: Two Months In. Other than obvious baiting in a few posts (along the lines of "Good to hear 4E sucks"), and off-topic responses to that, each reply has had something unique to offer. The OP itself though is unique, perhaps, because it is not aggressively anti-4th-edition - the opinions presented in it are at least supported.
.
I have been barred from posting or reading posts for a couple of days, so I am not familiar with that thread. But a few days ago, those reviews were battle grounds.
Naturally, I imagine that there should be no limit on "Anti posters"?
Edit. Um... Cpt_Micha, I wasn't agreeing with Steerspike's proposal. I don't think there should be any limits to the numbers of people who can post in disagreement with another poster, whether they are pro, against or indifferent to any edition.
Edit. Um... Cpt_Micha, I wasn't agreeing with Steerspike's proposal. I don't think there should be any limits to the numbers of people who can post in disagreement with another poster, whether they are pro, against or indifferent to any edition.
Was more asking Spearstrike that *L* No harm no foul ;)
An interesting response from you which shows your true colors on this matter. I'm curious, are you a VCL?
What does him being a VCL or not have to do with the fact that if you express an unpopular opinion that a lot of people disagree with, you are going to get a lot of people disagreeing with you?
-I'm sure if someone posted some review of the rules, and was greeted by the same people who reply to these threads, but with more replies such as, "Well, if you look at Page 114, you'll see you're actually misinterpreting that rule", or "That old rule was unnecessary, I think, and this new one is better because...", or, "I think that new rule actually detracts from the mood of my games, because..." moods will lighten, and people will become less hostile and antagonistic towards each other.*
*Note, being as that I don't actually post in the section in question, I am basing the comments of those describing what goes on there, in general, at face value.
Every forum has regulars. Most of the regulars in the 4E General Discussion board like 4E, and disagree with people who dislike it. Big surprise there.
I'm surprised it took nine pages to figure out that this is just a thread asking for moderators to limit how many people with the word "4venger" in their sig can post to a thread.
When it was hijacked by the Avengers and turned to that topic? I don't recall ever calling for any such thing. I started this thread, and i assure you that was not its intent at all. Although you are doing a great job of defending your buddies, its not needed as this isnt what this thread was about. Polite discussion isn't what i am complaining about, the suggestion it is, is quite ridiculous.
Forum leads are endorsed by Wotc....whereas other self proclaimed "vigilantes" are not. The lack of proper moderation isn't an excuse to try and moderate them through coercion or force. That's not any different than what you profess to want to end.
Forum leads are endorsed by Wotc....whereas other self proclaimed "vigilantes" are not. The lack of proper moderation isn't an excuse to try and moderate them through coercion or force. That's not any different than what you profess to want to end.
As a forum lead myself, I take offense at that comment.*
Were you actually baiting me? Hmmm... I don't know. Let's see what I can do about it.
- I could reply to you, pointing out (politely, of course) what I believe to be the misinformed part of your post.
- As A, except I could be rude and nasty and throw out my own barbs in retaliation for the perceived barbs you threw at me
- I could decide it isn't worth my time and just move on
- I could place you on ignore, deciding that nothing you post is worth my time from here on out.
- I could report your post to the moderators, and explain to them how you're baiting me by painting all forum leads with such a broad brush stroke.
Some of these responses are entirely reasonable. One is reasonable and has the extra benefit of promoting healthy discussion. One is entirely unacceptable.
* OK, not really. But it helps further my point to say I did.
When it was hijacked by the Avengers and turned to that topic? I don't recall ever calling for any such thing. I started this thread, and i assure you that was not its intent at all. Although you are doing a great job of defending your buddies, its not needed as this isnt what this thread was about. Polite discussion isn't what i am complaining about, the suggestion it is, is quite ridiculous.
Forum leads are endorsed by Wotc....whereas other self proclaimed "vigilantes" are not. The lack of proper moderation isn't an excuse to try and moderate them through coercion or force. That's not any different than what you profess to want to end.
Its a matter of perception. You see bullying, I see the majority of people disagreeing with an unpopular opinion.
I prefer option E, followed by option A if I plan on commenting in the thread (as opposed to simply reading it). Unlike others though, I do not find reporting posts to be a "low" act.
Indeed. E followed by C is also a fine course of action. And while I've never used it, E followed by D isn't terrible either - especially if doing so saves you grief of reading posts from somebody you know you'll disagree with.
The only real problem on that list is B.
What does him being a VCL or not have to do with the fact that if you express an unpopular opinion that a lot of people disagree with, you are going to get a lot of people disagreeing with you?
Such a straightforward: Our audience doesn't bow out peacefully for the most part and thus we have a seemingly larger group which equates to more members and in addition the moderators are on our side which means we can organize through a recruitment thread so deal with it, is a view I would hope no VCL would have.
As said on one of many quote sites I visit.
Amul Muzz said:
Why do I get the feeling that this is really a mob, just waiting for someone to say something they do not agree with?
chrismjr said:
That's the best description for the internet I've ever heard
I don't recall ever calling for any such thing. I started this thread, and i assure you that was not its intent at all.
I apologize. You are correct. Your OP did not reference 4vengers or any specific group. That was error on my part and I apologize for lumping you in with others.
The lack of proper moderation isn't an excuse to try and moderate them through coercion or force.
Point of clarification: Forum leads have no moderation powers. We are not mods, we can't mod and we don't mod. I have to report posts like everyone else, and the likelihood of my reports being acted upon is no different than reports made by any other forum member.
Hm. Okay, well, I took at look at D&D4: Two Months In. Other than obvious baiting in a few posts (along the lines of "Good to hear 4E sucks"), and off-topic responses to that, each reply has had something unique to offer. The OP itself though is unique, perhaps, because it is not aggressively anti-4th-edition - the opinions presented in it are at least supported.
I agree completely. Everyone seems to jump-the-gun on things at the moment.
Here is a good example of the kind of flame wars we have been having (I am not blameless on this thread by any stretch). But do note the attacks against me on the last page:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1068515&page=3
When it was hijacked by the Avengers and turned to that topic? I don't recall ever calling for any such thing. I started this thread, and i assure you that was not its intent at all.
So, just to clear the air, what is your intent with this thread?
Although you are doing a great job of defending your buddies, its not needed as this isnt what this thread was about. Polite discussion isn't what i am complaining about, the suggestion it is, is quite ridiculous.
Since you have yet to give examples of any type of behavior, we don't have anything to go on here...
Forum leads are endorsed by Wotc....whereas other self proclaimed "vigilantes" are not. The lack of proper moderation isn't an excuse to try and moderate them through coercion or force.
So this thread is against pro-4e posters? Or are these 'vigilantes' fighting for the sake of 3.x?
That's not any different than what you profess to want to end.
Well, I personally would like to see lies, threats, trolling and disinformation come to an end... as well as world peace, winning the lotto and becoming king of the world... Not sure it's going to happen though.
If I want to convince someone of what I believe, I don't talk about my feelings. Telling other people how strongly I love or hate something, telling them the exact nature of my preferences, etc. doesn't seem to do a good job of selling them on anything. That's not to say that any mention of feelings or preferences is worthless, but it certainly doesn't make for much of a conversation.
When I tell someone about my feelings on a topic (such as D&D) I'm not really talking about the topic- I'm talking about myself. On the internet and elsewhere, no one cares about who I am or what I feel. My mom, my girlfriend, and my friends are exceptions to this rule, but that's generally the end of it. When I go to a message board, I don't expect to run into anyone I have a deep friendship with. That means I don't expect anyone to care about my feelings.
Let's say someone says, "I like how 3.5 handles skills. In my games, skills have been a lot more relevant and I've noticed players using them more than in 2e," and someone replies, "Non-weapon proficiencies were awesome. Skills suck and my whole group finds them to be boring. I don't even know anyone who likes skills." The second person is trying to change the conversation topic from skills to himself. He isn't talking about game mechanics and how they create certain incentives. He's talking about his feelings and backing that claim up with something totally unverifiable. How can this conversation move forward?
If the second person disagrees with that claim, he has a few useful ways to react. He could ask for clarification ("I disagree and I think the opposite might be true. What about skills makes this true?"). He could offer points that contradict this ("All the best skills are for rangers, rogues, and bards. I think that actually prevents people from using skills as much as they used NWPs."). But talking about himself doesn't help.
Further, he can't expect a real conversation if he stops being reasonable after a few exchanges. For example, if the replier chooses one of the above options but then a few posts later falls back to, "Well, you have your reasons, but I just don't like skills at all and I don't know anyone who does," the conversation should be over. If he keeps coming back to it and talking about his feelings to everyone in every thread remotely skill-related, he's going to start getting a lot of rude responses. Why? Because no one really wants to talk about some dude's feelings on the internet. If you want to have a conversation about yourself, there are places to go for that.
This isn't meant to insult anyone or imply that particular people are unimportant or that their views are insignificant. Everyone's views are equally (in)significant. But we really can't have good conversations here about feelings and preferences. When people try over and over again to steer the topics of conversations toward themselves, other people will get angry.
- If you disagree in a "nice" way, things stay civil. ("I don't think the Profession skills in 3e were really worth it. I mean, blah, blah, blah, explanation...")
- If you disagree in a "not nice" way, things become hostile. ("Wow, anyone who uses the Profession skills in their game are losers. What kind of crappy game are you running?")
QFT. It is typically the same group of posters. Now I have just come in on a ban, so I am not going to point fingers at anyone here. But just go to the General Forum, look at any forum where the OP offers a vaguely negative review of 4E, and you will see it is the same group of people.
Also, just because lots of people disagree with a poster, that doesn't make the poster wrong.
Doesn't make the poster right either.
Well, I personally would like to see lies, threats, trolling and disinformation come to an end... as well as world peace, winning the lotto and becoming king of the world... Not sure it's going to happen though.
You have my vote big guy.
Doesn't make the poster right either.
Of course not. But people should still be civil. Even after that thread closed, I receieved a bunch of PMs calling me a liar and they were very hostile.
Of course not. But people should still be civil. Even after that thread closed, I receieved a bunch of PMs calling me a liar and they were very hostile.
You can report your PMs via the customer service system. It's not as convenient as reporting a post, though.
If I'm not prepared to prove I'm the senator form the state that Springfield is in, I shouldn't go and tout that to get special recognition.
Not that it isn't to be expected. I mean if I tell the boards I'm a major American politician and that my opinion matters more because I have power -- then refuse to tell people who I am or provide any proof to my claim, well, one can guess the outcome, whether it's right or wrong.
If I'm not prepared to prove I'm the senator form the state that Springfield is in, I shouldn't go and tout that to get special recognition.
From a personal information standpoint it is probably better to say nothing personal/identifiable about your profession if you aren't willing to go the whole way and say your name and who you work for. People either on the forums, or future employers, can figure it out with enough hints from you if they want to.
(generic you, not anyone in specific)
You have my vote big guy.
One step closer to a better world...
No. I admit I am guilty of retaliation. But it is retaliation that emerged out of deep frustration after having been bullied and made to feel like a fool by that band of posters. Also, there simply isn't an equivelent group of anti 4e posters going around trashing positive reviews of the edition or bullying people into not playing.
Spearspike, if you look at this thread 90% of page 19 is you and another poster both disagreeing with the same poster.
On the surface this could look like a mild version, with only two people, of the "mob behavior" that you are complaining about. However, if you look closer, you and the other poster are making different arguments, even if similar. I am going to guess that you think your arguments are better and more likely to convince the disagreeing poster than the other similar arguments of the other person.
Have you considered that sometimes different posters will post similar, but slightly different, responses because they feel that their own wording is the most clear? or the most persuasive?
Not that it isn't to be expected. I mean if I tell the boards I'm a major American politician and that my opinion matters more because I have power -- then refuse to tell people who I am or provide any proof to my claim, well, one can guess the outcome, whether it's right or wrong.
If I'm not prepared to prove I'm the senator form the state that Springfield is in, I shouldn't go and tout that to get special recognition.
Personal experience is very helpful in illuminating a subject. Should it only be allowed into the conversatino if people are willing to give their social security number or something?
Also there is a difference between claiming to be a major american politician and saying you are a writer or worked in publishing. The first claim is an extraordinary one, and I would be hesitant to believe it. But writers are a dime a dozen (really it wasn't all that hard for me to break into the gaming industry, and frankly it hasn't really been much help paying the bills...it is more a hobby than anything). Being a writer or an editor isn't that unusual.
Anyways, I wasn't saying, "I am an expert so your wrong". I said I used to do x, and my experience has been that this is the case. The second part of the statement can easily be checked.
Spearspike, if you look at this thread 90% of the last page is you and another poster both disagreeing with the same poster.
On the surface this could look like a mild version, with only two people, of the "mob behavior" that you are complaining about. However, if you look closer, you and the other poster are making different arguments, even if similar. I am going to guess that you think your arguments are better and more likely to convince the disagreeing poster than the other similar arguments of the other person.
Have you considered that sometimes different posters will post similar, but slightly different, responses because they feel that their own wording is the most clear? or the most persuasive?
There was one other poster involved in this exchange.
The issue wasn't that he disagreed. The issue was the insults and him calling me a liar.
There was one other poster involved in this exchange.
The issue wasn't that he disagreed. The issue was the insults and him calling me a liar.
I see two distinct sides to that exchange, one of which is composed of two separate posters. They appear to be "bullying" in the terms you like to use.
I see two distinct sides to that exchange, one of which is composed of two separate posters. They appear to be "bullying" in the terms you like to use.
I suggest you look again. One poster was attacking another with hostility and names. The poster being attacked responded and someone else jumped in. but there were more than three posters in the exchange so I think your characterization is not 100% accurate.
Let me say this again. Bullying requires hostility and intensity. Not simply disagreement. All I am asking for is people to reply to criticism with civility and without singling a poster out for name calling or insults ("You never even cracked the spine of the book open", "I guess if you don't have enough imagination then you should play 3E" etc).
Personal experience is very helpful in illuminating a subject. Should it only be allowed into the conversatino if people are willing to give their social security number or something?
It's only relevant if it can be verified. Since personal experience cannot be verified without obliterating the anonymity of these forums, then it's not relevant.
So, in short, the answer to your question is "Yes." Personal experience should only be credited if people are willing to verify that their experience is genuine.
Also there is a difference between claiming to be a major american politician and saying you are a writer or worked in publishing. The first claim is an extraordinary one, and I would be hesitant to believe it. But writers are a dime a dozen (really it wasn't all that hard for me to break into the gaming industry, and frankly it hasn't really been much help paying the bills...it is more a hobby than anything). Being a writer or an editor isn't that unusual.
But it is even more usual to not be a writer or an editor. And frankly, more than half the people in the world are women, but that doesn't mean I should believe an anonymous internet poster who claims to be a woman.
I said I used to do x, and my experience has been that this is the case. The second part of the statement can easily be checked.
How could it be checked if the person is unwilling to verify their identity? (And to be clear, I don't think they should verify their identity -- trying to expose someone's personal identity is a violation of the CoC.)
There was one other poster involved in this exchange.
The issue wasn't that he disagreed. The issue was the insults and him calling me a liar.
I'm confused... did you click on the link? I think you may be talking about a different thread than the one I linked to...
I'm pretty sure the person you are disagreeing with in the thread I linked to is a she (and you call the person she in the thread). And I don't see any insults or anyone being called a liar, but maybe that got deleted.
I said there were three people, you and one other person against a single person for 90% of the last page, then some other people (myself included) jumped in to question the validity of a specific argument made by the poster that generally agrees with you.
I suggest you look again. One poster was attacking another with hostility and names. The poster being attacked responded and someone else jumped in. but there were more than three posters in the exchange so I think your characterization is not 100% accurate.
You, Shadowheart_Maiden and Kursk. Everyone else is on the periphery for this particular exchange.
You said this;
This is very true. The basic truth behind gender differences has been obscured here by semantic arguments and murky logic.
Shadowheart_Maiden responded, then you proceeded to launch into him/her and were aided by Kursk. You and Kursk were effectively saying the same things; that women not competing directly against men in the real world was proof of your point. Yet neither of you thought it better to step out while the other made their points for whatever reason. This is exactly the behavior you seem to find abhorent in other posters.
Let me say this again. Bullying requires hostility and intensity. Not simply disagreement. All I am asking for is people to reply to criticism with civility and without singling a poster out for name calling or insults ("You never even cracked the spine of the book open", "I guess if you don't have enough imagination then you should play 3E" etc).
You have said several times in this thread that you are against refuting arguments en masse, as it is (in your eyes) a hostile action. That's just what you're doing in the above-linked example.
I'm confused... did you click on the link? I think you may be talking about a different thread than the one I linked to...
I'm pretty sure the person you are disagreeing with in the thread I linked to is a she (and you call the person she in the thread). And I don't see any insults or anyone being called a liar, but maybe that got deleted.
I said there were three people, you and one other person against a single person for 90% of the last page, then some other people (myself included) jumped in to question the validity of a specific argument made by the poster that generally agrees with you.
They did get deleted. The thread got closed also.
They did get deleted. The thread got closed also.
Wrong thread. The link is to a thread in Astrid's Parlor.
You, Shadowheart_Maiden and Kursk. Everyone else is on the periphery for this particular exchange.
You said this;
Shadowheart_Maiden responded, then you proceeded to launch into him/her and were aided by Kursk. You and Kursk were effectively saying the same things; that women not competing directly against men in the real world was proof of your point. Yet neither of you thought it better to step out while the other made their points for whatever reason. This is exactly the behavior you seem to find abhorent in other posters.
You have said several times in this thread that you are against refuting arguments en masse, as it is (in your eyes) a hostile action. That's just what you're doing in the above-linked example.
You are going to the wrong thread. It is the Real Data on 4E reaction thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1068515&page=3
But in regards to the gender thread, if you follow the last three pages you will see me and Krusk are being teamed up on by 3-4 posters. One even calls us names and insults us. The accusations that people were misdirecting was in response to a very specific argument that one of the posters made, which was indeed trying to derail the argument by using semantics.
QFT. It is typically the same group of posters. Now I have just come in on a ban, so I am not going to point fingers at anyone here. But just go to the General Forum, look at any forum where the OP offers a vaguely negative review of 4E, and you will see it is the same group of people.
Also, just because lots of people disagree with a poster, that doesn't make the poster wrong.
There was one other poster involved in this exchange.
The issue wasn't that he disagreed. The issue was the insults and him calling me a liar.
There were definitely two against one. It seems to me that is a mild version of exactly what you are complaining about in the top quote from earlier in the thread.
I wasn't trying to start an argument, just show you that people may not be trying to "jump" a poster, but simply present an argument that they consider clearer, or more convincing than the arguments already put forward. Why didn't you step back and let the other poster on your side make all the arguments for you?
(I'm not saying you should have)
Wrong thread. The link is to a thread in Astrid's Parlor.
I just checked the links twice and they always bring me to Real Data on 4E Reaction. Both of the links I posted should take you there, not to the parlor.
You are going to the wrong thread. It is the Real Data on 4E reaction thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1068515&page=3
But in regards to the gender thread, if you follow the last three pages you will see me and Krusk are being teamed up on by 3-4 posters. One even calls us names and insults us. The accusations that people were misdirecting was in response to a very specific argument that one of the posters made, which was indeed trying to derail the argument by using semantics.
Ummm... how was he going to the wrong thread?
He went to the thread I linked to!
You were discussing the wrong thread when you responded to my comment.
EDIT: I was trying to start a constructive discussion of why several posters may respond to a post with similar arguments. As an example, I provided a link in post #301. I expected you to follow that link when you responded to me. Apparently you didn't and that explains a lot of the confusion in the last few posts. I don't think you did anything wrong in posting in that thread! It was just a jumping off point for a discussion...
Ummm... how was he going to the wrong thread?
He went to the thread I linked to!
You were discussing the wrong thread when you responded to my comment.
I didn't realize that another thread link was posted. I must have missed your post.
Spearspike, if you look at this thread 90% of the last page is you and another poster both disagreeing with the same poster.
On the surface this could look like a mild version, with only two people, of the "mob behavior" that you are complaining about. However, if you look closer, you and the other poster are making different arguments, even if similar. I am going to guess that you think your arguments are better and more likely to convince the disagreeing poster than the other similar arguments of the other person.
Have you considered that sometimes different posters will post similar, but slightly different, responses because they feel that their own wording is the most clear? or the most persuasive?
I see now. Sorry. I didn't relealize that thread was itself a link. I thought you were just refering to the thread I had linked.
Sure the last page (which just started by the way) but look at the previous 5-6 pages. Kursk, me and flasheart are basically going up against a group of 5 or so posters. I don't think either side is bullying to be honest though. However there is one poster who gets out of line toward the second to last pagel. This is one of the better discussion I have been on on these boards, actually.
However, I think it is understandbale that people are getting heated on the thread, given the topic. I have made a point of not attacking indiviudals but responding to arguments instead.
I see now. Sorry. I didn't relealize that thread was itself a link. I thought you were just refering to the thread I had linked.
Sure the last page (which just started by the way) but look at the previous 5-6 pages. Kursk, me and flasheart are basically going up against a group of 5 or so posters. I don't think either side is bullying to be honest though. However there is one poster who gets out of line toward the second to last pagel. This is one of the better discussion I have been on on these boards, actually.
However, I think it is understandbale that people are getting heated on the thread, given the topic. I have made a point of not attacking indiviudals but responding to arguments instead.
Okay, I meant page 19, which was the last page when I came here to post about it. I read the last three pages, so I missed some of the insults. I agree that the posts on page 19 are very much about the arguments and not the people and it is a very civil disagreement. I just thought it illustrated really well that multiple people may post similar arguments without trying to "mob" a poster because they each think that their own argument is better than the other argument put forward.
If there had been 5 or 6 people posting with basic messages that you agreed with, but that you thought conveyed your message poorly, would you have refrained from posting? What if there were 10 poorly worded posts?
Okay, I meant page 19, which was the last page when I came here to post about it. I read the last three pages, so I missed some of the insults. I agree that the posts on page 19 are very much about the arguments and not the people and it is a very civil disagreement. I just thought it illustrated really well that multiple people may post similar arguments without trying to "mob" a poster because they each think that their own argument is better than the other argument put forward.
If there had been 5 or 6 people posting with basic messages that you agreed with, but that you thought conveyed your message poorly, would you have refrained from posting? What if there were 10 poorly worded posts?
the issue isn't simply volume of posters. It is having the same 5-6 posters go after people who a single poster in a way that is intense and hostile. Essentially, appearing not to read the OPs entire post, and just attacking them for the position they take, not the argument they are making. Resorting to names.
Actually this thread is an example of what I would like to see (excepting the few insuling posts). People who disagree strongly and passionately, but basically deal more with the ideas than the posters. No one was accused of not actually being a man or woman, or of never having played a sport. There was even someone who claimed expertise in somekind of research and no one said "well I don't believe you, prove that you really do research". The guys posts demonstrated that he knew what he was talking about (at least enough for me...and he made some good arguments).
the issue isn't simply volume of posters. It is having the same 5-6 posters go after people who a single poster in a way that is intense and hostile. Essentially, appearing not to read the OPs entire post, and just attacking them for the position they take, not the argument they are making. Resorting to names.
But this really doesn't happen. Someone posts something, then they get three, four, six, ten responses very quickly, granted. But there's rarely any bile to it. When there is, the thread gets reported and those get deleted or the whole thing gets closed. That's moderation at work.
It's unfortunate that there are a few posters that have made such a name for themselves that everything they post is viewed skeptically by the majority of the people in the 4E forums, but that's how it goes. If [y]ou have meltdown after meltdown, threaten physical violence against those that disagree with you or just generally try to make it difficult to carry on conversations and you're going to develop a reputation.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, the people reading posts are applying their previous knowledge of the poster to their interpretation of the message. If a poster has developed a reputation for baiting, spouting misinformation or just generally being full of crap, then that poster is going to have a much harder time being taken seriously and they've got no one to blame but themselves.
90% of the truly negative reaction (and I'm talking actual negativity and flaming here, not active and heartfelt disagreement) that people who dislike 4E get in those forums is due to the board-members' experience with them previously. While it can be called unfair or whatever, it's generally deserved. Reputations have to be founded on something, whether good or bad. The problem is that a lot of posters tend to overreact to disagreement and get themselves labeled as flamers and trolls because of it. That's not the fault of the forums or it's members, it's an overreaction on the part of the "flamer" or "troll."
the issue isn't simply volume of posters. It is having the same 5-6 posters go after people who a single poster in a way that is intense and hostile. Essentially, appearing not to read the OPs entire post, and just attacking them for the position they take, not the argument they are making. Resorting to names.
Some examples would be nice.. I'm having a hard time recalling ever seeing this happen.
Actually this thread is an example of what I would like to see (excepting the few insuling posts). People who disagree strongly and passionately, but basically deal more with the ideas than the posters. No one was accused of not actually being a man or woman, or of never having played a sport. There was even someone who claimed expertise in somekind of research and no one said "well I don't believe you, prove that you really do research". The guys posts demonstrated that he knew what he was talking about (at least enough for me...and he made some good arguments).
So, you are saying, if you agree with them their opinion is okay and expertise is taken in stride? But if not it's okay to resort to the behavior you don't approve of?
It can't be both ways and if you'd like to see people respond to you in a positive manner, it would be best if you did it yourself (lead by example and all that jazz).
But this really doesn't happen. Someone posts something, then they get three, four, six, ten responses very quickly, granted. But there's rarely any bile to it. When there is, the thread gets reported and those get deleted or the whole thing gets closed. That's moderation at work.
It's unfortunate that there are a few posters that have made such a name for themselves that everything they post is viewed skeptically by the majority of the people in the 4E forums, but that's how it goes. You have meltdown after meltdown, threaten physical violence against those that disagree with you or just generally try to make it difficult to carry on conversations and you're going to develop a reputation.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, the people reading posts are applying their previous knowledge of the poster to their interpretation of the message. If a poster has developed a reputation for baiting, spouting misinformation or just generally being full of crap, then that poster is going to have a much harder time being taken seriously and they've got no one to blame but themselves.
90% of the truly negative reaction (and I'm talking actual negativity and flaming here, not active and heartfelt disagreement) that people who dislike 4E get in those forums is due to the board-members' experience with them previously. While it can be called unfair or whatever, it's generally deserved. Reputations have to be founded on something, whether good or bad. The problem is that a lot of posters tend to overreact to disagreement and get themselves labeled as flamers and trolls because of it. That's not the fault of the forums or it's members, it's an overreaction on the part of the "flamer" or "troll."
I have threatened anyone. I have been banned only for baiting.
Some examples would be nice.. I'm having a hard time recalling ever seeing this happen.).
I directed people to the plentitude of 4E review threads (except the most recent one of course) and even posted a link to a thread where it happened to me.
So, you are saying, if you agree with them their opinion is okay and expertise is taken in stride? But if not it's okay to resort to the behavior you don't approve of?
It can't be both ways and if you'd like to see people respond to you in a positive manner, it would be best if you did it yourself (lead by example and all that jazz).
No. I am not saying that at all.
I directed people to the plentitude of 4E review threads (except the most recent one of course) and even posted a link to a thread where it happened to me.
I looked and have yet to see what you are implying. Perhaps you can quote them here for us to view as I seem to be blind...
No. I am not saying that at all.
Then what is it you are saying?
I have threatened anyone. I have been banned only for baiting.
Did I say you had? Because I must have missed myself typing that.
You're assuming hostile intent again.
Edit: I missed an "If" in there that might be causing the confusion, though you're still reading heavily into what I'm saying if you think I'm accusing you in that post. I'm correcting it now.
I looked and have yet to see what you are implying. Perhaps you can quote them here for us to view as I seem to be blind...?
I would suggest following the link I provided then, and paying attention to the last page (though some of the posts appear to have been deleted). Also look at some of the reviews from last week.
Then what is it you are saying?
I am saying feel free to disagree, but be civil when you do. Don't try to provoke hostility from people by accusing them of things, or suggesting they are deficient in some way because they prefer a different game. Also, I think the whole saying peoples' opinions about a game are factually wrong thing, is just adding to the fire. Let people have their opinions. If they say something about the game that is untrue, then show them in a politely that they are incorrect. Also, read a person's entire argument. One of the things that is really getting me frustrated is when I take the time to reply intelligently and a person reacts to my position, not to the details of my argument.
It's unfortunate that there are a few posters that have made such a name for themselves that everything they post is viewed skeptically by the majority of the people in the 4E forums, but that's how it goes. You have meltdown after meltdown, threaten physical violence against those that disagree with you or just generally try to make it difficult to carry on conversations and you're going to develop a reputation.
Did I say you had? Because I must have missed myself typing that.
You're assuming hostile intent again.
Technically you did use the word "you" after quoting Spearspike.
Personally I read that as a generic you referring to the posters you describe in the first sentence of the paragraph I quoted above but it is a little bit ambiguous.
Did I say you had? Because I must have missed myself typing that.
You're assuming hostile intent again.
Edit: I missed an "If" in there that might be causing the confusion, though you're still reading heavily into what I'm saying if you think I'm accusing you in that post. I'm correcting it now.
I appologize if I misunderstood you. I thought it was directed at me because of the way it was phrased.
But I would like to point out that statements like this are one of the reasons for my hostility (which I am making a serious effort to reduce):
You're assuming hostile intent again.
This kind of statement puts the poster on the defensive. It is an insult because it is highly dismissive.
It's only relevant if it can be verified. Since personal experience cannot be verified without obliterating the anonymity of these forums, then it's not relevant.
So, in short, the answer to your question is "Yes." Personal experience should only be credited if people are willing to verify that their experience is genuine
Why do you think that personal experience is only relevant if it can be verified? A person has had the same experience whether others can verify it or not.
Also, I can't say I would enjoy going through the world assuming that everything everyone says is a lie unless they can provide incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I'm much happier assuming that everyone I meet is taking the truth, unless there's a lot of evidence to suggest that they're not.
Personally, having looked at the thread to which SpearStrike linked, I found the assumption that he was making a false claim to be unfair treatment. Why would one assume that a person one has never met was a liar?
This kind of statement puts the poster on the defensive. It is an insult because it is highly dismissive.
And your accusation of me put me on the defensive as well. It's a two way street.
It's also quite obvious that you were assuming hostile intent.
This kind of statement puts the poster on the defensive. It is an insult because it is highly dismissive.
You claimed he said you were physically threatening people.
The statement in question was vague. You had to at least consider hostile intent to read it the way you did.
It seems to me his statement is a fact, how is that dismissive?
EDIT: sigh, apparently I type very slowly. But oh, this is another possible reason several people say the same thing, they are all typing at the same time and the responses weren't there when they hit the reply button.
Why do you think that personal experience is only relevant if it can be verified? A person has had the same experience whether others can verify it or not.
It's only relevant to other people to the extent it is a credible account. As the New Yorker cartoon famously stated, "On the internet nobody knows you're a dog."
Sure, my experience as a polymath time-traveling archaeologist astrophysicist lawyer makes my pronouncements on pretty much any topic inherently credible, but I can't expect anybody else to believe me just because I say so (and it would violate the Temporal Non-Interference Protocols of 2433). Asserting that a fact happened or didn't happen is simply not substantiable over the internet. It comes across as an attempt to bolster your argument through the fallacious appeal to expertise.
Also, I can't say I would enjoy going through the world assuming that everything everyone says is a lie
I'm not saynig we assume it is a lie. I'm saying we can't assume it's either a lie or the truth. We can't assume anything about such statements and we shouldn't. Assuming it's a lie is disrespectful. But assuming it's the truth is equally flawed.
Why would one assume that a person one has never met was a liar?
There are more options than "liar" or "truthteller". "Of unknown veracity", for example.
Why do you think that personal experience is only relevant if it can be verified? A person has had the same experience whether others can verify it or not.
It isn't a question of if the person claiming an experience has the experience. The question is do you put more stock in a person's answer or opinion because of what they claim to be?
If I said I was a doctor would you take medical advice from me? What if I claimed to be a dog trainer, would you listen to my dog training suggestions? What if I said I was an astro-physicist, would you put extra weight on my descriptions of how a telescope works?
What if I really was a doctor but was just a bad one? I wouldn't be lying, but you still wouldn't want to listen to me. Personally I don't assume people are lying, I just don't put any extra weight on their answer or opinion based on what they claim to have done.
It's only relevant to other people to the extent it is a credible account.
Well... on what basis is credibility to be established? If one shares some experience in the field in question, and said experience is widely divergent from that presented by someone else, then it might bring one to question whether the other person had really done what she or he claimed. But, on the other hand, it's quite within the realms of possibility that two people working in the same field might have totally different experiences and be telling the truth in both cases. The world is such a complex place, after all. Perhaps, in the case of someone having extremely comprehensive and extensive experience, rising to the level of deep expertise, it might be possible to really argue successfully against the truthfulness of someone else's claim of expertience. But, in my opinion, that's a pretty big if. The case for most people is that they won't have personal experience in the area that someone else is claiming, in which case they have no special grounds for disputing it.
The example of not believing that others are dogs simply because they tell us so is inherently unrealistic (albeit humorously so!), as none of us have ever been spoken to (or typed to ;)) by any dog, and thus have no reason to believe such a thing and every reason not to. This would be an example of having strong evidence to contradict the assertion! To try to extend this analogy to cover other situations where the evidence is less strong would be a mistake. This would cover your rather unlikely claim quoted below as well. ;)
Sure, my experience as a polymath time-traveling archaeologist astrophysicist lawyer makes my pronouncements on pretty much any topic inherently credible, but I can't expect anybody else to believe me just because I say so (and it would violate the Temporal Non-Interference Protocols of 2433). Asserting that a fact happened or didn't happen is simply not substantiable over the internet. It comes across as an attempt to bolster your argument through the fallacious appeal to expertise.
On the other hand, I think the example you gave earlier about not believing that everyone who claims to be a woman on the internet was actually quite a good one.
However, there is strong documented evidence to support such suspicions: many studies of men pretending to be women online have been conducted. In such a case, general doubt would be more understandable, but I still think it would be insulting to extend it to everyone, regardless of the circumstances. I'm saying this to address the following quote, and I will go on to explain why I feel that way after the quote is made.I'm not saynig we assume it is a lie. I'm saying we can't assume it's either a lie or the truth. We can't assume anything about such statements and we shouldn't. Assuming it's a lie is disrespectful. But assuming it's the truth is equally flawed.
Personally, I don't think it's an equally bad to assume that others are telling the truth as it is to assume they're lying. It may well be equally without evidence, but in my opinion people flourish when they're thought better of, and wither when they're thought worse of, so if I'm going to err on any side then I'm happy for it to be the former.
Of course, you said "flawed," not bad. By all means, don't let me put words in your mouth. I'm just answering a question asked by me rather than you, in addressing whether it's bad or not. ;) Regarding it being flawed, as I said, I would rather suffer the flaw of thinking well of people than that of thinking ill.
There are more options than "liar" or "truthteller". "Of unknown veracity", for example.
Well, the veracity is known by the original poster, who cannot fail to know whether he or she is lying or not. (Obviously, falsehoods are a somewhat different matter. ;)) For the reasons I already expressed, I think it's generally a good idea to trust that they are not, unless it is totally obvious to common sense and/or personal expertise that they are.
It isn't a question of if the person claiming an experience has the experience. The question is do you put more stock in a person's answer or opinion because of what they claim to be? Personally I don't assume people are lying, I just don't put any extra weight on their answer or opinion based on what they claim to have done.
I hope you'll forgive me for rearranging bits of your post so that I can conveniently answer them in two parts and avoid repeating myself!
Now, this is getting away from the question of whether the other person is lying, for which I am heartily grateful.
No, I suppose it is morally neutral to choose not to put more weight on someone's argument based on experience that they claim to have. Each person is perfectly within their rights to do this. On the other hand, however, I think that openly questioning a person's veracity, especially to their face, would be somewhat offensive, and therefore would not be a morally neutral action. In other words, one can make a mental reservation without bringing it up in the argument. One would simply choose to treat the claim to experience as if it had not been made (ignoring it, but not the person who makes it - provided there are other things the person has said that one can choose to interact with instead).If I said I was a doctor would you take medical advice from me? What if I claimed to be a dog trainer, would you listen to my dog training suggestions? What if I said I was an astro-physicist, would you put extra weight on my descriptions of how a telescope works?
What if I really was a doctor but was just a bad one? I wouldn't be lying, but you still wouldn't want to listen to me.
To the extent that believing someone in various situations without any particular grounds for doing so would endanger oneself or others, one should probably refrain from judgement either way for the sake of safety and simply withdraw from the situation. Thankfully, on the internet, the chances of someone endangering us personally (or endangering those we know) are rather low. ;)
Well... on what basis is credibility to be established?
You can't on the internet which is why you shouldn't try. Your arguments have to rely on logic and facts that can be verified.
I would rather suffer the flaw of thinking well of people than that of thinking ill.
But why suffer a flaw at all? As I wrote, the choices are not merely between "He's lying" and "He's honest". There's also "I can't tell if he's lying or honest". The third option has the added benefit of being the most accurate.
I think that openly questioning a person's veracity, especially to their face, would be somewhat offensive, and therefore would not be a morally neutral action.
I agree there's no reason to be mean. But pointing out that someone's assertions of expertise are inherently unprovable and thus not credible is not questioning the person's veracity, although it is often inappropriately interpreted that way.
Whether you are involved in the edition war or not, it exists, and it infests everything it touches.
I hope you'll forgive me for rearranging bits of your post so that I can conveniently answer them in two parts and avoid repeating myself!
Now, this is getting away from the question of whether the other person is lying, for which I am heartily grateful.
Nope, I don't mind you rearranging what I said, as long as you don't mind me only responding to part of yours
I guess the problem I have seen in some threads (not the one in question) is that people can figuratively jump up and down on their claims and say things like "I am a doctor, why aren't you all giving my opinion more weight than anyone elses?"
It seems also easier for no one to make said claims then for everyone to ignore them.
These statements may or may not be true (well, the first one was quickly rendered untrue). But they're attempts to cloak blanket conclusory statements in a veil of credibility that almost dares you to make up your own credentials to counter. Better to make your argument on its merits and not try to cloak yourself as an expert.
an edition war exists.
"Admiral, will we stop attacking at any point? Or is this one of those phony bologna feel-good wars like the War on Drugs?" - Lars, Bender's Big Score
I refuse to believe. :D
Seriously though, the problem isn't an "edition war" (a term which I find mischaracterizes the whole situation, by somehow implying legitimacy), it's that these forums have devolved into a mass of yelling children (on all sides of everything). Disagreement isn't a problem, the rampant aggressive (and negative) tone is.
Add to this a somewhat lax moderation system (no IP bans, for example), and things are simply "in a bad way."
You can't on the internet which is why you shouldn't try. Your arguments have to rely on logic and facts that can be verified.
That's a fair point.
But why suffer a flaw at all?
Much as I long to answer that no one is perfect, I do realise that you were saying this in one particular context, and will therefore refrain from being pigheaded. :D
As I wrote, the choices are not merely between "He's lying" and "He's honest". There's also "I can't tell if he's lying or honest". The third option has the added benefit of being the most accurate.
This is true.
I agree there's no reason to be mean. But pointing out that someone's assertions of expertise are inherently unprovable and thus not credible is not questioning the person's veracity, although it is often inappropriately interpreted that way.
Now, in my book, there is a world of difference between something being unprovable and something not being credible, in exactly the same way that there is a world of difference between proof and belief. To say that something is unprovable is not insulting - it is simply a statement of fact (unless the expertise were to prove, er, provable). However, I think that to say that someone's word is not credible is to basically to make a statement in the realm of belief, which is a deeply personal one. I'm not going to pull out dictionary definitions. I'm well aware that others might quite legitimately interpret these words in other ways. I think that's part of the difficulty of the internet - nearly all words possess many different shades of meaning, but body language and other interpersonal factors help to clarify what others mean when they use them. In this text-only medium of communication, we don't have that, so it can be far easier to genuinely and sincerely take offence, even where none was intended.
Just my two eurocents!
Nope, I don't mind you rearranging what I said, as long as you don't mind me only responding to part of yours
I guess the problem I have seen in some threads (not the one in question) is that people can figuratively jump up and down on their claims and say things like "I am a doctor, why aren't you all giving my opinion more weight than anyone elses?"
It seems also easier for no one to make said claims then for everyone to ignore them.
I don't mind in the slightest either! :D
Well, in terms of pure, abstract form, I think that refraining from making a claim and refraining from answering a claim are equally easy - they're both absences of action. But I do grant that some actions are more outrageous and provoking than others, and so in some situations refraining from responding may be exceedingly difficult! (I am not referring to this situation, just speaking generally.)
Anyway, if people choose to jump up and down in a situation where people are simply refraining from believing them, that's unreasonable behaviour. But if people are simply bringing their experience to the table to be shared with others and having it openly rejected for no especially compelling reason, that's unfair in the other direction. Please note, I am not saying that either extreme represents either party in the thread we have referenced, as I think that, due to the posts that have been erased, I may never get an accurate idea of exactly how things went. But it must be emphasised that good faith and unreasonable conduct would always be possible, whether one is speaking from one's own experience or refusing to put stock in someone else's.
Better to make your argument on its merits and not try to cloak yourself as an expert.
But some people really are experts. They're not cloaking themselves then, are they?
But some people really are experts. They're not cloaking themselves then, are they?
No. But if they really are experts, they have enough experience with the subject to make their points with logic and cited examples. If one has to resort to saying "hey, I'm an expert" then there's something off.
No. But if they really are experts, they have enough experience with the subject to make their points with logic and cited examples. If one has to resort to saying "hey, I'm an expert" then there's something off.
Well, this is an eminently fair point in some respects, but surely there are kinds of knowledge that aren't of the footnote and reference type? And don't many kinds of personal experience yield such knowledge?
Close the city and tell the people that somethings coming to call
Death and darkness are rushing forward to take a bite from the wall, oh
Youve nothing to say
Theyre breaking away
If you listen to fools...
The mob rules
Kill the spirit and youll be blinded, the end is always the same
Play with fire, you burn your fingers and lose your hold of the flame, oh
Its over, its done
The end is begun
If you listen to fools...
The mob rules
Youve nothing to say
Oh, theyre breaking away
If you listen to fools...
Break the circle and stop the movement, the wheel is thrown to the ground
Just remember it might start rolling and take you right back around
Youre all fools!
The mob rules!
How very fitting for many of these forums
Well, this is an eminently fair point in some respects, but surely there are kinds of knowledge that aren't of the footnote and reference type? And don't many kinds of personal experience yield such knowledge?
You don't need footnotes and references to present a logical statement about something you know intimately. You should be able to correct misconceptions and provide logical responses to anything that falls within that realm if you're claiming some sort of expertise. Whether it's some sort of specific schooling or just a lot of personal experience with something, if you know it you can talk it. If you can't talk it and you've got to say "but I'm an expert" to get any respect on the subject, you're not really an expert.
So as quoted by Ronnie James Dio:
Close the city and tell the people that somethings coming to call
Death and darkness are rushing forward to take a bite from the wall, oh
Youve nothing to say
Theyre breaking away
If you listen to fools...
The mob rules
Kill the spirit and youll be blinded, the end is always the same
Play with fire, you burn your fingers and lose your hold of the flame, oh
Its over, its done
The end is begun
If you listen to fools...
The mob rules
Youve nothing to say
Oh, theyre breaking away
If you listen to fools...
Break the circle and stop the movement, the wheel is thrown to the ground
Just remember it might start rolling and take you right back around
Youre all fools!
The mob rules!
How very fitting for many of these forums
Dio Rocks!
pointing out that someone's assertions of expertise are inherently unprovable and thus not credible is not questioning the person's veracity, although it is often inappropriately interpreted that way.
Now, in my book, there is a world of difference between something being unprovable and something not being credible
QED.
Saying something is not credible is not an accusation of dishonesty. It's just a statement that the credibility of the statement cannot be verified. Again, it's the difference between "You're lying!" and "You haven't given me a reason to believe you." It's a subtle difference, which is why people are easily offended by it, but it's a crucial distinction.
Also, there is a difference between "You are not credible" and "Your statement (or your assertion of credentials) is not credible". The former is a personal attack (a mild one, but a personal attack nonetheless). The latter is just a statement of proof.
But some people really are experts. They're not cloaking themselves then, are they?
Let me rephrase that. They are cloaking their arguments in the aura of an expert opinion. It may or may not be uttered by an expert, but by trying to give it the tenor of an expert opinion without actually supporting that assertion, you are putting on airs.
It's simply something that people should avoid on the internet as it offer no benefit and is likely to get accusations of lack of credibility lobbed in your general vicinity.
"Admiral, will we stop attacking at any point? Or is this one of those phony bologna feel-good wars like the War on Drugs?" - Lars, Bender's Big Score
I refuse to believe. :D
Seriously though, the problem isn't an "edition war" (a term which I find mischaracterizes the whole situation, by somehow implying legitimacy), it's that these forums have devolved into a mass of yelling children (on all sides of everything). Disagreement isn't a problem, the rampant aggressive (and negative) tone is.
Add to this a somewhat lax moderation system (no IP bans, for example), and things are simply "in a bad way."
Edition War=fans of 4E fighting with fans of 3E
It might not be 100% accurate, but its close enough.
As for things being "in a bad way" such is the way of things. I've given up on the forums being fixed, or becoming a nicer place and prefer to accept things being "in a bad way" and deal with that accordingly.
Edition War=fans of 4E fighting with fans of 3E
It might not be 100% accurate, but its close enough.
The anti side is also composed of some fans of earlier editions, I'd say... Which can make the things even more complex.
As for things being "in a bad way" such is the way of things. I've given up on the forums being fixed, or becoming a nicer place and prefer to accept things being "in a bad way" and deal with that accordingly.
I wouldn't agree that the "edition war" is still going on, but that's a topic for another thread.
I do find it somewhat amusing, however, that people think that this place is somehow worse now than it ever was. We've always had something to argue about and no compunctions against doing so. Whether it was Psionics, Clerics, Tome of Battle, Lightsabers, Core vs Splats, whatever; there have always been people taking sides. The only reason a lot of people are noticing it now is that the edition change has kept the factions stable for longer than they have been previously. It's not a new argument every two weeks or month anymore, it's been the same two sides for upwards of four months now. There's also the issue that both sides of the argument used to be composed of people that actually liked the game, but to be honest that didn't really keep things anymore civil.
This place has never been "better." It's been far worse, though, like during C&C (*spit*). This is just how it is around here. Welcome to the internet. :D
Edition War=fans of 4E fighting with fans of 3E
I still choose to disbelieve. :D
Though if you said, instead, "The Edition War is a few of the so-called 'Fans' of 3rd Edition DnD and 4th Edition DnD fighting over who can be the most offensive," I'd probably agree with you.
As for things being "in a bad way" such is the way of things. I've given up on the forums being fixed, or becoming a nicer place and prefer to accept things being "in a bad way" and deal with that accordingly.
So long as "accordingly" is posting decently well-reasoned comments, keeping the bile to a minimum, and reporting offensive posts, I agree completely.
EDIT(In Response to Batshido): All Glory to Psionics! And yes, lord were some of those discussions terrible (kinda like... now).
QED
Sorry, but I don't think so.
Saying something is not credible is not an accusation of dishonesty. It's just a statement that the credibility of the statement cannot be verified. Again, it's the difference between "You're lying!" and "You haven't given me a reason to believe you." It's a subtle difference, which is why people are easily offended by it, but it's a crucial distinction.
But, to use an argument you used earlier, isn't it just as easy to say "you haven't given me a reason to disbelieve you" as it is to say "you haven't given me a reason to believe you" - and, from your point of view, wouldn't it be better to avoid both? ;)
Also, there is a difference between "You are not credible" and "Your statement (or your assertion of credentials) is not credible". The former is a personal attack (a mild one, but a personal attack nonetheless). The latter is just a statement of proof.
I think that "you are not credible" would actually be a very strong personal attack, as it would essentially be launching an assault on a person's integrity - that is, on the very foundation of who they really are. However, if we leave that aside and simply deal with the credibility of statements, I would say the following: if "credible" is taken to mean that it is worthy of being believed, then you are right. However, if "credible" is taken to mean that something is capable of being believed, then saying that a person's words are not credible is basically saying that there is so circumstance in which one would believe them, which is unfair. Like I said, words have many different shades of meaning, and those are two perfectly legitimate definitions and uses of "credible." We rely on good faith with each other to know that someone doesn't mean to speak ill of us, which can be difficult to establish on the internet. Personally, I try to use smilies copiously in order to convey that I mean ill to absolutely no one.
You don't need footnotes and references to present a logical statement about something you know intimately. You should be able to correct misconceptions and provide logical responses to anything that falls within that realm if you're claiming some sort of expertise. Whether it's some sort of specific schooling or just a lot of personal experience with something, if you know it you can talk it. If you can't talk it and you've got to say "but I'm an expert" to get any respect on the subject, you're not really an expert.
Well, like I said, I think you're absolutely right when it comes to a lot of fields, but as a rule I don't know that it's always the case that "if you know it you can talk it." Ideally, I suppose, it would be the case, but I don't think it actually is, in reality. I know lots of people who are great researchers but terrible teachers, for example. To be fair: the corollary of the fact that not everyone is very good at putting their extensive experience into words would, I suppose, be that they shouldn't expect to win arguments based on said experience (since arguments are, perforce, verbal).
Ultimately, I still think it isn't right to openly cast doubt on what another person has said about their life experience (provided that there are no incredibly obvious impediments to belief, at a level of pure common sense or one's own personal expertise in a field). What we have done is a part of who we are, after all. In my opinion, the best thing to do in a situation where one can't be sure if just to carry along two provisional opinions: if Person A really did that, then I would have to take their witness into account when evaluating Phenomenon B, but if they did not, then I would not; since I can never be completely sure, I will just try to keep an open mind. Does that seem fair?
I wouldn't agree that the "edition war" is still going on, but that's a topic for another thread.
I do find it somewhat amusing, however, that people think that this place is somehow worse now than it ever was. We've always had something to argue about and no compunctions against doing so. Whether it was Psionics, Clerics, Tome of Battle, Lightsabers, Core vs Splats, whatever; there have always been people taking sides. The only reason a lot of people are noticing it now is that the edition change has kept the factions stable for longer than they have been previously. It's not a new argument every two weeks or month anymore, it's been the same two sides for upwards of four months now. There's also the issue that both sides of the argument used to be composed of people that actually liked the game, but to be honest that didn't really keep things anymore civil.
This place has never been "better." It's been far worse, though, like during C&C (*spit*). This is just how it is around here. Welcome to the internet. :D
Clearly I wasn't reading the sub-forums you're talking about at the times when these things were going on (for which, it seems, I should be thankful)! :D I never remember things being as bad before as they have been since 4e came out. (This is not a comment on 4e itself - personally, I quite like a lot of things about the new edition - but on our reception of it.) Perhaps that is because (in my experience, at least - you are free to contradict it) it was never before so much a case of a big group against a small group. It has frequently been said that, if one has an unpopular opinion, then one should be prepared to be unpopular. However, it is my view that this should not be the case. People who profess minority religions, for example, might have different views on many things compared to those who follow more mainstream religions - in other words, their views would be unpopular. But, were one to claim that they should be prepared to be unpopular themselves on that count, I think one could be fairly accused of intolerance. Obviously, it would be a different matter if said religion involved, for example, human sacrifice. But what I'm talking about here is a simple difference of views, without moral complications, which is exactly what we have here on the boards, isn't it?