I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
The D&D forums especially. The Star Wars forums on this site seem much more civil, for example.
It is a bit odd, how willing WotC is to give a free forum, on its own website, to threads which don't criticize mere aspects of the game, but the entire history, conceptual design, and execution of the products and the company itself.
Most people don't criticize the fact that D&D is a fantasy-based RPG that uses 6 stats, classes, races, and has things like spells, prayers, and exploits. Where people start to complain is how important these elements are, the options provided, and the HOW these things are represented in the game. It's the fiddly bits that cause concern and tend to differentiate between posters and groups. Further, the bolded part should go for every edition of the game, not exlcuding one or some parts of others.
If a user has been banned off and on for months on end, that user has no place on this forum and should be told to stay out permanently. Unfortunately there is a revolving door mentality when it comes to bans and the message boards pay for it in terms of quality.
I agree with this but technically this whole thread could be locked for CoC violation because it discusses moderation. Though it does not specifically call out a specific piece of moderation or act of moderation so I'm not sure.
Ironically the first victim of the 'More forum moderation' act of 2013 was the original thread calling for more moderation. ;)
negative posts are just as important as positive posts.
By all means disagree with other posters, presentation of alternate ideas and even direct criticism are part and parcel of conversation. But there is a way to have that conversation without it being a contest of ill will or an attempt to “prove” a subjective valuation.
There is nothing wrong with being polite and assuming that other posters have valid points given their circumstance. Good debate strengthens the community and leads to understanding.
However many of the threads here are plagued by inflammatory language and bait words. This kind of thing doesn’t add anything constructive to the dialog. Rather it devolves into nanananana!
I think many posters here just don’t know how to post well. A few moderators with a clear plan of action could let people know what is OK and what is not, and clean things up very quickly.
also, snark and vitriol go hand in hand with forums. it's been that way since the start.
Put a cap on the amount of nondiscussion that goes on around here? Yes they can.
Locking threads that have turned into a flame war before the second page? Yes they can.
More bans for repeat offenders? Yes they can.
RPG.net is an example of a website that has cracked down on constant edition warring and created a stable environment for people to cordially discuss D&D. Why would it be so hard for WotC to do the same?
there's no practical way a mod team could effectively make rpg fans get along with eachother. the best you can do is ban the people who cross the line one too many times.
also, snark and vitriol go hand in hand with forums. it's been that way since the start.
There are many forums where this is not the case; Eve online has one of the most hostile player bases in the world and the forums are much better than here, this is the result of heavy moderation. Something Awful is excellent, Reddit to a lesser degree, and as IAmSylar said RPG.net.
People don't need to get along or even like one another in order to be polite and speak with respect. Heavy handed mederation cleans forums up very quickly, there is no reason for good ideas and good posters to be driven away.
negative posts are just as important as positive posts.
To a point. As long as the negative posts are working towards pointing out problems in Next without intentionally inciting arguments, fine. Negative posts that do nothing to contribute(or positive posts that do nothing to contribute for that matter) should be avoided.
But the other thing they need on top of more moderation is unbiased moderation, which this board historically lacks. I can't begin to count the number of times I've been subjected to personal attacks, respond to the attacker, and then my post is deleted and called Trolling leaving the personal attacks present.
This is at least as big a problem as the lack of moderation. Having active moderators is completely useless if they're only moderating specific people. Which IIRC is a topic that's been pretty active in the Community Business forum, read The Troll's thread in that forum.
I agree.
But the other thing they need on top of more moderation is unbiased moderation, which this board historically lacks. I can't begin to count the number of times I've been subjected to personal attacks, respond to the attacker, and then my post is deleted and called Trolling leaving the personal attacks present.
This is at least as big a problem as the lack of moderation. Having active moderators is completely useless if they're only moderating specific people. Which IIRC is a topic that's been pretty active in the Community Business forum, read The Troll's thread in that forum.
I think that when the workload is just too great it can look like bias, but is probably just a lack of resources.
Report personal attacks, block the instigator, and move on. Once enough reports get sent about a specific poster they will get banned.
I agree.
But the other thing they need on top of more moderation is unbiased moderation, which this board historically lacks. I can't begin to count the number of times I've been subjected to personal attacks, respond to the attacker, and then my post is deleted and called Trolling leaving the personal attacks present.
This is at least as big a problem as the lack of moderation. Having active moderators is completely useless if they're only moderating specific people. Which IIRC is a topic that's been pretty active in the Community Business forum, read The Troll's thread in that forum.
Yeah I've seen this too and it's pretty frustrating when they delete a message, edit the message quoting that message, remove the original quote from the message, but leave the post unedited of the even worse PA that it contained.
And until that changes, there will be strife and difficulty.
It's cool tho, I'll be playing me a fun game of 13A.
The problem with this boards is that some people don't want equality. The reasons are various; revenge, us-vs-them attitude, one-true-wayism, and other aspects of edition warrior mindset are pretty much solidified with some people, and will never change.
And until that changes, there will be strife and difficulty.
It's cool tho, I'll be playing me a fun game of 13A.
Bad attitudes, camps, hate theories, and revenge all fall apart when confronted by a crew of mods that only care about people speaking civilly and threads staying constructive. Its not like there's any limit on what they can do. On the Eve forums for instance they ban someone about once a week, lock 30-50% of the threads, and edit out anything that is counter to the EULA. As a result people post in way that accurately reflects Eve online and its player base. Its a pretty good forum and one that I enjoy posting on.
I'm hesitant to post this because discussion of moderation is technically not allowed, but I feel as thought the biggest reason these boards have so much trouble is that problem posters, even serial offenders, are only removed for a very short period of time. When the boards are fortunate enough to be in a period where a significant contingient of the serial problem posters are all temp-banned simultaneously, they're remarkably civil; they then rapidly devolve into messes as the temp bans expire. I'm not sure if they expect banning somebody for the seventh time to be the one that finally turns somebody into a good citizen, but it's the one element of the (already super lax) moderation policy that I really don't understand.
Good to know I'm not the only one who has noticed.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather hear 1000 posters all screaming at each other than have yet another kumbaya-inclusive-diversity-ifyoudisagreeyoumustbeabigot forum.
When North Korea devises some device that shocks you for having aggressive thoughts regarding the supreme leader, we can use that for troll-control, but until then it's just an angry mob...I mean...
I'M A PROBLEM SOLVER.
edit: Forgot to mention this. I do have some respect for a company that lets people trash them on their own forums. Maybe they don't pay attention to it, but I'm guessing they know. Some companies ban/delete anything bad about them.
I agree.
But the other thing they need on top of more moderation is unbiased moderation, which this board historically lacks. I can't begin to count the number of times I've been subjected to personal attacks, respond to the attacker, and then my post is deleted and called Trolling leaving the personal attacks present.
This is at least as big a problem as the lack of moderation. Having active moderators is completely useless if they're only moderating specific people. Which IIRC is a topic that's been pretty active in the Community Business forum, read The Troll's thread in that forum.I think that when the workload is just too great it can look like bias, but is probably just a lack of resources.
Report personal attacks, block the instigator, and move on. Once enough reports get sent about a specific poster they will get banned.
Sadly, I've tried that. I've reported posters for clear edition warring, and had moderators come into the thread, ignore the post I reported despite being clear edition warring, and delete someone else's posts who responded to it instead.
I've had it happen quite frequently. Certain types of edition warring are permitted, others have been moderated heavily.
IMO, WOTC has two serious problems with these boards.
1. The Ad-Hominem Attack culture that pervades these boards.
2. The moderator's huge bias, and their very strategic moderation, where rules apply very inconsistently.
Blocking is pretty pointless, it just lets people tear you apart while you can't see it, but everyone else does. Presenting a strong arguement is incredibly difficult if there's someone you can't hear mocking you and twisting your words.
Gatt believes that there is a pro-4e, anti-pre-4e moderation conspiracy, with the express goal of silencing critics of 4e and enforcing 4e-style play as the Right Way for playing Next.
It doesn't exist, and I do not feel it appropriate to let such statements go unchallenged. The statement, itself, is edition warring, and should not be tolerated.
And when I point out such things, Gatt believes I am personally attacking him.
I mean, just because you say that it is true.
To clarify:
Gatt believes that there is a pro-4e, anti-pre-4e moderation conspiracy, with the express goal of silencing critics of 4e and enforcing 4e-style play as the Right Way for playing Next.
It doesn't exist, and I do not feel it appropriate to let such statements go unchallenged. The statement, itself, is edition warring, and should not be tolerated.
And when I point out such things, Gatt believes I am personally attacking him.
The mods have been very lenient on the 4vengers for years. Probably turns out the mods are lenient in general though but there has been a 4venger clique here since 2008 and they have a certain posting style and seem to suffer from group think. Their posting style and opinons tend to be more or less identical.
If posts of a certain kind tend to get removed for edition warring, they might be edition warring.
Shocking, I know.
The simple truth is that we have edition warriors who don't even know that they're edition warriors. And then complain when they get modded.
I do not think one could get away with creating a "What Do You Hate About 4th ed that Needs to Be Excluded from D&DN" thread.
The mods give the 4vengers a bit more rope than than everyone else it seems. It may be a little bit off topic so perhaps go to the 4th ed section and create a thread "What Do You Hate About 4th Ed". I bet it would not last 24 hours. They even inviewed a acknowledged memebr of the 4vengers group when they were doing playtest profiles (Tony_Vargas).
And yes, I've tried to explain why this is terrible policy, but they won't do anything to change things.
Sorry, but I see a LOT of hate going 4E's way 10x more than, say, hate towards 1E or AD&D. And usually when something negative is said of AD&D its in contrast to flames against 4E.
Perhaps, that is because there are 10x more fans of the earlier editions than there are of 4th Edition; we (all D&D fans/players) are a HUGE playerbase.
I don't know which forums you're reading; but, that is the exact opposite of what I've actually read on these (D&D Next) forums.
negative posts are just as important as positive posts.
Negative posts can still follow the guidelines of civility. Most posters don't attempt to be civil. That's the problem.
I have, however, noticed many times that blatant edition warring against pre-4E editions is almost never moderated, while blatant edition warring against 4E is usually moderated. As I said, I don't believe this is part of any intentional conspiracy, but rather a simple matter of attention.
Only posts that get reported get moderated. The more reports it gets, the more likely it is to get moderated. There are not enough moderators or enough hours in the day for the existing moderators to read every report and to make sure that every post which is even remotely offensive gets moderated. Therefore, any post that is not reported over and over and over is highly likely to slip through the cracks.
And these forums have vastly more people who are offended by shots fired at 4E than people who are offended by shots fired at pre-4E. Therefore the shots fired at 4E get reported, a lot, while ones fired at prior editions are reported by only a few people.
More moderation would solve the problem, I'm confident, and it might also allow certain topics to actually be talked about instead of just being the same few posters yelling the same few things at each other over and over.
As for 4E posters bashing stuff, really? Yes some are irritated at some of the design philosophy behind 5E and want more inclusive design that shows the merits of 4E but not 100% by default and its more likely they want everyones style implanted as one way to play rather than 4E or the highway. The same cannot be said of 4aters.
I dont claim how many people are fans of x edition as I dont have the numbers to back up such a baseless claim. That said, I think people dont bash pre-3e because those systems are largely irrelevant to current discussions as far as mechanics and modern gaming go. Also, why would I bother bashing a game like AD&D when the mechanics and rules already speak to that and the fact that TSR went under during its reign shows it further. As for 4E posters bashing stuff, really? Yes some are irritated at some of the design philosophy behind 5E and want more inclusive design that shows the merits of 4E but not 100% by default and its more likely they want everyones style implanted as one way to play rather than 4E or the highway. The same cannot be said of 4aters.
AD&D had nothing to do with TSR "going under"; AD&D was the longest running, most popular and successful edition to date. TSR's downfall was, in my opinion, caused by internal squabbling and personnel changes at the time.
EDIT: Most likely, if TSR hadn't had these problems,resulting in WotC taking over, AD&D would still be the current edition of the game (although maybe with a few official revisions).
Again, this is the exact opposite of my experience on these forums.
negative posts are just as important as positive posts.
Negative posts can still follow the guidelines of civility. Most posters don't attempt to be civil. That's the problem.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.
The ability to disagree and criticize is important to the development process. That WotC doesn't squelch dissent is a strong mark in their favour. That the tone of disagreement is so caustic indicates a level of passion in the posters.
Everyone here, methinks, wants the D&D 5th to be great.
However, we do not agree what would make it great. When someone supports something we don't want in our game, there may be a knee-jerk to "protect" the, as of yet unborn, DD5 from these horrible (subjective) influences. One person's great idea is another person's death knell of the game.
Spice with edition slap fighting, and we come to where we are now.
Civility is difficult. Misunderstanding and anger are easy.
It's unfortunate that disagreement devolves beyound respect so quickly, but not terribly surprising.
negative posts are just as important as positive posts.
Negative posts can still follow the guidelines of civility. Most posters don't attempt to be civil. That's the problem.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.
The ability to disagree and criticize is important to the development process. That WotC doesn't squelch dissent is a strong mark in their favour. That the tone of disagreement is so caustic indicates a level of passion in the posters.
Everyone here, methinks, wants the D&D 5th to be great.
However, we do not agree what would make it great. When someone supports something we don't want in our game, there may be a knee-jerk to "protect" the, as of yet unborn, DD5 from these horrible (subjective) influences. One person's great idea is another person's death knell of the game.
Spice with edition slap fighting, and we come to where we are now.
Civility is difficult. Misunderstanding and anger are easy.
It's unfortunate that disagreement devolves beyound respect so quickly, but not terribly surprising.
And, daddy should come by and tell us squabbling kids to go to our rooms when we get out of hand...
And, daddy should come by and tell us squabbling kids to go to our rooms when we get out of hand...
My nephew ranted at me today, informing me that hyperbole is the language of the internet, and that my expectations are outdated (he used different words).
I'm going to enjoy laughing at him when his children are old enough to use language that offends him.
Reading a lot of Next's rules show Codified powers for fighters, feats, skills, little restrictions on class, race, choices. I see a bit of self healing in there as well. At-will cantrips that deal scaling damage. Perhaps its not the colorful power bodes of 4E but elements ARE there.
My nephew ranted at me today, informing me that hyperbole is the language of the internet, and that my expectations are outdated (he used different words).
I'm going to enjoy laughing at him when his children are old enough to use language that offends him.
That’s kind of sad; does he not understand how that kind of speech ultimately leads to miscommunication and disengagement? Does he want that?
I guess I can see how angst filled young men are happy to have a place to vent, I just don’t understand why it is allowed to happen here. That element can go to Kugutsumen or any number of places that make their money hosting muck throwing contests.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
I'd volunteer. These forums really do need to be purged of non-constructive posts. Though I'd explain what the problem is and I wouldn't ban people. I'd send them PMs and edit their posts...
Make us get along? No. They cannot.
Put a cap on the amount of nondiscussion that goes on around here? Yes they can.
Locking threads that have turned into a flame war before the second page? Yes they can.
More bans for repeat offenders? Yes they can.
RPG.net is an example of a website that has cracked down on constant edition warring and created a stable environment for people to cordially discuss D&D. Why would it be so hard for WotC to do the same?
There's no real way to ban people. At least not without partnering with Google and Facebook (PM me for details in you are interested).
Temp and permanent bans are bypassed by simply creating a new account.
IP bans are bypassed by simply resetting your high speed modem.
There is literally nothing they can do without partnering with outside sites.
A much better approach is education. Teach people how to post. When they post something against the CoC, edit it and quote the part of the CoC they have violated then give examples of rephrasing the same idea without the inflammatory language. Send a copy of the edit in a PM with a link to the post...
I agree.
But the other thing they need on top of more moderation is unbiased moderation, which this board historically lacks. I can't begin to count the number of times I've been subjected to personal attacks, respond to the attacker, and then my post is deleted and called Trolling leaving the personal attacks present.
This is at least as big a problem as the lack of moderation. Having active moderators is completely useless if they're only moderating specific people. Which IIRC is a topic that's been pretty active in the Community Business forum, read The Troll's thread in that forum.
Not related to your post at all, I just hope this thread isn't a honey pot...
I find it interesting that the mentioned 'heavily-moderated' boards are also the ones that stifle the most amount of dissent and play host to politically-approved beliefs expressed as platitudes of certainty.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather hear 1000 posters all screaming at each other than have yet another kumbaya-inclusive-diversity-ifyoudisagreeyoumustbeabigot forum.
+1
People feel safe in us-vs-them. There's strife within every group. This board just needs a common enemy, and it'd be fine. Have some bigoted meat-head come in here and trash everybody for even playing RPGs. Everybody would just hate on him instead of each other.
When North Korea devises some device that shocks you for having aggressive thoughts regarding the supreme leader, we can use that for troll-control, but until then it's just an angry mob...I mean...
I'M A PROBLEM SOLVER.
edit: Forgot to mention this. I do have some respect for a company that lets people trash them on their own forums. Maybe they don't pay attention to it, but I'm guessing they know. Some companies ban/delete anything bad about them.
You should watch, "Clockwork Orange" for why that kind of idea is bad...
Its not that Mand12. We have a well known avenger starting a thread about hating D&DN who insults Mearls on a personal level. The only ones who do that tend to be the 4th ed posters.
I do not think one could get away with creating a "What Do You Hate About 4th ed that Needs to Be Excluded from D&DN" thread.
The mods give the 4vengers a bit more rope than than everyone else it seems. It may be a little bit off topic so perhaps go to the 4th ed section and create a thread "What Do You Hate About 4th Ed". I bet it would not last 24 hours. They even inviewed a acknowledged memebr of the 4vengers group when they were doing playtest profiles (Tony_Vargas).
It might help if you actually read that thread, because its not about Mearls at all. Its about all the things in 5E that people don't like. Its a counter to the "Why do you Love D&D:Next?" thread. You may find out if you read it that you agree with some of the posts in it...
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
This subforum would absolutely be better if ONLY discussion of Next rules were allowed here.
That would solve everything.
I'm also not a fan of censorship. Call me an edition warrior, fine, who cares? I admit it.
But when there's a thread called "Why do you hate D&D Next"...that isn't locked from the very first post, that tells us fans that hunting season is on and the mods don't care.
In a play test. I understand you don't seem to know what that means, but we are literally supposed to tell them what we don't like about 5E. Its literally part of the play test process. Maybe they need to have a L&L and explain that to people.
And to be honest, most of the "constructive" posts in here aren't really that constructive either, a lot of it is whining as to why Next isn't exactly like that other one, not realizing the reality that it's a brand new day, and time for some new ideas (or at least, innovations / improvements on older ideas that work that 90% of the market hasn't rejected).
To be honest, it would make me laugh if this Avatar were banned, not that I'm trying to, I just don't believe moderation is do-able without banning people who come here just to cr*p all over Next and this game in general.
I have yet to see anyone that came here for that purpose. Everyone I see just wants mechanics they like to support their play style included in some form (even if its just optional). Maybe you need to change the way you view things.
I would gladly self-ban if Garthanos and Lokiare did the same. I can give my feedback in the feedback forms and probably have my opinion heard just as much. I'm secure enough to ask for only one vote, since I'm confident the market has spoken and the current game designers, aside from loving the game in the same way I do, are also fully capable of discerning that people who are not truly fans of what you're trying to achieve will never go along with it, and thus ignore or downplay their feedback anyway.
Not gonna happen. I'm going to stick it out and continue to decry the one-way-ism that Mike and crew are building into 5E. I'm going to continue to tell them that this game is not accessible or desired by me and those like me. In other words I'm going to do exactly what they asked when they invited me into this public play test. I'm going to give feedback.
All right, it's late. Have a pleasant evening posters. Happy gaming! Whatever edition you prefer
Flatter math and fast combat is already so full of win.
There is a lot more left to be desired. I can flip a coin to determines who wins or loses a combat (flatter math and fast combat), but that would not be a desirable game...
For what it's worth, I do not believe that there is any sort of an intentional conspiracy. I never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence or any other similar human frailty.
I have, however, noticed many times that blatant edition warring against pre-4E editions is almost never moderated, while blatant edition warring against 4E is usually moderated. As I said, I don't believe this is part of any intentional conspiracy, but rather a simple matter of attention.
Only posts that get reported get moderated. The more reports it gets, the more likely it is to get moderated. There are not enough moderators or enough hours in the day for the existing moderators to read every report and to make sure that every post which is even remotely offensive gets moderated. Therefore, any post that is not reported over and over and over is highly likely to slip through the cracks.
And these forums have vastly more people who are offended by shots fired at 4E than people who are offended by shots fired at pre-4E. Therefore the shots fired at 4E get reported, a lot, while ones fired at prior editions are reported by only a few people.
More moderation would solve the problem, I'm confident, and it might also allow certain topics to actually be talked about instead of just being the same few posters yelling the same few things at each other over and over.
I'm a single person and I read nearly every post made in this subforum. There is no excuse for not reading and dealing with every reported post. There is an excuse for not reading every post ever made, although they could do that. Just have every post require an ORC or moderator read it before it shows up. Then you could alter or discuss the post with the poster in a one on one PM session to explain why in its current form its not going to be posted...
I see absolutely nothing in Next that looks like AD&D. Outside the paladin, no alignment restrictions. No race restrictions. No ability score requirements. No weapon speeds. No NWP. No multi-tiered XP charts based on class. No requirements for backstabbing. No spheres. No multi-round casting. I mean, I played alot of AD&D and these are big elements in the game of which Next lacks. Reading a lot of Next's rules show Codified powers for fighters, feats, skills, little restrictions on class, race, choices. I see a bit of self healing in there as well. At-will cantrips that deal scaling damage. Perhaps its not the colorful power bodes of 4E but elements ARE there.
Some of the things you list about AD&D were some the faults of those editions; so, I'm glad they haven't been resurrected.
Many things are there, you're just ignoring them; just to name a few that you specifically state are missing:
- NWP are represented by Skills (as they always have been),
- Spheres are there as well, just not given as clear an identity (see the Deity Templates, Domain Spells and Spell Schools), and
- Multi-round casting has been mentioned, as a possibility in the future; not to mention Rituals already being multi-round casting.
There are many other features that were in AD&D (along with other editions), that are in D&D Next; so, you're statement that there is nothing in Next that looks like AD&D, is simply false.
As to your other paragraph, I agree with you; there is also plenty of features that are pulled directly (or indirectly) from 4th Edition.
I can also see why some 4th Edition fans have implied that the designers seem to be trying to disassociate these elements from 4th Edition, by renaming them or changing them ever so slightly. I don't understand this trend myself; D&D Next is supposed to have elements from every edition. I thought the idea was to take the best elements/ideas from each of the previous editions and make a game that we all can get behind.
As to your other paragraph, I agree with you; there is also plenty of features that are pulled directly (or indirectly) from 4th Edition.
I can also see why some 4th Edition fans have implied that the designers seem to be trying to disassociate these elements from 4th Edition, by renaming them or changing them ever so slightly. I don't understand this trend myself; D&D Next is supposed to have elements from every edition. I thought the idea was to take the best elements/ideas from each of the previous editions and make a game that we all can get behind.
And, daddy should come by and tell us squabbling kids to go to our rooms when we get out of hand...
My nephew ranted at me today, informing me that hyperbole is the language of the internet, and that my expectations are outdated (he used different words).
I'm going to enjoy laughing at him when his children are old enough to use language that offends him.
logic is never outdated.
If you wanted to get creative, whenever they ask permission to do something give a hyperbolic response without giving them any real answer. See how long they keep doing the hyperbole...
Sorry, but I see a LOT of hate going 4E's way 10x more than, say, hate towards 1E or AD&D. And usually when something negative is said of AD&D its in contrast to flames against 4E.
It certainly makes you wonder why one product would get ten times the amount of complaints as another.
That's exactly right. The hatred is well-earned, well deserved really. It's way too prevalent to be a mere figment of one person's bias. The community spoke loudly and clearly when Paizo surpassed them in sales. Corporate bean counters don't like that.
Who do you think signs the game designer's checks?
It strikes me as odd that people seem blithely unaware that companies are out to make profit. You do that by selling a product that people want. The marketing of the D&D brand itself has been tarnished by this last failure (relative to a newcomer), and that's unacceptable to accountants and shareholders. In general, I dislike that reality, but it is, in fact, a reality, whether people chose to admit it or not. Having a new edition so quickly is a sign of desperation, and the fact that Next so closely mimicks a 2e/3e hybrid is also another sign that the company and designers have listened to the actual feedback and are further giving their potential customers what they actually like.
So if any people here believe in democracy, and actually accomodating the community's biases, they should just read the rules, see if they like them, and if they don't, get lost. Seriously. If you don't like the rules, go play another game! It is really that simple. I don't know how else to say it, it's quite pathetic for people who dislike a game so much to keep posting in its forums. Sad, really.
Even worse, are those who fail to recognize their avatars are guests at a red wedding. Read the rules..honestly, do they appear ANYTHING like 4th edition?
I'm asking people to be honest here.
And 3.5E was cut short by the same goals that 4e failed to meet. I won't be surprised if 5E is also cut short in 2-4 years. Because the goal is simply untenable...
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
I'd volunteer. These forums really do need to be purged of non-constructive posts. Though I'd explain what the problem is and I wouldn't ban people. I'd send them PMs and edit their posts...
That would be almost hilarious enough to watch.
But I wouldnt want to live there.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
I'd volunteer. These forums really do need to be purged of non-constructive posts. Though I'd explain what the problem is and I wouldn't ban people. I'd send them PMs and edit their posts...
That would be almost hilarious enough to watch.
But I wouldnt want to live there.
You can watch already. Watch when someone edition wars and my response to it. I point it out as edition warring, tell them alternate words or phrases to use and then explain how their posts are not constructive. If everyone did that and people learned from it, it would make this community much better. I also get things pointed out to me like the 'Fantasy Vietnam' post I made. Some people pointed out it was offensive, so I started using 'Rocket Tag' instead...
I find it interesting that the mentioned 'heavily-moderated' boards are also the ones that stifle the most amount of dissent and play host to politically-approved beliefs expressed as platitudes of certainty...
Something Awful is not limited to politically approved threads, it is full of spirited debate, some goons really hate each other! But because they cannot hurl insults and make things up they must resort to accurate, well informed, logical posting.
And if you don’t understand the culture of Eve online that forum can appear to be extremely hostile. The level of posting is much higher than here, but still can get very pointed in a way that the participants enjoy.
To claim that either of those forums is regulated by political correctness over content is not at all accurate. Have you been involved in threads on either one?
That’s kind of sad; does he not understand how that kind of speech ultimately leads to miscommunication and disengagement? Does he want that?I guess I can see how angst filled young men are happy to have a place to vent, I just don’t understand why it is allowed to happen here. That element can go to Kugutsumen or any number of places that make their money hosting muck throwing contests.
He explained that people don't think you're sincere if you don't "lose your $#!^" when you make your point. Then again, he is young, and full of all the swaggering bravado and self-assured near arrogance that so often accompanies youth. Gives me cause to re-examine my own less well thought out misadventures.
Regardless, it would be nice if civility were to be stepped up a notch.
I know Trolls regenerate unless they take acid or fire damage...
But filling the forums with flames and vitriol doesn't do anyone any good.
logic is never outdated.
If you wanted to get creative, whenever they ask permission to do something give a hyperbolic response without giving them any real answer. See how long they keep doing the hyperbole...
He's in his second decade and has progeny of his own.
He only asks my permission if he can't figure out where I stored the keys or bank card.
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
They are personal attacks, when poster outright state that the designers are incapable of designing anything worth playing. I've this numerous times; although, not in those exact words. There have been statements that mean just that, in multiple phrasings.
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
They are personal attacks, when poster outright state that the designers are incapable of designing anything worth playing. I've this numerous times; although, not in those exact words. There have been statements that mean just that, in multiple phrasings.
An understatement. There have been such words.
I also get things pointed out to me like the 'Fantasy Vietnam' post I made. Some people pointed out it was offensive, so I started using 'Rocket Tag' instead...
It's funny by the amount of butthurt from that term, because it's the correct term.
Like in Vietnam, if your team get ambushed, you likely going to die.
Don't think the DM can't kill you with an ambush by kobolds. He can and he will.
I personally like Fantasy Vietnam, because it add the dangerous and excitment.
A raw tomato can be a very good raw tomato.
A particular cup of coffee could be magnificient.
Neither will capture my intrest. Both are not really palattable to me.
However, I am not the world, so coffee has my permission to exist, and while raw tomato is near to my bane, I do use it in so many finished products.
TLDR: Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's objectively bad.
And to be honest, most of the "constructive" posts in here aren't really that constructive either, a lot of it is whining as to why Next isn't exactly like that other one, not realizing the reality that it's a brand new day, and time for some new ideas (or at least, innovations / improvements on older ideas that work that 90% of the market hasn't rejected).
I have yet to see anyone that came here for that purpose. Everyone I see just wants mechanics they like to support their play style included in some form (even if its just optional). Maybe you need to change the way you view things.
Then you are being intentially blind to them.
I would gladly self-ban if Garthanos and Lokiare did the same.
Not gonna happen. I'm going to stick it out and continue to decry the one-way-ism that Mike and crew are building into 5E. I'm going to continue to tell them that this game is not accessible or desired by me and those like me. In other words I'm going to do exactly what they asked when they invited me into this public play test. I'm going to give feedback.
While I'm glad you (and those of common opinion) are willing to "stick it out" and continue to give valuable feedback; the fact that you indicate a tendancy towards "one-way-ism" in D&D Next, just shows how intentionally blind you are being. There are features spanning all editions in D&D Next. They aren't all exact "cut and paste" renditions; but they are there.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
I'd volunteer. These forums really do need to be purged of non-constructive posts. Though I'd explain what the problem is and I wouldn't ban people. I'd send them PMs and edit their posts...
That would be almost hilarious enough to watch.
But I wouldnt want to live there.
Oh, you guys. It's pretty funny when you look at it.
That’s kind of sad; does he not understand how that kind of speech ultimately leads to miscommunication and disengagement? Does he want that?I guess I can see how angst filled young men are happy to have a place to vent, I just don’t understand why it is allowed to happen here. That element can go to Kugutsumen or any number of places that make their money hosting muck throwing contests.
He explained that people don't think you're sincere if you don't "lose your $#!^" when you make your point. Then again, he is young, and full of all the swaggering bravado and self-assured near arrogance that so often accompanies youth. Gives me cause to re-examine my own less well thought out misadventures.
Regardless, it would be nice if civility were to be stepped up a notch.
I know Trolls regenerate unless they take acid or fire damage...
But filling the forums with flames and vitriol doesn't do anyone any good.
This is a very real perception; and one of the problems with most online communication. The exeptions are audio and video conferencing, because you get secondary sensory input, to aid in the determination of sincerity.
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
They are personal attacks, when poster outright state that the designers are incapable of designing anything worth playing. I've this numerous times; although, not in those exact words. There have been statements that mean just that, in multiple phrasings.
An understatement. There have been such words.
I simply didn't want to have to find and cite them, if such was demanded of me.
This is a very real perception; and one of the problems with most online communication. The exeptions are audio and video conferencing, because you get secondary sensory input, to aid in the determination of sincerity.
Text can be a difficult medium at times.
Especially for me.
I use physical cues, tone, and cadence to understand and express as much (if not more than) words.
Sarcasm is particularly difficult for me to communicate, whether transmit or receive.
Well, time to check my agism, and admit that I'm not in my element.
~bemused chuckle~
As a community, can we not self-moderate? It seems as though there is a very clear understanding of who is who, and where the lines are drawn. If everyone ignores trolling, trolls will get the hint. If everyone blocks offenders, the offenders will sooner or later realize that no one sees their posts. If everyone stepped in to manage up and said "hey man, don't be a dick," people will come to grips with what we expect as a group of people.
No. When I come here, I don't want to waste my time on that or read any of the "s..." posts people have. They wouldn't have my traffic to their personal sites, but they come and try to dominate this website and ruin it for people and WotC probably suffers from reduced traffic and much less feedback.
As a community, can we not self-moderate? It seems as though there is a very clear understanding of who is who, and where the lines are drawn. If everyone ignores trolling, trolls will get the hint. If everyone blocks offenders, the offenders will sooner or later realize that no one sees their posts. If everyone stepped in to manage up and said "hey man, don't be a dick," people will come to grips with what we expect as a group of people.
Execpt that:
- Ignoring them doesn't drive them away, and
- Blocking them wouldn't, necessarily, let them know that everyone doesn't see there posts; not to mention leaving no one to refute them, which would send the wrong message as well.
- Plus, I do want to here their opinions; they provide valuable feedback, once the nonsense is peeled back.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
Bluespruce786,
+1000.
Thank you for making this thread. Thank you for being constructive in your approach. Thank you for standing up for logic, civility, politeness, and reason.
I love being a part of this playtest for D&D Next. I talk about it with my friends and I'm even running a campaign using the evolving rule set. But sometimes that's not enough to satisfy my desire to "talk shop" about the game, so I come here to these forums, ready to talk with other like-minded gamers, share ideas, brainstorm ideas....
...and instead I find myself in a Middle School cafeteria. Only, the majority of the people can't use the excuse of being 12. They are old enough to know how to conduct themselves in a polite manner.
Let's get this straight:
There's disagreeing, and then there's being rude.
You can have an engaging discussion without questioning the reproductive behavior of the poster's mother with various monsters that probably speak Orcish or Giant.
I wholeheartedly support the notion that better forum moderation will benefit the community. As another poster said, if I was newly interested in D&D Next and came to these forums...I would quickly run away in disgust after reading the threads here.
I hope this thread gets 88 pages of support and gets the attention of WOTC.
(a terrible idea I just had: maybe we should all curse in our posts so the moderators are forced to read this thread?)
This is a very real perception; and one of the problems with most online communication. The exeptions are audio and video conferencing, because you get secondary sensory input, to aid in the determination of sincerity.
When I read an emotionally charged post I always think back to sociology 101 when we talked about how witnesses on the stand would often be more insistent of their position when they were unsure of their memories. My benchmark for sincerity is a well thought out and researched post that has been spell checked and at least some thought given to the grammar.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
I'd volunteer. These forums really do need to be purged of non-constructive posts. Though I'd explain what the problem is and I wouldn't ban people. I'd send them PMs and edit their posts...
That would be almost hilarious enough to watch.
But I wouldnt want to live there.
You can watch already. Watch when someone edition wars and my response to it. I point it out as edition warring, tell them alternate words or phrases to use and then explain how their posts are not constructive. If everyone did that and people learned from it, it would make this community much better. I also get things pointed out to me like the 'Fantasy Vietnam' post I made. Some people pointed out it was offensive, so I started using 'Rocket Tag' instead...
Yes it would be exactly like that but probably 100 times more funny.
Well it sure is quiet on the forums now, why is that.
Lokiare banned everyone.
Warder
I don't see what all the fuss about, since I started using the block feature my browsing experience in here highly improved!
Warder
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
- Blocking them wouldn't, necessarily, let them know that everyone doesn't see there posts; not to mention leaving no one to refute them, which would send the wrong message as well.
- Blocking them wouldn't, necessarily, let them know that everyone doesn't see there posts; not to mention leaving no one to refute them, which would send the wrong message as well.
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
To clarify, while I do agree that a certain level of courtesy should be expected (and, perhaps arrogantly, feel there is some common ground between most persons on basic standards of netiquette), what do you use as a standard for intelligence?
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
They are personal attacks, when poster outright state that the designers are incapable of designing anything worth playing. I've this numerous times; although, not in those exact words. There have been statements that mean just that, in multiple phrasings.
I have yet to see it anywhere. I've seen some posters call out a bad design or failure of math. That doesn't mean they are calling the developers stupid or anything like that. Its recognizing they are human and not gods. Its helping them out by pointing out a flaw that can ruin the game for some players. Its called constructive feedback...
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
To clarify, while I do agree that a certain level of courtesy should be expected (and, perhaps arrogantly, feel there is some common ground between most persons on basic standards of netiquette), what do you use as a standard for intelligence?
You can't think of people as unintelligent.
This is the main problem here, and why moderation needs to be better. They often tell us to report and ignore, however there is no indication that ignoring someone in any way tarnishes their reputation, and if they just start posting a bunch of crazy **** and I'm unable to read and refute it then their voice of insanity goes unchallenged. If I thought for a second someone being ignored actually gave the devs pause when considering the arguments they put forth my ignore list would likely have a lot of people on it, but that's not how it works so here we sit unable to ignore each other because we disagree with the opposition in almost every way.
I feel that healthy and civil opposition aids a point.
By challenging assumptions and positions, they can be supported with pertinent facts and reason.
This dialogue benefits the community and the participants.
By not ignoring those who disagree with you, you do them and yourself a service, seeing perspectives effectively debated educates the audience as well.
However, sometimes people are baiting, or things degenerate.
The hardest part is keeping civility when others refuse to.
And to be honest, most of the "constructive" posts in here aren't really that constructive either, a lot of it is whining as to why Next isn't exactly like that other one, not realizing the reality that it's a brand new day, and time for some new ideas (or at least, innovations / improvements on older ideas that work that 90% of the market hasn't rejected).
I have yet to see anyone that came here for that purpose. Everyone I see just wants mechanics they like to support their play style included in some form (even if its just optional). Maybe you need to change the way you view things.
Then you are being intentially blind to them.I would gladly self-ban if Garthanos and Lokiare did the same.
Not gonna happen. I'm going to stick it out and continue to decry the one-way-ism that Mike and crew are building into 5E. I'm going to continue to tell them that this game is not accessible or desired by me and those like me. In other words I'm going to do exactly what they asked when they invited me into this public play test. I'm going to give feedback.
While I'm glad you (and those of common opinion) are willing to "stick it out" and continue to give valuable feedback; the fact that you indicate a tendancy towards "one-way-ism" in D&D Next, just shows how intentionally blind you are being. There are features spanning all editions in D&D Next. They aren't all exact "cut and paste" renditions; but they are there.
Link some of those posts and I'll believe you, otherwise I'm been around these forums quite a bit.
I also don't show a tendency to 'one-way-ism' as you claim. I have no problem with other styles in the game as options, as long as mine are also in the game as option...
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
They are personal attacks, when poster outright state that the designers are incapable of designing anything worth playing. I've this numerous times; although, not in those exact words. There have been statements that mean just that, in multiple phrasings.
An understatement. There have been such words.
I simply didn't want to have to find and cite them, if such was demanded of me.
If they are that hard to find, how are they 'all over these forums' or whatever you claimed. I think you don't want to find them because you were engaging in hyperbole...
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
To clarify, while I do agree that a certain level of courtesy should be expected (and, perhaps arrogantly, feel there is some common ground between most persons on basic standards of netiquette), what do you use as a standard for intelligence?
You can't think of people as unintelligent.
I've bolded the part of your original statement that I'm trying to parce.
An easy misconception would be the implication that those who disagree with you are not intelligent. Your general optimism and lack of any caustic/threatening/confrontational posts causes me to dismiss that interpretation out of hand.
Which leaves a few other standards of comparison that I would rather ask about than assume.
TLDR: I am not sure how you intend the above, and request clarification.
No. When I come here, I don't want to waste my time on that or read any of the "s..." posts people have. They wouldn't have my traffic to their personal sites, but they come and try to dominate this website and ruin it for people and WotC probably suffers from reduced traffic and much less feedback.
Execpt that:
- Ignoring them doesn't drive them away, and
- Blocking them wouldn't, necessarily, let them know that everyone doesn't see there posts; not to mention leaving no one to refute them, which would send the wrong message as well.
- Plus, I do want to here their opinions; they provide valuable feedback, once the nonsense is peeled back.
I understand what's being said now.
We're having a conversation about creating a space, as opposed to controlling the space (i.e. thinking of newcomers and not so much the seasoned veterans).
I get homeblind after having contributed/lurked here for over a decade. (Time flies!
) I forget that new people must stumble in here and then run away never to return after getting a taste of the tone.
I get homeblind after having contributed/lurked here for over a decade. (Time flies!
) I forget that new people must stumble in here and then run away never to return after getting a taste of the tone.If they are that hard to find, how are they 'all over these forums' or whatever you claimed. I think you don't want to find them because you were engaging in hyperbole...
Please don't goad/rise to the bait on this one.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
I'd volunteer. These forums really do need to be purged of non-constructive posts. Though I'd explain what the problem is and I wouldn't ban people. I'd send them PMs and edit their posts...
That would be almost hilarious enough to watch.
But I wouldnt want to live there.
You can watch already. Watch when someone edition wars and my response to it. I point it out as edition warring, tell them alternate words or phrases to use and then explain how their posts are not constructive. If everyone did that and people learned from it, it would make this community much better. I also get things pointed out to me like the 'Fantasy Vietnam' post I made. Some people pointed out it was offensive, so I started using 'Rocket Tag' instead...
Yes it would be exactly like that but probably 100 times more funny.
Well it sure is quiet on the forums now, why is that.
Lokiare banned everyone.
Except I wouldn't ban anyone, because banning is pointless and easily circumvented. Its better to educate...
It is a bit odd, how willing WotC is to give a free forum, on its own website, to threads which don't criticize mere aspects of the game, but the entire history, conceptual design, and execution of the products and the company itself.
I notice you left out the most recent complete version of the game.
Because a lot of people around here think that is a fine thing to bash.
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
To clarify, while I do agree that a certain level of courtesy should be expected (and, perhaps arrogantly, feel there is some common ground between most persons on basic standards of netiquette), what do you use as a standard for intelligence?
You can't think of people as unintelligent.
I've bolded the part of your original statement that I'm trying to parce.
An easy misconception would be the implication that those who disagree with you are not intelligent. Your general optimism and lack of any caustic/threatening/confrontational posts causes me to dismiss that interpretation out of hand.
Which leaves a few other standards of comparison that I would rather ask about than assume.
TLDR: I am not sure how you intend the above, and request clarification.
It comes from personally seeing D&D players as usually very smart people, and the game as a hobby for smart people. It also comes from an understanding that smart people are less likely to curse, because they know how to express themselves better than most people. I don't believe gamers can be against other gamers, kind of like a Church-goer who doesn't expect to be insulted or confronted with immoral things while there or while interacting in the congregation.
I don't see what all the fuss about, since I started using the block feature my browsing experience in here highly improved!
Warder
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
You are perfectly correct but as you can see nothing is being done, so I'm looking for myself. As you can see I registered five years ago and left the boards in disgust so right now I just block folks and bay so in my signature, it done wonders to my blood pressure and I can at least brows the boards without using a mine sweeper.
I agree that it doesn't help new folks who come to the boards and get turned away because of the discourse by some of the more abnoxious and "louder" posters.
I'm a member on a board where folks who actually wish to see me dead (literally dead) are forced to act in a civilized way or get banned, I dislike them but I'm able to have a dissolution with them.
Warder
When I read an emotionally charged post I always think back to sociology 101 when we talked about how witnesses on the stand would often be more insistent of their position when they were unsure of their memories. My benchmark for sincerity is a well thought out and researched post that has been spell checked and at least some thought given to the grammar.
...I really have nothing further to add to this, save the bolding. And perhaps the consideration that not every cogent thought in history has been presented by someone who 'spell checks'.
I guess it's a good thing I can spell pretty well, as I have no idea where the 'spellchecker' even -is- on this site.
Edit: I don't think I clarified something well enough. I think a certain amount of -passion- is good. That doesn't mean that it has to descend into -meanness-, and I readily recognize the difference between the two. I just don't think that discounting someone's post because it is poor in grammar or misspelling if in -any- way a constuctive attitude. Perhaps English is not their first language. Perhaps they're posting from a mobile. Perhaps they're ill at the moment. Categorically discounting someone's voice because you don't like the manner in which it appears, regardless of the content of said post, smacks of lazy elitism (even if (and I suspect it is) unintentional).
If they are that hard to find, how are they 'all over these forums' or whatever you claimed. I think you don't want to find them because you were engaging in hyperbole...
Please don't goad/rise to the bait on this one.
That's not trolling or baiting in the least. Its asking for proof of their hyperbolic claims. Nothing more. Its called intelligent debate. They made a claim without evidence. I'm asking for the evidence that backs the claim. Its very simple.
Now the real problem might be that some people view certain posts as trolling and/or baiting when in fact they are legitimate discussion. In this case they are too sensitive. They will likely respond with actually trolling/baiting with things like 'conspiracy theorist', 'grognard', or other character assassination attempts doing the very behavior they despise. Which is one of the reasons I put smileys in my posts to try to reflect my mood. A basic smiley means I'm smiling a little bit at the ludicrous claim being made in this post for instance...
This is the main problem here, and why moderation needs to be better. They often tell us to report and ignore, however there is no indication that ignoring someone in any way tarnishes their reputation, and if they just start posting a bunch of crazy **** and I'm unable to read and refute it then their voice of insanity goes unchallenged. If I thought for a second someone being ignored actually gave the devs pause when considering the arguments they put forth my ignore list would likely have a lot of people on it, but that's not how it works so here we sit unable to ignore each other because we disagree with the opposition in almost every way.
I feel that healthy and civil opposition aids a point.
By challenging assumptions and positions, they can be supported with pertinent facts and reason.
This dialogue benefits the community and the participants.
By not ignoring those who disagree with you, you do them and yourself a service, seeing perspectives effectively debated educates the audience as well.
However, sometimes people are baiting, or things degenerate.
The hardest part is keeping civility when others refuse to.
I'm a fan of disagreement and even argument to some extent, I feel it can in fact apreciate it as a problem solving exercise, that through argument people can figure out their differences and find common ground. However here it is circular. Pretty much every single argument is useless because even when you refute a statement solidly the opposing side ignores what you said denigrates it as pure stupidity or just hammers back with the exact same thing they said before like some kind of slogan simply saying nope none of your reasoning matters you still haven't refuted anything I've said, and after a long enopugh time you've heard everything they are going to say. Its often the annoying part here when you keep seeing the same arguments over and over and over. We get it you think the math must look a specific way, or you don't like the class balance as it is and have given your reasons for that, I simply disagree with it and have given my reasons move the heck on and don't just keep screaming into the black. The annoying part being having to refute the same things over and over and over because 5 people make the noise of 20.
I think the moderators should take care of that for us. It is a shock for some people, myself included, to even consider having to block someone here. I assume I'm around a courteous, intelligent audience of fans like myself here, and anyone who blatantly tries to control conversations and who says being polite doesn't matter to him is so wrong WotC needs to step in and take care of that.
To clarify, while I do agree that a certain level of courtesy should be expected (and, perhaps arrogantly, feel there is some common ground between most persons on basic standards of netiquette), what do you use as a standard for intelligence?
You can't think of people as unintelligent.
I've bolded the part of your original statement that I'm trying to parce.
An easy misconception would be the implication that those who disagree with you are not intelligent. Your general optimism and lack of any caustic/threatening/confrontational posts causes me to dismiss that interpretation out of hand.
Which leaves a few other standards of comparison that I would rather ask about than assume.
TLDR: I am not sure how you intend the above, and request clarification.
This is an example of a healthy conversation.
RIGHT WAY: (as shown in bold above)
Poster 1 says something.
Poster 2 is confused about it and asks for clarification.
WRONG WAY: (what often happens here....)
Poster 1 says something.
Poster 2 is confused about it and insults Poster 1 for saying dumb things.
The more you know.
I can see where some tightening up could be useful. I see people post who don't realise that they themselves are part of the problem. I often advise people who are the object of temp bans (especially repeated temp bans) to adopt a personal policy of writing a post, but not posting it until 24 hrs later so they have a chance to cool down and read it over again. That usually leads to an edit that makes the post far more reasonable and rational. It's very easy to read into a post what you're personally thinking, but it can be quite hard for some to put themselves into someone else's head and read what they've written from someone else's mindset.
Other things that would help with self-moderation:
logic rather than emotional response
no name-calling, whether 4venger, grognard, one-wayist, etc.
no personal names included unless in a positive light or you're specifically addressing one person (and even then, keep it positive)
no claims without source citation
no criticism without proposed solution
and my favourite, tact
Yes, tact goes a long way. I know plenty of people who pooh-pooh tact, saying that "being truthful" is good, when really what they're doing is being rude or annoying. Tact is not the absence of truth, it's a way of saying things that don't put people's back up. As a friend of mine says, "Tact is the oil in the engine of personal interaction. Rudeness is the sand."
It comes from personally seeing D&D players as usually very smart people, and the game as a hobby for smart people. It also comes from an understanding that smart people are less likely to curse, because they know how to express themselves better than most people. I don't believe gamers can be against other gamers, kind of like a Church-goer who doesn't expect to be insulted or confronted with immoral things while there or while interacting in the congregation.
Gotcha gotcha.
Thank you.
I'm a fan of disagreement and even argument to some extent, I feel it can in fact apreciate it as a problem solving exercise, that through argument people can figure out their differences and find common ground. However here it is circular. Pretty much every single argument is useless because even when you refute a statement solidly the opposing side ignores what you said denigrates it as pure stupidity or just hammers back with the exact same thing they said before like some kind of slogan simply saying nope none of your reasoning matters you still haven't refuted anything I've said, and after a long enopugh time you've heard everything they are going to say. Its often the annoying part here when you keep seeing the same arguments over and over and over. We get it you think the math must look a specific way, or you don't like the class balance as it is and have given your reasons for that, I simply disagree with it and have given my reasons move the heck on and don't just keep screaming into the black. The annoying part being having to refute the same things over and over and over because 5 people make the noise of 20.
Sometimes, it is to the benefit of all persons to admit when there is an impasse.
When idealogical exchange has stalled and both parties have already decided their perspective, further discussion is very likely to devolve.
Also, we do tend to end up kicking the same ball around here a bit.
Also, great gravy, whether on his ignore list or not...
I'm not sure why anyone would want to kill someone else for internet bluster.
Seriously, we might not all want to hang out and game at the same table, but we aren't at leathal levels of disagreement, right?
If they are that hard to find, how are they 'all over these forums' or whatever you claimed. I think you don't want to find them because you were engaging in hyperbole...
Please don't goad/rise to the bait on this one.
That's not trolling or baiting in the least. Its asking for proof of their hyperbolic claims. Nothing more. Its called intelligent debate. They made a claim without evidence. I'm asking for the evidence that backs the claim. Its very simple.
Now the real problem might be that some people view certain posts as trolling and/or baiting when in fact they are legitimate discussion. In this case they are too sensitive. They will likely respond with actually trolling/baiting with things like 'conspiracy theorist', 'grognard', or other character assassination attempts doing the very behavior they despise. Which is one of the reasons I put smileys in my posts to try to reflect my mood. A basic smiley means I'm smiling a little bit at the ludicrous claim being made in this post for instance...
I'm usually chuckling about this all as well...
However, presentation can affect how people view inquiry.
Certain words can come of as dismissive in context, and sometimes it is easy to assume the worst about a post.
'Twere someone in a mood to be offended, it would be easy to take the part I quoted as dismissive "or whatever you claimed" and as an attack "you were engaging in hyperbole". Part of it is the use of "you" it directs the statement, seemingly more to the poster than the post.
Yes, tact goes a long way. I know plenty of people who pooh-pooh tact, saying that "being truthful" is good, when really what they're doing is being rude or annoying. Tact is not the absence of truth, it's a way of saying things that don't put people's back up. As a friend of mine says, "Tact is the oil in the engine of personal interaction. Rudeness is the sand."
+1
Tact is very important and being truthful is not good tact. Although what your are saying is
true, it can be very offensive to some people because it' so ugly.
That being said, there are people who know how to offend people(baiting and trolling)
and usually those people need to be ban. But then again, the person who falls for the bait and
get offended by the trolling is just as much fault because they are part of the problem.
They should get ban too.
Yes, tact goes a long way. I know plenty of people who pooh-pooh tact, saying that "being truthful" is good, when really what they're doing is being rude or annoying. Tact is not the absence of truth, it's a way of saying things that don't put people's back up. As a friend of mine says, "Tact is the oil in the engine of personal interaction. Rudeness is the sand."
+1
Tact is very important and being truthful is not good tact. Although what your are saying is
true, it can be very offensive to some people because it' so ugly.
That being said, there are people who know how to offend people(baiting and trolling)
and usually those people need to be ban. But then again, the person who falls for the bait and
get offended by the trolling is just as much fault because they are part of the problem.
They should get ban too.
It's best to report people.
Be the change you want to see.
You don't have to respond to every comment you don't like: there is no winning the Internet.
Just write your angry post and then, instead of "submit," press "cancel."
Why is the solution to ban people you don't like? I doubt many people think "I'm the problem here. I should just shut up on this one."
Instead, it seems the thinking goes: "If I don't refute this, then this person will KEEP BEING WRONG and I can't tolerate opinions other than mine existing without challenge!"
Whatever. Be the change you want to see. You don't have to respond to every comment you don't like: there is no winning the Internet. Just write your angry post and then, instead of "submit," press "cancel." Why is the solution to ban people you don't like? I doubt many people think "I'm the problem here. I should just shut up on this one." Instead, it seems the thinking goes: "If I don't refute this, then this person will KEEP BEING WRONG and I can't tolerate opinions other than mine existing without challenge!"
Considering that they parrot things, then others will parrot things..
4E already suffered from the T.Grognards and their word of mouth.
Whatever. Be the change you want to see. You don't have to respond to every comment you don't like: there is no winning the Internet. Just write your angry post and then, instead of "submit," press "cancel." Why is the solution to ban people you don't like? I doubt many people think "I'm the problem here. I should just shut up on this one." Instead, it seems the thinking goes: "If I don't refute this, then this person will KEEP BEING WRONG and I can't tolerate opinions other than mine existing without challenge!"
Considering that they parrot things, then others will parrot things..
4E already suffered from the T.Grognards and their word of mouth.
Basically. It's why I will sit there and correct people about utter falsehoods that they try and spew about how this system actually works.
Just write your angry post and then, instead of "submit," press "cancel."
Though I have indeed done this! wrote out like a 4 page post decided the thing was to much of a rant and just canceled the whole thing to start anew on some more organized thoughts.
That’s kind of sad; does he not understand how that kind of speech ultimately leads to miscommunication and disengagement? Does he want that?I guess I can see how angst filled young men are happy to have a place to vent, I just don’t understand why it is allowed to happen here. That element can go to Kugutsumen or any number of places that make their money hosting muck throwing contests.
He explained that people don't think you're sincere if you don't "lose your $#!^" when you make your point. Then again, he is young, and full of all the swaggering bravado and self-assured near arrogance that so often accompanies youth. Gives me cause to re-examine my own less well thought out misadventures.
Regardless, it would be nice if civility were to be stepped up a notch.
I know Trolls regenerate unless they take acid or fire damage...
But filling the forums with flames and vitriol doesn't do anyone any good.
I spent three years training young sailors that just stepped out of boot camp basic military knowledge. To a degree, that is true of the "younger" generation. However, most young people seem to miss that "losing you $*!^" doesn't actually sway the opinion of professionals, whether it is the opinion of your Leading Petty Officer or the opinions of people running a corporation, in most cases. Expressing oneself in an uncivil manner just demostrates that you have an opinion, and that you can't be bothered to present that opinion in a civil manner. That opinion still gets filed with the other opinions and is judged on its individual merits. That is provided that the people attempting to understand the opinion can wade through the emotional crap.
I cycle through a dozen + forums. Those hosted by large well-known companies are typically the best as far as content. This is due in no small part to strict moderation; troll threads are locked and bad posters are banned. This is the exception to that rule; if I was interested in DDN and came here to get an idea of the community I would read a few posts then go back to whatever I was doing before.
The threads here could be interesting, there are plenty of great posters and many good ideas, but the angst and spite and sophomoric nonsense just drowns out all the good content.
Please give Crazy Monkey a bit of a budget, maybe a bunch of promo stuff and free tickets to GenCon, let him "hire" a few dozen volunteer moderators and get this sorted out. I ask because I like D&D and would like to see some conversation directly related to it. I don't think such a thing will happen and thats OK, there's plenty of other places to discuss Fantasy RPG's. It is just surprising to me that this is the forum Wizards wants to represent Dungeons and Dragons Next.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
+1
It should be noted that threads that go down in flames never resolve (or, I've never seen them resolve). We're pretty unapologetic on here.
It cracks me up the people that in one breath will play the victim card (anytime I say anything negative about 4e I get yelled at and argued with) and in the next breath be back to some of the more extreme versions of edition warring (4e got killed because it was bad and 90% of everybody hates it).
Oh, you guys. It's pretty funny when you look at it.
Yes, it is.
WotC wants to wade through the chaff to get what info they can, and they're not going to hire full-time, 24-hour moderators. Toughen up, lay off the passive-aggressive garbage and try to actually get useful information about what you're posting about. I can count on one hand the number of posters I've reported and haven't blocked anyone. Heck, the last thread that got locked down ended with a number of people who had been disagreeing pretty vociferously (textiferously?) e-laughing about the stupidity of it all.
As others have said, I'd rather keep the chaff than keep everything so narrowly controlled as to lose healthy, even sometimes somewhat heated, debate.
Toughen up, lay off the passive-aggressive garbage and try to actually get useful information about what you're posting about.
This is pretty such me.
There nothing, I mean nothing here you can say that can offend me.
There no point of being passive-aggressive since explaining why I dislike this will be a
waste of my time since it won't prove anything.
I'm only going to quickly scan the forum for any useful and interesting information.
Yes, tact goes a long way. I know plenty of people who pooh-pooh tact, saying that "being truthful" is good, when really what they're doing is being rude or annoying. Tact is not the absence of truth, it's a way of saying things that don't put people's back up. As a friend of mine says, "Tact is the oil in the engine of personal interaction. Rudeness is the sand."
+1
Tact is very important and being truthful is not good tact. Although what your are saying is
true, it can be very offensive to some people because it' so ugly.
That being said, there are people who know how to offend people(baiting and trolling)
and usually those people need to be ban. But then again, the person who falls for the bait and
get offended by the trolling is just as much fault because they are part of the problem.
They should get ban too.
I'm sorry. I hold truth to have more value than being polite. I know some would rather lie than be impolite, but that's just not me...
As I said it is a double standard. I doubt you could do a hate 4E thread. Also the posting style of various 4vengers is very hostile to anything not 4th ed. Not saying it doesn't go both ways but a lot of fans of other editions like multiple editions, a few posters have the 4th ed or nothing mentality.
4E is not in a play test so posting things you don't like about it is not in any way constructive.
5E is in play test and can be changed if we point out things we don't like. Its the play test process. Simple as that.
As to personally attacking Mike. Its not a personal attack to show where he's making a math mistake. That's called constructive criticism. Its also not a personal attack to show him where he made a mistake in another area...
They are personal attacks, when poster outright state that the designers are incapable of designing anything worth playing. I've this numerous times; although, not in those exact words. There have been statements that mean just that, in multiple phrasings.
I have yet to see it anywhere. I've seen some posters call out a bad design or failure of math. That doesn't mean they are calling the developers stupid or anything like that. Its recognizing they are human and not gods. Its helping them out by pointing out a flaw that can ruin the game for some players. Its called constructive feedback...
Then, as I've already said, you are simply blindly ignoring those posts; or they have happened in threads that you have not read. Although, I think the latter is highly unlikely.
Again actually link or quote something that falls under actual trolling or baiting. I've refuted the one that's been posted already. Maybe you can actually find one, but I doubt it. I've read pretty thoroughly.
Again it just appears you are too sensitive. If explaining that WotC is going to reap a bunch of hate for their past behavior is viewed as trolling rather than a basic truth, you might start claiming that posts where Cyber-Dave and I show the math of the game to be unbalanced is someone baiting and trolling. Really you are just being too sensitive or trying to intentionally paint our posts in a negative light because you don't like their premise...
And to be honest, most of the "constructive" posts in here aren't really that constructive either, a lot of it is whining as to why Next isn't exactly like that other one, not realizing the reality that it's a brand new day, and time for some new ideas (or at least, innovations / improvements on older ideas that work that 90% of the market hasn't rejected).
I have yet to see anyone that came here for that purpose. Everyone I see just wants mechanics they like to support their play style included in some form (even if its just optional). Maybe you need to change the way you view things.
Then you are being intentially blind to them.I would gladly self-ban if Garthanos and Lokiare did the same.
Not gonna happen. I'm going to stick it out and continue to decry the one-way-ism that Mike and crew are building into 5E. I'm going to continue to tell them that this game is not accessible or desired by me and those like me. In other words I'm going to do exactly what they asked when they invited me into this public play test. I'm going to give feedback.
While I'm glad you (and those of common opinion) are willing to "stick it out" and continue to give valuable feedback; the fact that you indicate a tendancy towards "one-way-ism" in D&D Next, just shows how intentionally blind you are being. There are features spanning all editions in D&D Next. They aren't all exact "cut and paste" renditions; but they are there.
Link some of those posts and I'll believe you, otherwise I'm been around these forums quite a bit.
I also don't show a tendency to 'one-way-ism' as you claim. I have no problem with other styles in the game as options, as long as mine are also in the game as option...
I meant you indicate that the designers show a tendancy towards "one-way-ism"; it is s direct quote from your post. I'm refuting that claim as untrue. I am aware that you are for the inclusion of other playstyles; indeed, it is one of the reasons I respect your opinions.
Well yeah, they are designing the game to be a 2e/3e retroclone. That's one-true-wayism if I've ever seen it. Many of the 1E and 4E people aren't seeing anything to like about the game after they claimed it was going to include play styles of all editions. So at the least they come off as either incompetent (because they are unable to do what they said they were going to do), deceptive (because they said one thing and did another), or they are stuck in a 'one-true-wayism' mindset and can't conceive of anyone not liking a 2e/3e retroclone. I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt in that case...
This isn't on topic for this forum so I've moved it to Community Business, where you can continue the discussion. However, I do want to remind people to keep the posts polite, positive, and avoid accusations against other posters.
If you have a problem with a particular post, by all means report it via the report button in the upper right of each post.
Thanks,
Monica
But under all that bitter, callous, and "untactful" wall-of-text, there's some brutal honesty and solid reasoning. Your observations on the hypocrisy of gamers are probably very accurate. Fortunately, I have faith that the people at WOTC already know all this and are less sensative to the fickle shouts of the internet-dwelling community. I'd like to think that the devs are much much more competant than some here give them credit for.
So yeah, less moderation please. People just need to be less butthurt when someone disagrees with them or do not like the current incarnation of their beloved game or compagny.
Yup, that is right, some people do not like 4e or the current incarnation of 5e (like some do not like 3.x/PF). Life is hard, I know. Some people do not trust WotC because they have a horrible track record. Get use to it, move on, leave mods out of this.
Yes, tact goes a long way. I know plenty of people who pooh-pooh tact, saying that "being truthful" is good, when really what they're doing is being rude or annoying. Tact is not the absence of truth, it's a way of saying things that don't put people's back up. As a friend of mine says, "Tact is the oil in the engine of personal interaction. Rudeness is the sand."
+1
Tact is very important and being truthful is not good tact. Although what your are saying is true, it can be very offensive to some people because it' so ugly.
That being said, there are people who know how to offend people(baiting and trolling) and usually those people need to be ban. But then again, the person who falls for the bait and get offended by the trolling is just as much fault because they are part of the problem. They should get ban too.
I'm sorry. I hold truth to have more value than being polite. I know some would rather lie than be impolite, but that's just not me...
Neither of you seemed to grasp my statement above in bold.
Tact =/= lying. Tact is simply a way of phrasing something that doesn't make the listener or reader angry or upset. A statement can be completely truthful and still be very tactful.
I hold truth to be a very important thing. I also hold tact to be a very important thing. I always try to say something tactfully so there is less a chance that it will not generate an emotional response, but rather a rational and logical one.
If there's a rude way and a polite way to say the same thing, aim for the polite. You'll be amazed at the good responses you get. "But I was just being honest!" is rarely a good excuse for being rude. It's possible to be both polite and honest.
Show
I am really laughing out loud here. I thought my post would get deleted, and I'm trying to be diplomatic and tactful, I really am, but when I read posters say they frequent the Next forums to force MM to turn back the clock, and then they want to be moderators too!! That is ...just...wow.
People might dislike / hate my opinions (fair enough), or even merely the peremptory tone of some of my posts (guilty as charged), but I never, ever would pretend that I'd make a good moderator. I am biased, and untactful. In fact, I was a moderator once, for nightclubs and raves, back in my 20s, it was...interesting. I'm way too opinionated to be a mod, but at least I can admit it.
Lokiare, I will try to explain what it's like from the OTHER side of the game dev website / player divide. I live on both sides of the coin, and have for many years. I worked on MMOs, RTSses, RPGs, action games, dancing games, you name it. One thing I learned from many, many sources, is that playtest feedback, and especially not the vocal yammering of outspoken individuals such as you or I, does NOT mean the gamers are right. Gamers are fickle. They complain about this class being too OP, then the other one being OP the next day, then when that's changed, that the former classes don't have their niche protection, or anything that makes them special.
The process does NOT put the designers in a straight jacket. Repeated hounding on Mearls by one person, or even a small group of people, who are to whatever extent either fringe or mainstream, to change a certain thing in a certain way is not likely to produce a change. We'd regularly read the class balance forums in a certain MMO I worked on and would laugh, people'd complain about this or that, then keep playing it more the more unbalanced it was (i.e. fun). People lie, even to themselves. They act in weird, contradictory ways. D&D is a game that has a 40 year history, it means a lot of different things to different people, and everyone here, myself included, wants Next to succeed, especially if optional rules allow it to be so.
But I believe there is NO way to include the 4e AEDU power structure in Next without ruining the game and gumming up the work. It's asking instead of a spellbook for wizards and clerics taking up 1/4 of the PHB, you want 3/4 of the PHB, like the 4e one, to be taken up by YOUR FRINGE element. I say it's a fringe element, with what evidence? Because most D&D fans fled towards Pathfinder, which doesn't have powers for martial classes.
And those people will NEVER return to Next if half the book is filled with an optional power rule system thrown in to satisfy a vocal minority. Same thing with surges. I also think you will never convince Mearls et al to re-introduce those into the game, and I just don't see how you can add such a dis-connected mechanic and support it in a balanced, elegant way, since healing is all versasive and affects many sub-systems, from spells, to magic items, to feats, and so on. I'm skeptical about even making feats optional, though I'm glad they're in there, SO LONG as they do not bloat into 5000 pages of mostly situational crud, like 3e and 4e ended up with. 4e expanded the feat bloat issue with "power bloat", where each new book that comes out, is merely cherry picked or mined for the 1 or 2 blue or gold-rated powers contained therein. I don't want to buy another MP2, for SWS to be nerfed the very next week after it was launched, in EXACTLY the same way that SCS was the month prior. It was one of the most obvious ploys to get players to buy a book then neuter it. That was the beginning of the end of tolerating power-based design for me. It's one thing to not properly playtest all the repercussions of some complex new rule, but a single power, which was virtually identical to another one, was beyond the pale.
You might think players want balance, but they don't. They want MOAR power for their toons. More options, more crunch. Sometimes fluff is nice, but it has to have crunch. I can tell you from years of looking at playtest feedback, and attending some analysis seminars from MILLIONS of player's feedbacks in games I've worked on, that what goes on in the forums is NOT representative of either a) What the majority of the players want, (if they even know what it is they want), b) the best way to actually fix issues, and most importantly c) what the designers will actually do in light that changing rules to suit the whims of an online community is fraught with peril.
Look at the data, look at the packets, read the designers commentary, look at the poll results. Your opinions are in the minority. It just doesn't make sense for a company trying to re-kindle interest in their product to alienate the majority of the gamers out there who left for VERY specific reasons : combat too slow, surges too fake, marking too fake, all classes feel the same, balance is NOT as important as you think.
Like audiophiles loving vynil and tube amps not despite their greater colouration, but because of it (humans like distortion), D&D gamers like playing a game where not everybody is equal at all things, all the time. Some of us like weak wizards, with powerful magic, and strong fighters, who have to use their brawn and their creativity to overcome obstacles within the confines of REALISM. When I read people saying that fighter powers should not be subject to the laws of physics even in principle, that's when I really lost it. I'm sorry, but that is RIDICULOUS.
There is simply no nice way to say that most of 4e should be dumped without offending people. It already is, and I agree with it. Failed mechanics should be purged, not people posting that they should be out of some misplaced and to my mind, dishonest, and implausible, goal to making everyone happy. If 1/2 the book is all optional powers that the other half is completely divorced from, there is NO way the book will sell. Consumers are not idiots.
Except I wouldn't ban anyone, because banning is pointless and easily circumvented. Its better to educate...
People like their avatars and the internet identity that they build on different forums. The date that an account was opened and the number of posts that account has are real values that people use for leverage. If bans were permanent and those identities were erased then people would take notice. They would alter their behavior to prevent the loss of that identity.
Also some confrontation is initiated just because 2 posters are holding onto a grudge. If those identities were obscured by deleting the account and removing signatures and avatars then many arguments would never even develop.
Bans and a clear code of conduct would have a very significant effect and would clean the DDN general discussion forum up in a few short days. It is a complete mystery to me as to why this state of babble and non-communication is allowed to persist.
Tact =/= lying. Tact is simply a way of phrasing something that doesn't make the listener or reader angry or upset. A statement can be completely truthful and still be very tactful....
I love to read through the Tao Te Ching. One of the passages is all about tact and truth.
"22.5 Is it empty talk, the old saying that tact keeps you whole? When truthfulness is complete, it still resorts to this."
SB is spot on here I think. Truth without tact leads to an emotional response that obscures the truth.
If people keep saying this, there might be a reason.
If your posts keep getting modded, and others don't, there might be a reason. It might, just maybe, be because you're violating the CoC and others aren't.
And again, nowadays, I think the 2e-3e retroclone path would probably be the most profitable path for WotC - or at least, would be their best shot at achieving success. Won't reach that "all inclusive" goal though :P.
I wouldn't want that, and that's coming from someone who learned to play in AD&D, really cut his teeth in 2e, and mostly played 3.5. There's got to be something new for me, otherwise... Why would I play it? BUT! The same goepeon reverse for the people who learned how to play during WotC's ownership of the franchise; to them, weapon speed is new; race/class limitations are new; 18/00 is new; minimum ability scores are (kinda) new; heck, XP bonuses for high key abilities is new; and not expecting ever class to be roughly equal in power with every other class is new.
And WotC wouldn't even have to come up with anything new (though it would be awesome if they did!) - all they have to do is figure out a way to make the sum the whole of what they have more than its component parts.
And again, nowadays, I think the 2e-3e retroclone path would probably be the most profitable path for WotC - or at least, would be their best shot at achieving success. Won't reach that "all inclusive" goal though :P.
I wouldn't want that, and that's coming from someone who learned to play in AD&D, really cut his teeth in 2e, and mostly played 3.5. There's got to be something new for me, otherwise... Why would I play it? BUT! The same goepeon reverse for the people who learned how to play during WotC's ownership of the franchise; to them, weapon speed is new; race/class limitations are new; 18/00 is new; minimum ability scores are (kinda) new; heck, XP bonuses for high key abilities is new; and not expecting ever class to be roughly equal in power with every other class is new.
And WotC wouldn't even have to come up with anything new (though it would be awesome if they did!) - all they have to do is figure out a way to make the sum the whole of what they have more than its component parts.
And to me, that's my main concern about going "all retro". 5e is the first edition that is not trying to "renew" D&D but instead, looking forward to return to "the essence" of D&D. All the "novelty" is being poured into the "modularity", who has yet to materialize.
And if the "modularity" fails to appear, I'd still say going "retroclone" would be their best bet at a financialy viable D&D edition. But yes, it remains to be seen if 2e-3e fans who are content with their current options would migrate to WotC...
Nope
There can be any number of factors for Pathfinder managing to, eventually, outsell D&D 4
For example, in my construction of the events, its not the system itself that is to blame for such a result (and of course, people who don't like 4e tend to disagree). In another thread, I pointed out several factors that I thought weighed much to that result - the "nuking" of the realms, several choices that had little to do with the system, etc. (I can try to find that particular post if you want
So, if editorial reasons may have been the driving force that eventually led to Path's rise, I'd not use that as a reason to dismiss 4e mechanics -or its players - specially, its players.
I can elaborate further if you wish, but I'm currently unable to write much more. Chime in if you want a more detailed response!
Interesting note: The 4e Realms were nuked because of the new system. ;)
That said, I agree. It's likely more complex than that. Number sold isn't really a good critique of the system, IMO.
Would you like WotC any better if did what you wanted? and to use ZB's own statement: You take the bad with the good or get out or something like that
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Interesting note: The 4e Realms were nuked because of the new system. ;)
That said, I agree. It's likely more complex than that. Number sold isn't really a good critique of the system, IMO.
That, for example, is not my opinion. Not because of the system, but because of editorial decisions that had little to do with the system itself.
The old realms could fit the new system very easily, with no need of the sweeping changes that were applied to it. The setting wasn't "nuked because that's the only way it could be made to fit the 4e system", it was nuked because the designers thought they were doing the right thing with those changes.
Case in point, one can easily DM 2e or 3e realms with 4th edition, with no need to "change" the system to make the setting work. :P
Here is a good example of moderator bias. Here we have the OP calling people who didn't like 4e trolls and nothing happening to him. Imagine if a 3.x fan said that about 4e fans...
Another really good example is that my response to Mand12 seems to have disappeared. I took statements that 4th edition posters routinely make, and basically said "If I turned this around and said it about 4th edition, I'd be moderated".
Ironically, my post was deleted, proving my point. Because none of the examples I used were ever moderated.
So anyone else want to try and tell me that the moderation isn't heavily biased?
Edit:
Also, where are Crazy_Monkey and Dragonette? I'd be extremely interested in the explanation for why 4th edition posters were permitted to make those statements, but my post was deleted. I can tell you exactly whose post histories to search to find the unmoderated examples I used last night.
Here is a good example of moderator bias. Here we have the OP calling people who didn't like 4e trolls and nothing happening to him. Imagine if a 3.x fan said that about 4e fans...
Another really good example is that my response to Mand12 seems to have disappeared. I took statements that 4th edition posters routinely make, and basically said "If I turned this around and said it about 4th edition, I'd be moderated".
Ironically, my post was deleted, proving my point. Because none of the examples I used were ever moderated.
So anyone else want to try and tell me that the moderation isn't heavily biased?
Edit:
Also, where are Crazy_Monkey and Dragonette? I'd be extremely interested in the explanation for why 4th edition posters were permitted to make those statements, but my post was deleted. I can tell you exactly whose post histories to search to find the unmoderated examples I used last night.
Meh, my post was deleted as well... and I wasn't even talking about D&D.
And all Monkey and Dragonette will say is they can't talk about moderation and direct you to customer service... who will tell you they can't talk about moderation and that they never make mistakes and their word is final.
*sigh*
We've been through all this before and nothing will happen. The favorites will still be favored and the targets will still be targeted, and certain posters (one of which has taken part in this thread) will still abuse the report button and use it as an I win button.
See, when you should really get mad is when you get banned for a post that is 5 pages back and 3 weeks old. Certain posters will actually go "report hunting", looking through posts just to find something they can stretch into a CoC violation, simply because they can.
Discussion of specific instances of moderation is off-topic for this thread and considered forum disruption and thus against the Code of Conduct. Let's stick to the original topic, please.
Thanks.
In my experience "moderator bias" doesn't exist or it doesn't matter. The mods work for the company that pays for the forum. Forums are not in any way obliged to provide "freedom of speech" or a platform for opposing ideas. Some do that, and if that’s what you are looking for then you should go to one of those.
This is a corporate forum that is part of the image of Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Those companies have spent considerable resources developing their brand identities, their forums should reflect that character. Not the ill mannered rants of people looking for verbal confrontation.
Here is a good example of moderator bias. Here we have the OP calling people who didn't like 4e trolls and nothing happening to him. Imagine if a 3.x fan said that about 4e fans...
I just took a look at that thread, and I don't see anyone being called a troll. It appears the first post was moderated around 3PM PDT yesterday, which is when it looks like it was reported, so I'll admit I'm a bit confused.
I'm also seeing at first glance, anyway, plenty of contrary opinions, pro-4th and anti-4th. If I'm missing something (which is possible, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet) , please PM me links and specific quotes.
Monica
Here is a good example of moderator bias. Here we have the OP calling people who didn't like 4e trolls and nothing happening to him. Imagine if a 3.x fan said that about 4e fans...
I just took a look at that thread, and I don't see anyone being called a troll. It appears the first post was moderated around 3PM PDT yesterday, which is when it looks like it was reported, so I'll admit I'm a bit confused.
I'm also seeing at first glance, anyway, plenty of contrary opinions, pro-4th and anti-4th. If I'm missing something (which is possible, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet) , please PM me links and specific quotes.
Monica
Check post #2 of that thread as an example of the excellent moderation work of your ORCs. ;)
And the account is still up? People get perma banned for calling other people troll, you know. Well I guess certain people...
Yeah... None of us are saying that, though. What we're saying is that the claims WotC makes of "unbiased moderation" just aren't true. The CoC is applied unfairly and unevenly. Some people are allowed to post essentially anything they want, while others get banned for masking when they let the filter leave "****" in their posts.
Perhaps it appears biased to you because you are judging the post based on content and they are looking at them based on language and composition. You are biased and so you tend to see the world in that way.
Regardless it does not matter. The mods can do whatever they like, there is nothing we as posters can or should do to interfere with their work. It is our place to adapt to the system as presented.
Its like being invited to a party, the host gets to make the call if its BYOB or Black tie, your option is to attend or not. The forum host has complete control, they can change the requirements at any time, do whatever they feel like with the material that is produced, or moderate in any way they see fit. That is the way BB’s have always been.
Here is a good example of moderator bias. Here we have the OP calling people who didn't like 4e trolls and nothing happening to him. Imagine if a 3.x fan said that about 4e fans...
I just took a look at that thread, and I don't see anyone being called a troll. It appears the first post was moderated around 3PM PDT yesterday, which is when it looks like it was reported, so I'll admit I'm a bit confused.
I'm also seeing at first glance, anyway, plenty of contrary opinions, pro-4th and anti-4th. If I'm missing something (which is possible, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet) , please PM me links and specific quotes.
Monica
Check post #2 of that thread as an example of the excellent moderation work of your ORCs. ;)
And the account is still up? People get perma banned for calling other people troll, you know. Well I guess certain people...
Ok, that quote was an oversight, thanks for pointing it out. I have reported it so that it can be taken care of (which is something everyone can do when they see something like that get missed.)
As for bannings, as you know, that's based on one's history. Conduct history is always taken into account.
Monica
I wanted to drop in and say that we appreciate your concerns about moderation. We strive to provide an atmosphere that is both constructive and enjoyable, and your feedback helps us to make the decisions related to our moderation processes.
One thing to note is that our moderation staff relies on your reports to locate problematic posts. If you feel that something violates the Code of Conduct, please use the Report Post button to pass it along to us. Please be as specific as possible as to why you feel that something is a violation. While we may not action every reported post, we do review each report according to internal guidelines and take action where appropriate.
If you have any questions regarding conduct action taken against your account, you can go to the MY STUFF tab at wizards.custhelp.com and reply to the incident listed there.
Yeah... None of us are saying that, though. What we're saying is that the claims WotC makes of "unbiased moderation" just aren't true. The CoC is applied unfairly and unevenly. Some people are allowed to post essentially anything they want, while others get banned for masking when they let the filter leave "****" in their posts.
Perhaps it appears biased to you because you are judging the post based on content and they are looking at them based on language and composition. You are biased and so you tend to see the world in that way.Regardless it does not matter. The mods can do whatever they like, there is nothing we as posters can or should do to interfere with their work. It is our place to adapt to the system as presented.
Its like being invited to a party, the host gets to make the call if its BYOB or Black tie, your option is to attend or not. The forum host has complete control, they can change the requirements at any time, do whatever they feel like with the material that is produced, or moderate in any way they see fit. That is the way BB’s have always been.
Except that "the system as presented" is not the system that is. It's not like an invitation to a party; it's more like the doorman at a nightclub: the "rules" are arbitrarily applied.
As for bannings, as you know, that's based on one's history. Conduct history is always taken into account.
Sure. ;)
Here is a good example of moderator bias. Here we have the OP calling people who didn't like 4e trolls and nothing happening to him. Imagine if a 3.x fan said that about 4e fans...
I just took a look at that thread, and I don't see anyone being called a troll. It appears the first post was moderated around 3PM PDT yesterday, which is when it looks like it was reported, so I'll admit I'm a bit confused.
I'm also seeing at first glance, anyway, plenty of contrary opinions, pro-4th and anti-4th. If I'm missing something (which is possible, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet) , please PM me links and specific quotes.
Monica
Check post #2 of that thread as an example of the excellent moderation work of your ORCs. ;)
And the account is still up? People get perma banned for calling other people troll, you know. Well I guess certain people...
Ok, that quote was an oversight, thanks for pointing it out. I have reported it so that it can be taken care of (which is something everyone can do when they see something like that get missed.)
As for bannings, as you know, that's based on one's history. Conduct history is always taken into account.
Monica
So what about posters who abuse the report feature?
You know, digging through threads 5 pages back and 3 weeks old... report hunting?
And what about those that have to really stretch something into a CoC violation... you know, those who go actively seeking to be "offended"?
Or how about those posters what report things just for a laugh and to aggravate those they are reporting?
IMHO moderators keep the forums palatable to non-regulars, lock posts without any solid content, Keep threads coherent enough that people can weigh in on the OP, and ban people who continually sabotage one or more of those directives. I was last here 6 or 7 months ago and the moderators here did a good job of that. Returning now it looked like they had gotten busy with other things, which happens, hence the OP as a way to kind of see what the situation here is.
Except that "the system as presented" is not the system that is. It's not like an invitation to a party; it's more like the doorman at a nightclub: the "rules" are arbitrarily applied.
Your idea of "fair" is not applicable here. This is not a game in which your posting identity is a player character. This is a privately owned forum, and unless I have misread the EULA the owners can do whatever they want, whenever they want. That is the system presented, if you believe differently then you should read through the Terms of Use, they are down on the bottom of this page under "Corporate."
Make us get along? No. They cannot.
Put a cap on the amount of nondiscussion that goes on around here? Yes they can.
Locking threads that have turned into a flame war before the second page? Yes they can.
More bans for repeat offenders? Yes they can.
RPG.net is an example of a website that has cracked down on constant edition warring and created a stable environment for people to cordially discuss D&D. Why would it be so hard for WotC to do the same?
I like your Obama impression
Hey dog, I asked for more moderation because I don't like the way people are saying things. When people speak rudely or with intent to snarkfight the untruths that led to conflict in the first place become even more entrenched.
This cycle has gone on here for quite some time, people don't even look at the posts much anymore, they note the poster, scan the heading and maybe the first and last sentence and then respond with all the misunderstanding and bias of the past years.
Hey dog, I asked for more moderation because I don't like the way people are saying things. When people speak rudely or with intent to snark fight the untruths that led to conflict in the first place become even more entrenched.
So basically you want people to be nice to you? You want people to speak the way you want them to.
Good luck with that champ.
So basically you want people to be nice to you?
He wants people to be nice to everyone. So, for that matter, do I. It's much more productive to have a polite discussion than an argument.
Hey guys,
I wanted to drop in and say that we appreciate your concerns about moderation. We strive to provide an atmosphere that is both constructive and enjoyable, and your feedback helps us to make the decisions related to our moderation processes.
One thing to note is that our moderation staff relies on your reports to locate problematic posts. If you feel that something violates the Code of Conduct, please use the Report Post button to pass it along to us. Please be as specific as possible as to why you feel that something is a violation. While we may not action every reported post, we do review each report according to internal guidelines and take action where appropriate.
If you have any questions regarding conduct action taken against your account, you can go to the MY STUFF tab at wizards.custhelp.com and reply to the incident listed there.
Thank you for your post, but the issue I feel is critical is that the "Report post" button doesn't appear to do much for certain posters. Specifically, the "Report post" button is completely ineffective with personal attacks made by 4th edition posters, and 4th edition posters edition warring against pre-4th edition variants.
The end result of this, IMO, is that it makes the forum quite hostile for pre-4th edition posters who face a deluge of personal attacks from specific posters, and creates an atmosphere where one side is able to say what they like about editions of D&D where the other side is unable to do so.
It is my belief that this ongoing behavior is resulting in a forum where fans of pre-4th edition D&D face a constant hostile environment.
It is my belief that if the moderators and community reps implement a solid "Attack the post, not the posters" policy and enforce it, and use the same criteria that defines edition warring when discussing 4th edition with posts discussing pre-4th edition, these forums would become usable.
It is my belief that these forums are effectively useless for discussing DDN for both posters and WOTC due to the above. As evidence, pretty much every thread in the DDN General Forum is some variation of an edition war, and many are similiar to the one linked by the earlier poster that Dragonnette looked at where the entire intention was "4th edition is better", which is baiting pre-4th edition posters into discussions certain to get them moderated.
Gatt, even if that is true there's nothing to be done about it. If WotC wants to bias the forums towards 4e then they can do that. They have made no guarantees of impartiality or fair treatment.
Hey guys,
I wanted to drop in and say that we appreciate your concerns about moderation. We strive to provide an atmosphere that is both constructive and enjoyable, and your feedback helps us to make the decisions related to our moderation processes.
One thing to note is that our moderation staff relies on your reports to locate problematic posts. If you feel that something violates the Code of Conduct, please use the Report Post button to pass it along to us. Please be as specific as possible as to why you feel that something is a violation. While we may not action every reported post, we do review each report according to internal guidelines and take action where appropriate.
If you have any questions regarding conduct action taken against your account, you can go to the MY STUFF tab at wizards.custhelp.com and reply to the incident listed there.
Thank you for your post, but the issue I feel is critical is that the "Report post" button doesn't appear to do much for certain posters. Specifically, the "Report post" button is completely ineffective with personal attacks made by 4th edition posters, and 4th edition posters edition warring against pre-4th edition variants.
The end result of this, IMO, is that it makes the forum quite hostile for pre-4th edition posters who face a deluge of personal attacks from specific posters, and creates an atmosphere where one side is able to say what they like about editions of D&D where the other side is unable to do so.
It is my belief that this ongoing behavior is resulting in a forum where fans of pre-4th edition D&D face a constant hostile environment.
It is my belief that if the moderators and community reps implement a solid "Attack the post, not the posters" policy and enforce it, and use the same criteria that defines edition warring when discussing 4th edition with posts discussing pre-4th edition, these forums would become usable.
It is my belief that these forums are effectively useless for discussing DDN for both posters and WOTC due to the above. As evidence, pretty much every thread in the DDN General Forum is some variation of an edition war, and many are similar to the one linked by the earlier poster that Dragonnette looked at where the entire intention was "4th edition is better", which is baiting pre-4th edition posters into discussions certain to get them moderated.
This post amazes me. I can not conceive of how anyone can actually think that 4E fans have it better around here. Every day, all day, in every thread 4E and it's fans are ripped apart.
I've also seen from the OTT that it is haphazard at the same time. From the complaints about 90% of the banns that people complain about make sense, but the other 10% off head scratchers.
That’s just the term I choose to summarize the various excuses people use to be rude when posting anonymously. The cries for “we want the whole truth!” “No censorship.” “Biased mods are not capable of understanding our highly elevated theory crafting!” They all fall somewhere under the “freedom of speech” drip line.
No, they don't. That's an opinion you may have but it's not reality. I've been here long enough to have seen plenty of evidence of certain things people cite when they complain. Hell, some of the stuff is still up here for anyone who feels like digging to look at.
People understand that they're posting on a corporate owned website. They understand that they're subject to the rules the owners set up. The issue is in the explanation and enforcement of those rules.
Incidentally what is an “OTTer” and what do you mean by “Front door to the house of trolls?”
Off Topic Tavern-er. The 'Front Door' thing is a reference to having mod powers in a group (which allows you to invite people to said group) ... er, if any group exists. It doesn't. The HoT thing is an example of adopting a disparaging and injust comment used against you and making it your own.
This post amazes me. I can not conceive of how anyone can actually think that 4E fans have it better around here. Every day, all day, in every thread 4E and it's fans are ripped apart.
It amazes me when people say 3.5 fans have it better. What can ya do?
This post amazes me. I can not conceive of how anyone can actually think that 4E fans have it better around here. Every day, all day, in every thread 4E and it's fans are ripped apart.
It amazes me when people say 3.5 fans have it better. What can ya do?
Cry seems to be about my only option. LOL
Cry seems to be about my only option. LOL
I'd join ya but I prefer laughter.
Cry seems to be about my only option. LOL
I'd join ya but I prefer laughter.
you could laugh at his tears
I'm going to be tidying up this thread a bit. Please remember to keep your posts about general moderation issues, rather than specific incidents or the posting habits of other community members.
Thanks!
Thanks for bringing that to my attention Gatt. I can say that from an organizational and process standpoint, there is no preference for 4e over any other edition of D&D. All of our conduct documents are edition neutral and we try to remove personal preference as a contributing factor from moderation as much as we can. There are a lot of other reasons why things may seem to be "missed", but I'll be more than happy to review the moderation log for those particular forums.
Tao, Gatt's assessment of moderator bias is based on a faulty understanding of what is and is not edition warring. What he's complaining about is not edition warring and does not violate the Code of Conduct, and so isn't removed.
And Gatt, just for the record, while you complain about your post in this thread being removed, you should be aware that all of the posts in that line of conversation were removed, including mine, despit this alleged special treatment you think I receive. I imagine the revelation of such special treatment will be quite a surprise to the ORCs themselves.
It won't be. We otters have been complaining about it for years.
Yup.
And despite their claims, I have been modded for talking about moderation in a general sense (which they claim is allowed... but only when done by one of their favorites I guess).
*shrug*
All the ORCs have different opinions on what is and what is not a violation, and which users are their favorites.
Like draco said, we have been complaining about this for years, and nothing is ever done.
But don't think that will stop us from pointing it out and complaining about it.
I was thinking about this and I don't think the forum needs more moderation, but clearer moderation. The moderators do post when they take out material but that seems to just leave us with an unintentional mystery of other posts that "we" think should have been looked at. I believe there should be a thread here which only mods may post in. They quote the offending post and state blatantly why it was cut. Advice on how to state some things better could be helpful too.
This.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention Gatt. I can say that from an organizational and process standpoint, there is no preference for 4e over any other edition of D&D. All of our conduct documents are edition neutral and we try to remove personal preference as a contributing factor from moderation as much as we can. There are a lot of other reasons why things may seem to be "missed", but I'll be more than happy to review the moderation log for those particular forums.
Tao, Gatt's assessment of moderator bias is based on a faulty understanding of what is and is not edition warring. What he's complaining about is not edition warring and does not violate the Code of Conduct, and so isn't removed.
And Gatt, just for the record, while you complain about your post in this thread being removed, you should be aware that all of the posts in that line of conversation were removed, including mine, despit this alleged special treatment you think I receive. I imagine the revelation of such special treatment will be quite a surprise to the ORCs themselves.
Several points to make.
1. My assessment of moderation is not based on a faulty understanding of anything. If I post some comment about 4th edition and it gets deleted, then corresponding statements about the other editions should be equally moderated. They are not. In fact, I reported several incidents of outright baiting last week, where pre-4th edition posters were called cry-babies, and pre-4th edition mechanics called crap. Not a single one was moderated. If I did the same about the 4th edition players, or 4th edition, I'd be modded in minutes.
2. The only assessment that is faulty, is yours. You appear to believe it's ok to attack pre-4th editions, but attacking 4th edition isn't ok.
3. What I'm complaining about is edition warring, as I've proven *numerous* times by turning around the statements made by 4th edition players, and having those statements consistently moderated. Again, and again, and again, I've demonstrated that if I post about 4th edition or the 4th edition community the way the 4th edition community does to pre-4th, it's moderated. If it's edition warring for one, it's edition warring for both. In fact, we have proof of that in this thread, as you well know.
4. It's not alleged. You've been telling people for months that they don't deserve to be allowed to play D&D unless they agree to your demands for 4th edition to be Core. Let me tell a 4th edition player they don't deserve to be allowed to play D&D and see how fast I get banned.
5. I'm pretty confident that it wouldn't be a surprise, considering that I've sent several moderations up for review and the reviewers handled the problem. I'm fairly certain that the higher echelon's are well aware of the biased moderation here by now.
@Tao
You may want to take a look at the activity in the last couple of weeks. Check the reports I filed. Apparently, it is ok to call pre-4th edition fans butt-hurt and call denigerate pre-4th edition, according to your moderators. If this is what's considered "No preference to 4th edition", I'd love to see what is.
1) You won't get anywhere with Mand, he's been a consistent hardcore WotC defender.
2) Yes, moderation is very inconsistent but it's not always skewed in favor of 4e (although it sometimes is). Edition warring goes on all too often here and I've seen folks on both sides go unmodded. Sometimes there is bias in areas that have nothing to do with preferred editions. Sometimes ORC A seems to be enforcing a completely different version of the CoC than ORC B. And although Customer Service does have their rare moments of helpfulness, they generally do nothing to explain why one post was modded and another was not.
3) All I can say really say about the moderation here is that rather than some people being favored, it's more like some people just get hammered more than others (probably due to the fact that some people see the report button as their immediate reaction to anything that hurts their precious feelings while others see it as a last resort).
1) You assume that the statements are "corresponding." Most of the anti-4e statements are far worse, far more mean-spirited, and far more personally insulting than the anti-pre-4e statements. Insulting ones on both sides should be removed, but there's a disparity in the frequency and the severity of insults between the sides. You don't recognize this due to your own perception bias, and nothing I can say will change this.
2) That's a lie. I don't believe it's appropriate to attack any edition. Oh, and for the record, I'm not just a 4e fan. I play other editions too, and enjoy them. So stop lying about me and what I believe.
3) You don't post in "the same way" as the pro-4e community.
4) Also a lie. I make no demands. I have been informing you of what the developers, themselves have said that the foundational design principles of Next are. You are in conflict with those principles in your push to exclude everything that you don't like, to prevent other people from being able to use it even if you never have to. Sorry, that's not acceptable, and I make no apologies for it.
5) Inequality of the results of moderation does not mean inequality of the application of moderation. You assume that both sides are the same - that assumption is wrong.
Angelka, Emerikol, Gatt, Steely_Dan, Zaardnar. All have been gangbanging 4E fans on these forums for months with a slap on the wrist for punishment AT MOST.
Please make sure this changes. They are 90% of the reason why the D&D NExt forums are so hostile.
And you, apparently, are the other 10%. Stay classy, brah!
snip
Not only does that sound completely out of character for Garth, but you're hardly the first person to get upset over forum moderation. I seriously doubt Hasbro will fire anyone over what a non-employee said on a forum.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.