I am not a moderator, a VCL, a Forum Guide, an ORC, or any other form of authority, yet I can spot a thread-closing poster a mile away, and can predict, almost to the post, when a thread will get shut down. It's the same group of people almost every time, and it has become almost comical in its predictability.
My question:
Why do the moderators allow these posters...many of which are on their 3rd or 4th screen-name...to continue to do this? I realize that threads get closed due to complaints received about their content. However, instead of removing the cause, they seem to turn a blind eye and just hit the "Close Thread" button (or whatever it is they do). Especially the ORCs...this is their forum, as they are WotC employees, yet they seem to care not a lick about those who populate it. I'm sure it's easier to just close a thread, but for those of us interested in the conversation, it's becoming very annoying to have topics cut off due to this select few.
Maybe I'm just talking to a wall here, but it matters to me. I've seen some excellent advice and conversations on these boards, and it's very disheartening to see the trend that is apparently par for the course around here. I also belong to many forums that do not pertain to this hobby (very real-world issues), and the moderators on those boards take steps to terminate problem-posters. They see them for the derailing, distracting, detracting folk that they are, and have no use for them on their boards. I truly wish WotC would take as much care of these boards.
Now, that out of the way, I do agree that we've seen more "thread closed due to complaints" than have really been necessary, and not enough "cleaning" of problem posts. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that if the "thread closed until review" resulted in more reopened threads (maybe it does, but we never see them again).
I could see problems with moderation keeping up with an ongoing argument - in that situation, I really would prefer they lock the thread while they're fixing it, and then unlock it again once they've posted (and once it's been "cleaned").
Normally I'm much more of a fan of reporting than I am a fan of fighting with other posters on the forums, but I'm really getting leery of reporting at this point, because it seems like the reports don't end up getting dealt with on an individual basis - they end up getting the whole discussion locked (and killed).
Normally I'm much more of a fan of reporting than I am a fan of fighting with other posters on the forums, but I'm really getting leery of reporting at this point, because it seems like the reports don't end up getting dealt with on an individual basis - they end up getting the whole discussion locked (and killed).
This is my entire point. I, too, am very hesitant about hitting the "report" button, as it seems to accomplish nothing aside from getting the thread closed. I mean, after all...when you hit the "report" button, it's the "Report Post" button, not the "Please Close This Thread" button.
Tell the ORC the topic of the thread, that people are having a good, rational discussion, save for poster(s) X (and Y and Z) who are attempting to disrupt the conversation.
If you see someone posting with the express intent to disrupt the thread, report it, and make it clear in the report that this is the goal of the poster. If you give as much detal as possible, the ORC knows what is going on and can be more precise.
Tell the ORC the topic of the thread, that people are having a good, rational discussion, save for poster(s) X (and Y and Z) who are attempting to disrupt the conversation.
MB...I respect you...I really do, but these canned responses are not working. This is the exact process I go through every time, yet threads get closed anyway. Now, I'm sure if I've been moved to hit the "report" button, so have many others...and I don't know how they word things in their reports. Could be that I'm fighting a losing battle each time, but it is disheartening.
I was once told that mods don't/can't share info on poster transgressions, so they may not even notice the dozens of such actions.
When I was told a similar thing, it was as a reason why each report should include as much information as possible (including the poster's history, the situation, the actual disruption, why it should be moderated, etc).*
If you see someone posting with the express intent to disrupt the thread, report it, and make it clear in the report that this is the goal of the poster. If you give as much detail as possible, the ORC knows what is going on and can be more precise.
Tell the ORC the topic of the thread, that people are having a good, rational discussion, save for poster(s) X (and Y and Z) who are attempting to disrupt the conversation.
As Hocus said, this is the general format of my reports as well. I fear (and get the impression) that a thread is locked if it hits a certain quota of reports (no matter the content) in a short enough period of time.
*: Now, I don't think it's the best of plans to leave this kind of stuff entirely in the hands of forum-members (for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because it effectively makes us the moderators, and could be abused easily) - and I hope it's not - but that's another matter entirely.
That being said, and this response will probably draw a lot of "but it doesn't work" from various people, but here is the sure-fire way to prevent threads from being closed down:
Threads aren't closed down because of one single poster posting something against the CoC. If it is just one poster, the post gets excissed, and the thread goes on. If, however, a lot of people start flaming each other, or attacking a single poster, then the ORCs reach a point where it is better to simply close the trhead down and refer it to the VCL of the particular ssection for cleanup/keep closed. If you see someone flaming, or baiting, DON'T RESPOND!!
If you see someone posting with the express intent to disrupt the thread, report it, and make it clear in the report that this is the goal of the poster. If you give as much detal as possible, the ORC knows what is going on and can be more precise.
Tell the ORC the topic of the thread, that people are having a good, rational discussion, save for poster(s) X (and Y and Z) who are attempting to disrupt the conversation.
This is the exact process I go through every time, yet threads get closed anyway.
Are you sure you put in as much detail as possible? You'd be amazed how many reports come in with nothing more than "trolling", which is NOT enough.
Are you sure you put in as much detail as possible? You'd be amazed how many reports come in with nothing more than "trolling", which is NOT enough.
Many of my reports are as long (if not longer than) what people normally post. (And not just for the few massively problematic posters, for whom I have canned histories to copy-paste in, in addition to the actual reason for reporting.)
I'm assuming that's enough space to include the necessary detail, yes? ;)
Are you sure you put in as much detail as possible? You'd be amazed how many reports come in with nothing more than "trolling", which is NOT enough.
I'll show an example of what my typical reports look like, then you can tell me if it's sufficiently long and descriptive enough.
"This poster is once again trying to derail the thread into a flame-war, just like he does/has done on numerous other threads. It is intentional flaming and baiting, as is obvious to all the other thread-goers. As you well know, this is this poster's 3rd or 4th screen-name, and I can only assume the previous ones were banned, hence the need for this new one. Please, see what you can do about this guy."
And how would one prove that there was intent to shut a thread down?
Call it intent...call it numerously-lucky coincidence...call it whatever you wish. The point stands.
And how would one prove that there was intent to shut a thread down?
Intent is hardly the most important part of the report. You can't expect action on a normal post simply because of the inferred intent of the poster. I rarely bother including mention of "intent" - and then, only when the poster has actually expressed the intent (usually to be disruptive), either in the post in question or elsewhere on the forums.
Including the CoC violation, along with that the post is disruptive and sure to drag the thread off-topic, is usually enough to at least try to give the ORC the idea.
One thing that I should point out (and I am not accusing anyone in this thread of doing so), but disagreement is not the same as posting with intent to shut down a thread.
The "Why Bother With Alignment" thread is a good example of how things should be done. There are disagreements galore, but it has been, for the most part, a civilized debate that's now into it's..what...3000th-odd post? Same goes for the "Sorry WotC, No More Books For Me Until Until 5E" thread. Excellent points, counter-points, and disagreements, but all in a civilized manner. This thread also continued into the multi-thousand post range. No, disagreement is NOT the same as intent to close a thread. Intentional derailment, flaming, baiting, and overall trolling with no other purpose than to tick someone off, however, can be seen as nothing other than intent to close a thread.
The two threads youpointed out are what needs to be done. In those threads, there have been people who have trolled the thread. However, none of the people participating inthe thread responded. They ignored the trolling posts and continued discussing the topic of the thread.
Yeah, maybe that's it.
And how would one prove that there was intent to shut a thread down?
Flamebait is flamebait. People's opinions on what constitutes flamebait will differ, but if a thread is closed because of flaming which was incited by a particular post, people should eventually be able to eventually tell if that post was flamebait or not.
And how would one prove that there was intent to shut a thread down?
There was a post on the Previous Editions Board that had a link that lead to a thread on another web site where posters gathered to make fun of on various forums, including this one, and was used as a launching point to troll these forums. Amoung other things one poster admitted to doing this on these forums.
Sort of this only an inductive argument is possible.
Tell the ORC the topic of the thread, that people are having a good, rational discussion, save for poster(s) X (and Y and Z) who are attempting to disrupt the conversation.
Hey! When have I ever derailed a thread?
Hey! When have I ever derailed a thread?
You mean you forgot about the "Guinness turns you gay" thread over in off-topic already?
There was a post on the Previous Editions Board that had a link that lead to a thread on another web site where posters gathered to make fun of on various forums, including this one, and was used as a launching point to troll these forums. Amoung other things one poster admitted to doing this on these forums.
Sort of this only an inductive argument is possible.
I'm not familiar with this specific instance (PM?), but it illustrates a point I don't think we've been recognizing here: This isn't about the edition war. The edition war is just the weapons of choice for people who are getting their jollies by disrupting the boards.
I know this because a couple of these guys have actually said as much and I've seen some of them posting on other forums behaving this exact same way, but on the other side of the edition war!
And saying to ignore it is a faulty way of dealing with it. For it to work, you need to modify the behavior of dozens, if not hundreds of posters not to rise to flamebait. Or, you could punish posting flamebait and only modify the behavior of one or two people.
I was told way back that the bad way is the actual policy. That posting flamebait is fine and threads and posts won't/can't be closed simply for being flamebait. It's the responding to flamebait that gets dealt with. Which to me is kind of like killing white blood cells for attacking a virus.
Another time, in Warweaver's 'Romance' thread, the ORC on duty simply posted a polite reminder that we were getting into verboten territory, rather than editing our posts or locking the thread. That was nice.
Sure, the first is a very obvious case of thread-derail, and the second stands out only against the more extreme thread-kills, but I just think the positive experiences should be aired too.
That said, I've also seen cases where a single troll entangled several pages of discussion in deceptive BS, only to admit that the lie of zir thread-derailing drama was 'for the lulz', and someone actually pointed out the point where the thread was derailed so that the ORCs could perform a clean amputation... and instead they locked it. Killed the discussion because of one Anonymous wannabe. It's cases like that which make me hesitant to click 'report'.
Mudbunny's right about not answering the trolls, but I'm the first to say that it's damned hard. I was raised with the principle that it's better to handle things yourself than to yell for a teacher every time someone is rude to you. Talk it out, handle it rationally. Of course, the falling-down point is that 'rationally' part. I've gotten better about monitoring and modifying my tone on these boards, but sometimes I'll respond to someone without realizing just how inflammatory or aggravated my post is, which only fuels the fire.
While I'm trying to keep things civil in the sense that nobody's calling for the teacher to make so-and-so shut up, I actually escalate the conflict because I don't realize that my well-intentioned attempts to resolve the situation are playing right into the troll's hands. What I need -- and am trying -- to do is develop sufficient perspective to know when it's necessary to tell the teacher. As my sig's disclaimer might indicate, I have a hard time judging social Rubicons like that; lines which delineate the correctness of one course of action in a given situation versus another. If anyone has any tips on how to recognize when a discussion has reached the point when one should withdraw or report, I'd love to hear them.
I'm not familiar with this specific instance (PM?), but it illustrates a point I don't think we've been recognizing here: This isn't about the edition war. The edition war is just the weapons of choice for people who are getting their jollies by disrupting the boards.
I know this because a couple of these guys have actually said as much and I've seen some of them posting on other forums behaving this exact same way, but on the other side of the edition war!
And saying to ignore it is a faulty way of dealing with it. For it to work, you need to modify the behavior of dozens, if not hundreds of posters not to rise to flamebait. Or, you could punish posting flamebait and only modify the behavior of one or two people.
I was told way back that the bad way is the actual policy. That posting flamebait is fine and threads and posts won't/can't be closed simply for being flamebait. It's the responding to flamebait that gets dealt with. Which to me is kind of like killing white blood cells for attacking a virus.
I just want to say (and I know this is a little off topic, but it is a connected issue), this has been my exact impression with the moderation of these boards, which is often very infuriating. Its one of the reasons I feel a lot of the policies of moderation employed by the moderators on these boards need some careful examination. In the (even very recent) past the style of moderation employed by the moderators of these boards, namely "killing the white blood cells for attacking a virus," has infuriated me to the point where I have considered boycotting WotC's product line. I don't know if any other posters have had similar reactions, but if they have, then it indicates a major schism between the intent of the moderators actions and the result. Even if the moderators are not in fact "killing the white blood cells for attacking a virus," the fact that many of the "white blood cell" posters on these forums are getting that impression is problematic enough.
Also, another related problem: there are posters out there who intentionally reference other posters in a derogatory way, often even parodying other poster's posts in their signature. However, these references are very vague. These moments of parody are not really obviously evident to anyone but the one who is being parodied, at least unless old threads are found and linked. In these cases the one who is being parodied can not even really report the person in question, because the persons post or signature is vague enough that it becomes hard to empirically prove that it is intentionally designed to be offensive. Thing is, it is offensive. Yet, reacting to this would result in the reaction being moderated and not the person who is employing the initially offensive tactics. Yet again, the "white blood cell" is the one that feels that they need to either live with offensive, or get attacked by the moderators. Again, the fact that (at least) some of the "white blood cell" posters on these forums are getting that impression is problematic.
And I know that these impressions are not isolated to me. Vaalingrade Ashland brought it up without me doing so. Aside from Vaalingrade, I know of two other posters who have expressed similar sentiments privately within the last week. One of them has mentioned that they are thinking of quitting these boards because of them.
I am just saying, when posts get closed down instead of offensive elements getting removed, when offensive elements get ignored and "white blood cell" posters get attacked for finally responding, at least a few positive posters in these forums start to feel like this place may be a little hostile to their presence. I doubt that is the impression WotC really wants to give to their customer base.
So, I'm not saying that the moderators are not trying hard to keep this place civil, or that their efforts are not appreciated, but I think some of the policies that regulate how moderators come to their decisions behind closed doors are having the opposite of their intended effect.
That's my 2 cents on this issue. And I fully admit that my 2 cents are my very subjective current impression.
What I need -- and am trying -- to do is develop sufficient perspective to know when it's necessary to tell the teacher. As my sig's disclaimer might indicate, I have a hard time judging social Rubicons like that; lines which delineate the correctness of one course of action in a given situation versus another. If anyone has any tips on how to recognize when a discussion has reached the point when one should withdraw or report, I'd love to hear them.
I am not sure that anyone can tell anyone else how to determine that point. For everyone, it is a different point, topic or type of comment that will tip the scales, so to speak. Personally, if I find myself responding with extreme sarcasm, or responding to a post and my response is to the poster, and not the topic of the thread, then it is time to press Cancel, and simply not respond. Once i do that, I look at the post I was responding to, and determine if it is just something that they are saying that is annoying me, or if they are actually trolling or derailing the thread.
If I see that they are trolling or derailing, I report it. The sooner it gets reported, the less work that the ORC(s) have to do to clean up the thread, and the more likely the thread is to *not* get locked.
This is all fine and dandy, but please explain to us why 50 Pack Trolls like and his multiple personas have not been permabanned via an IP ban. This is the first board I have been on where the sock puppets are allowed to roam free with impunity no matter how many times the original poster breaks the CoC. When is WotC going to do something. I know customer service, but it would help if I did not get sent to some gleemax sign saying that it is temporarily unavailable no matter how many times I try on different browsers, computers, and security settings. So no customer service does not work. Fix the website, ban the sock puppets.
I second this sentiment. This is the crux of the problem. Please explain it.
Reporting the thread won't actually stop the behavior ever. It just moves the behavior elsewhere on the boards.
I've started to find myself hesitating to report trolling in good threads though. I'm starting to feel like by doing so there are three results: 1) I help the troll take down the thread 2) *this* offense is caught, but ten more are in the shoot with nothing to stop it, 3) I help the troll go to ground by giving him a name change.
Reporting the thread won't actually stop the behavior ever. It just moves the behavior elsewhere on the boards.
Number 3 there is getting really annoying. It's apparently possible to get banned and keep a number of identifying traits (signature and such). That means all the ban does is force a name change, but what does that do? It gives these guys a little more street cred ("I got a new name! And a tattoo!") and it adds to their delusions of martyrdom.
I also think it's silly that we are asked to keep track of other users' bad posting habits. Neither VCLs nor average janes/joes should have to do this. Why? Because we're not in charge of moderation- all we can do is say, "This poster said other bad stuff which may or may not have been against the CoC and which I suspect resulted in a permanent ban of his name." As a few people have said, reports are longer than offending posts a lot of the time. The need to present evidence of past bad behavior or to justify claims of trolling (etc) on the basis of the possible offender's other posts is the problem here.
I know this thread wasn't started as a general whine about moderation, but I think these are the underlying issues here. It's pretty easy to get threads shut down when you have no fear of a real ban (and may even enjoy getting one or at least get a sense of validation). It's easy to post disruptively when you are allowed to use your enforced name changes to say, "Hey, look here, you can't get rid of me, no matter what I do!"
I try not to respond to trolls, although I will reply to anyone who is making an effort to have a real conversation, even if he's been a jerk before. I understand that some people feel like moderation is ineffectual and it's better to try and shout them down. This is obviously a bad conclusion to reach, but I get it! We do all need to make an effort to ignore people who are just here to fight or who make stuff up to get attention. But moderation here just takes too much effort from the community. It's much easier to toss off a few angry sentences than to put together a lengthy argument explaining why the latest in a string of sock puppets deserves yet more moderation. Especially when the person you're trying to "convict" has so much knowledge of the CoC.
Just for the record...
I never post with the intent to shut a thread down.
As a matter of fact, I had never thought about that...
Then why do you post at all, because that is exactly what you do.
Then why do you post at all, because that is exactly what you do.
I have to say, I've never seen HATER's posts lead to thread destruction.
I have to say, I've never seen HATER's posts lead to thread destruction.
I've seen it once, but that was mostly my fault as a result of a totally innocuous post of his. :S
I've seen it once, but that was mostly my fault as a result of a totally innocuous post of his. :S
Well, if it's any consolation, I think it's very big of you to say so.
As do I...
Thanks, HATER. Personally, I think you would have had every right to call me a prick.
Good luck. bwah ha.
Yeah, let's ban all sockpuppets, and trolls.
Good luck. bwah ha.
It actually works on forums with decent moderation. However who the heck are the ORCs (as they seem to be the only ones capable of moderation)? Are they paid WotC staff members? If so, I doubt they're being paid solely to moderate the boards, which means they do it whenever they get time, which means we have bad moderation.
I've seen moderation work and work well by volunteers. If WotC has a policy of only allowing paid staff members to be moderators, they might as well just get rid of the moderation because its going to be on the bottom of the list of responsibilities they have. They also don't necessarily make good moderators, as they were hired because they were good game designers, not because they had experience moderating forums.
They're paid by WotC, but have extensive training. Unfortunately, all the extensive training in the world is useless in the face of WotC's uptight policies on what does and does not constitute as grounds for moderation. The biggest problem is an easy one: utter lack of any sort of "Final Solution." Without any "higher power" to fear, why would people EVER stop being total asshats? It's what humans are at a base nature, anyway; why would an Honor System with no real consequences ever actually work?
Wow. That's a unique way to moderate a board. Pay people, train people, (I assume give them paid hours for nothing but moderating), and then tie their hands so they can't do anything to actually fix the problem of bad posters.
Wow. That's a unique way to moderate a board. Pay people, train people, (I assume give them paid hours for nothing but moderating), and then tie their hands so they can't do anything to actually fix the problem of bad posters.
I know. I imagine only a certain level of detachment could actually make it bearable. :S
I just wrote a huge rant about the utopian philosophy that serves as a front for the "unique" (good one that, JohnLynch) moderation, and I erased it. On purpose.
I feel like I have attained the next level of zen: the "why bother, this is as good as it gets" level.
I'm well on my way to the "not giving a damn about feeling like I'm taking crazy pills" level!
Basically what I've seen are some threads debasing to argumentum ad hominem. But that's just my perspective.
In my opinion the moderators are handling things well. Better to send everyone to their corners and close the thread than allow the situation to escalate. For the most part, and maybe it's just my desire to give people the benefit of the doubt, posters don't seem to be intent on shutting threads down. It looks like those situations are just people getting caught up in the moment and things simply get carried away.
[Coincidentally she's the one who pointed me in the direction of these forums, which I'm glad to be have found! :D ]
Now, say that friend went ranting and trolling on these forums because she was in a bad mood... BANG! Without warning or conversation she's banned! But, not just her, I go with it since we share the same IP. Suddenly I can't post, so I trudge along to the local library and sign in, hoping to contribute. BANG! Nope, can't do it, because the ModSquad didn't just lockout the IP, they've done it with each individual alias, and have no intention of releasing said accounts.
Sure, too some it may seem far-fetched or very rare, but I've had it happen twice in my life so far. Twice. Though in one case I actually knew the real guy behind the ModSquad account and was able to get my account up and running again. It happens, far more often then most people will believe or admit. And what about my friend? One bad day, looses her temper... banned for life! Eh!? Not exactly what I call fair.
So far I haven't had any problems on the forums; I avoid people who's intention's are malicious or I PM the individual(s) in question if I suspect trolling or belittlement, just to clear the air. Nine times out of ten I've come to know that it's in fact the exact opposite, and in most cases a simple case of misunderstanding, lack of emotion on the internet and this odd form of hostility that seems to seethe right below the online psyche these days.
Now, clearly, there are some people who post on purpose to be rude, there always will be in any civilization, but even then careful measures should be taken to ensure the removal of the individual(s) in case of unintended side effects. Still, all in all, I can't complain about the "swift justice" of whatever ModSquad seems to be in effect on these boards, they seem to do their job quite well from where I sit. Then again... I've only been here for about a month, so maybe I haven't seen the worst of the worst eh?:D
Just a thought.
Basically what I've seen are some threads debasing to argumentum ad hominem.
Good moderation involves stepping in before things debase to such a state.
In my opinion the moderators are handling things well. Better to send everyone to their corners and close the thread than allow the situation to escalate.
The Previous Editions where being disrupted by posters that simply wanted to insult others and get threads locked.
If you only lock the thread, they get what they want and are still on the boards to do it again. I know at least one poster that has been moderated over twenty times for the same behavior and is still on the boards.
The ORCs are doing what they can, but the higher level moderation is failing to lock out people that have solidly demonstrated no interest in following the rules.
We have previously been able to pin point the problem that if addressed would be able to fix about 90% of the problems and make the board a better place, but the problems where never fixed.
Here they are: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16891272&postcount=2
Summed up by Lord Karsus
- WizO "Transparency": Some kind of way to let other people know that posts that are flagged as possibly violating the CoC have been checked by a WizO, and deemed acceptable, as opposed to it seeming the possible CoC violation has been ignored.
- - Scaling CoC Violation Penalties: Do something minor, and get slapped on the hand. Do something major, and get more than just a hand slapping. And, things in-between minor and major should, of course, be dealt appropriately. But, the main idea was that disruptions be met with as much "force" as they cause.
- - Moderation With A Memory: A person doing a million little thing that are against the CoC should add up to a million, not simply a million instances of one minor thing. If an individual has multiple minor CoC infractions, earn enough of them, and they should count as a moderate infraction, or a major infraction. In a set period of time, the CoC infractions an individual makes should be taken into consideration when considering disciplinary measures, and not (seemingly) ignored.
- - A Limit On Multiple Accounts: There are valid reasons for people having multiple accounts, but many have, over the course of time, abused this policy. Thus, there should be a limit on how many separate screen names every e-mail address can have linked to it. Related, all of the screen names linked to the same e-mail address should be identified, so posters know the accounts that are linked to each other.
If they are invisible to the entire community, the can feel free to post what ever they want, and no one will ever rise to the bait as we cannot see it.
I do not know why some folks hesitate to use their own ignore list to get rid off annoying posters without moderator intervention. I know it can be irksome when you see someone biting on a hidden trolls bait, and you do not know what the troll said... BUT
If the moderators could do a community wide ignore command instead of banning an account outright the troll would get to post their trash, and the community would never again rise to the bait. The troll might not realize they are being ignored and so they never make an alternate account and this reduces detective work in finding new forum tags that the moderators have to babysit. Shouldn't this make everyone is happy.
:D
Yeah, let's ban all sockpuppets, and trolls.
Good luck. bwah ha.
Someone said that on a forum I used to mod for. I knocked that joint out in about a day and with a handful of month bans and two perms.
For the most part, and maybe it's just my desire to give people the benefit of the doubt, posters don't seem to be intent on shutting threads down. It looks like those situations are just people getting caught up in the moment and things simply get carried away.
Like I've said, a few of these guys have specifically said this is what they're trying to do. And they're willing to sacrifice names (for like two days or something weak anyway) to get that effect.
...
A joke also, I do not laugh maniacally while I post as I am usually in a library and it would be inappropriate to do so. Anyways, I don't see why people on these forums are so resistant to dissenting opinions that they must silence them via such cheap tactics as poisoning the well and trying to read false messages into posts. I try to be open to the opinions of others as much as possible and keep a fair and educated opinion of the material I am judging.
When I report a post, if I want it to remain open I say that "the discussion is going well even though heated. We do not wish to have the thread closed. This particular post(er) is disruptive by doing ."
The ORCs have had to close down threads for some cleaning but reopened them. Sometimes it is better to just close the thread and let everyone cool their heels for a bit.
All that being said, I would like to see some people permanently banned. There is one particular poster that comes to mind who is using at least six different accounts just to cause trouble. It is really annoying to have to figure out who he is so I can put him on ignore. If he would just be banned many posters can get back to more enjoyable discussions.
I don't know if they do so specifically because of my request, but it seems most of the times when I take this step the WizO who arrives does his/her best to trim things and keep the thread going.
It's the responding to flamebait that gets dealt with. Which to me is kind of like killing white blood cells for attacking a virus.
Because two wrongs make a right, yeah?
I'd like to say that it is almost never my intent to shut down a thread (I say almost because I guess I can never know my subconscious). I post to shed light on misconceptions and show faults of what I'm criticizing. For some reason, I get the feeling that people have this image of me laughing maniacally and stroking my goatee while I post. I would like to assure these people that I do not have a goatee, I shave frequently.
I actually have an image of you as a 12 year child.
...
A joke also, I do not laugh maniacally while I post as I am usually in a library and it would be inappropriate to do so. Anyways, I don't see why people on these forums are so resistant to dissenting opinions that they must silence them via such cheap tactics as poisoning the well and trying to read false messages into posts. I try to be open to the opinions of others as much as possible and keep a fair and educated opinion of the material I am judging.
It's not the dissenting opinion. It's the tone. Warweaver has a negitive opinion of 4th ed, and I'd say he's one of the most respected posters on this board.
You have never even READ 4e, let alone played it. You are not the person people should be listening to when trying to find out what the actual flaws of the system are.
Because two wrongs make a right, yeah?
Because ignoring someone throwing a brick at you makes them go away, right?
Because ignoring someone throwing a brick at you makes them go away, right?
Nobody argued that they should be ignored.
Rather, Vaal argued that valiant white blood cells like himself shouldn't be punished for flaming the flamers, those human viruses. As though there was a difference between flaming because you're a jerk, and flaming because someone else is a jerk.
Because two wrongs make a right, yeah?
No. But there is a big difference between being goaded into an action, or committing an action in order to goad others into it. This difference should be factored into the repercussions of someones action. Currently it often, it at least seems like, those who are goaded into taken an action are suffering more sever repercussions then those who are doing the goading. That's a very backwards way to approach a problem.
No. But there is a big difference between being goaded into an action, or committing an action in order to goad others into it. This difference should be factored into the repercussions of someones action. Currently it often, it at least seems like, those who are goaded into taken an action are suffering more sever repercussions then those who are doing the goading. That's a very backwards way to approach a problem.
It might be, if it weren't for the Ignore function. If you can't do it yourself, there's a button that'll do it for you. If we all used our ingore buttons, there would be no trolling on the boards.
I'm fighting you on this point because Vaalingrade, while an intelligent guy, is demonstrating a poisonous attitude. In the (recent) past, Vaal has accused me both subtly and blatantly of participating in or propagating a trend of using specific 'tactics' in order to start 'edition wars'. I say that his attitude (and the attitudes of those that share his 'its okay when I do it' opinion) is poisonous because it's just generally a downer for someone like me, that has only recently returned to the boards.
Since I've been here, I've never made personal attacks, berated anyone's opinions, never 'trolled', and never taken anything that anyone has said about a game so personally as to insult them for it. I have, in fact, been complimented or thanked on two or three occasions for my civility in arguing one point or another.
That Vaalingrade and those that share his opinions feel justified in responding to an offense with an offense, such as the rude and blatant insults and accusations the guy has publically posted about me more than once, speaks to the seemingly trigger-happy or 'conclusion-jumping' state that longtimers on these boards seem to be in. This might not be their fault, but it certianly isn't mine, and it isn't the fault of new posters and forumgoers that encounter this fight-fire-with-fire attitude.
One flame or baiting remark from some idiot is ignored, no matter how many Threads they may drop that same remark in, but anyone getting into a heated argument with said baiter is suddenly day-banned for CoC violations. THAT is what he was talking about, not calling someone a poopy-head because you don't like their attitude.
Actually, I've been the subject of some rather out-there accusations. I've seen and been subject to exactly what you describe. It's not a practice that anyone should feel entitled to, provoked or not. Mind you, the main offenders as far as I can tell are perhaps two or three longtime posters, and this isn't a widespread trend per se, just a frustrating and vocal one.
Actually, I've been the subject of some rather out-there accusations. I've seen and been subject to exactly what you describe. It's not a practice that anyone should feel entitled to, provoked or not. Mind you, the main offenders as far as I can tell are perhaps two or three longtime posters, and this isn't a widespread trend per se, just a frustrating and vocal one.
Sounds like they deserve a day (or maybe even more) away from the Boards, then. I don't call people names, though I do very aggressively and vocally call people on specific methods of aggravation that are totally unwarranted, well that and blatant stupidity. Sometimes it gets heated, and sometimes I get in trouble for it. Hence the whole feeling of "unfair" moderation.
Sounds like they deserve a day (or maybe even more) away from the Boards, then. I don't call people names, though I do very aggressively and vocally call people on specific methods of aggravation that are totally unwarranted, well that and blatant stupidity. Sometimes it gets heated, and sometimes I get in trouble for it. Hence the whole feeling of "unfair" moderation.
Longtimers like Vaalingrade? Day-banned? I'm not sure I could see that happening (I couldn't say why... name-calling is name-calling, but it just doesn't feel... likely), but the 'feeling of unfair moderation' persists for everyone here I think.
Vaalingrade? Day-banned? I'm not sure I could see that happening (I couldn't say why... name-calling is name-calling, but it just doesn't feel... likely), but the 'feeling of unfair moderation' persists for everyone here I think.
Well, that would tend to be the case when the moderation is 100% opaque. It's like if you never ever got to learn the end results of any given trial; one day a guy's convicted of murdering your family while you're on vacation, and you never see any actual results of the trial, or if there ever actually was a trial. Imagine how you'd feel to see that guy walking down the streets three weeks later. An opaque system of justice will obviously always leave absolutely everyone with a bad taste in their mouth, but WotC...well, what can I say that isn't negative? ::shrug::
An opaque system of justice will obviously always leave absolutely everyone with a bad taste in their mouth, but WotC...well, what can I say that isn't negative? ::shrug::
Well, they used to make a mean game of D&D. But it really doesn't (or shouldn't) have much of anything to do with WotC. We're all real people with the ability to police ourselves in the real world. Nobody moderates our conversations. We shouldn't leave our civility at the door just 'because it's the internet'.
And I don't mean it should be ok to flame anyone. If someone comes on here and calls someone names, swears at them, attacks them, then I understand if they get moderated. The issue is what Crimson Lancer said here:
You don't even need to flame back to be modded. One flame or baiting remark from some idiot is ignored, no matter how many Threads they may drop that same remark in, but anyone getting into a heated argument with said baiter is suddenly day-banned for CoC violations.
Hell, sometimes it doesn't even take a heated argument. Sometimes its enough to simply state that you have been offended by another poster's posts enough times to have added them to your ignore list, and in the context of a conversation where someone else on the post has just managed to get offended enough by the poster in question to state the exact same thing.
Longtimers like Vaalingrade? Day-banned? I'm not sure I could see that happening (I couldn't say why... name-calling is name-calling, but it just doesn't feel... likely), but the 'feeling of unfair moderation' persists for everyone here I think.
You would be surprised. A lot of the longtimers get day-banned. Since 4e was released, I have had it happen to me twice (and those have been the only two times since 2004). One of the two times I would say I probably deserved a 24 hour day ban. I let my temper get to me, and I probably needed a day away from the boards. I don't think I said anything nearly as offensive as what some of the trolls here regularly say... but that is not the issue. Like you said, two wrongs don't make a right.
And I agree, the "feeling of unfair moderation" is the big problem. And in my honest opinion, I agree that the root of this problem is the opaque moderation process. Opaque moderation processes always feel unfair. There should be a lot more transparency behind how, what, when, who and why in regards to the process of moderation. I think it would leave everyone feeling like the process was a lot more fair.
And if I was WotC, I would put some serious thought into what their moderation policies are, and why. Honestly, the way moderation is working these days, I don't see it succeeding at doing anything but pushing customers away. These boards have not really become more civil, and lots of customers who love the product are extremely miffed with the company. The fact that all moderation comes down from on high, with only a "Sincerely Wizards of the Coast" tag line, certainly doesn't help. Its yet one more example behind how moderation here happens behind an opaque curtain.
Just a little disclaimer to both the moderators and to muddbunny, I am not saying that your efforts are worthless, I am not saying that you guys are bad at your jobs, and I am not saying that you guys are not trying to do what is best for the boards. I understand you have the best intentions at heart. But the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, and I think that the opaque moderation policies here pave a road straight to hell. They lead to nothing but an impression that the boards are not moderated in a fair or just manner (whether that impression is accurate or not).
Well, they used to make a mean game of D&D. But it really doesn't (or shouldn't) have much of anything to do with WotC. We're all real people with the ability to police ourselves in the real world. Nobody moderates our conversations. We shouldn't leave our civility at the door just 'because it's the internet'.
And I don't post anything I wouldn't actually say to someone acting like some of the people on the 'Net act. Some people seem to love the whole aspect of, "I can say anything I want, because I don't have to answer to anyone, including you, Mr. Poopy-head!" And no, there isn't anything you can do, except to ignore them. Of course, then someone else actually does respond, and then everything goes downhill from there. So yeah, if everyone were to ignore Trolls, that would be great, but would probably just result in a divided Community where half of the people don't even listen to anything the other half has to say, and then things just degenerate. If you actually try to get problem posters to realize that they could be a useful, respected member of the Community, or that they're not nearly as righteous as they think they are, it will sometimes actively improve the Community.
For those who refuse to respond in a positive way to anything, I'd just like to know that there's a final solution that works.
It's like being the hero of a small-time town:
"Oh yeah, he was born and raised here uhhuh! What-? You say he was poppin' pills? Nah - couldn't have been him. You just misunderstood or somethin'. He admitted to doing it? Ah, then he was just having a bad day is all see? He's done it multiple times? Well of course, if it takes the edge off, who's to complain? Really, he's just a great kid! I knew him when he was knee-high to a grasshopper, can't go wrong there, even with a few bendy turns in the road eh?"
I've seen this attitude repeated again, and again and again no matter where you go. It always happens, some kind of perverse hero-worship of the said individual(s), with just a slap on the wrist and away with them. I haven't managed to identify anybody getting the "Special Treatment" just yet since I don't spend hours and hours online, but I'm sure in time I will. And like always I'll just ignore those people who're part of that special little group, no matter how insightful the occasional post may be:
Online favorites within a system designed to be fair for everyone, just doesn't work to any extent I've ever see. And I don't want the headache from it. :D
So yeah, if everyone were to ignore Trolls, that would be great, but would probably just result in a divided Community where half of the people don't even listen to anything the other half has to say, and then things just degenerate.
Which is why I use the Ignore Function in my head, not the one on the forum. :D
Also:
Rake, I don't know what anyone else has accused you of, but for the record I have NEVER seen you post in a disruptive manner. You certainly don't like 4e, and I don't agree with 9/10 things I hear you say, but you have never been offensive about what you are saying.
Thanks, Dave.
I actually have an image of you as a 12 year child.
...
It's not the dissenting opinion. It's the tone. Warweaver has a negitive opinion of 4th ed, and I'd say he's one of the most respected posters on this board.
You have never even READ 4e, let alone played it. You are not the person people should be listening to when trying to find out what the actual flaws of the system are.
This is what I have a problem with, when people like you post things like this it causes tension and makes it more likely that a mod will lock a thread. I try to be fair and occasionally funny, I do not try to get threads locked. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. I can't help it if people feel that me just being on the boards is a form of trolling so I try to make the best of it. Yes, it's true that I haven't even come close to a book of 4e, everyone knows that already... however, I have read the posts on 4e by others and I think that's good enough for me to have reasonable and involved conversations on it. If that's not good enough for you, I'm sorry, put me on ignore if you want. Also, for those complaining about ignore not working because I keep making new accounts: there isn't a size limit to your ignore lists if I'm not mistaken. You aren't required to respond to my posts either.
Also, for those complaining about ignore not working because I keep making new accounts: there isn't a size limit to your ignore lists if I'm not mistaken. You aren't required to respond to my posts either.
And why, exactly, do keep having to make new accounts?
Also, for those complaining about ignore not working because I keep making new accounts: there isn't a size limit to your ignore lists if I'm not mistaken. You aren't required to respond to my posts either.
Yes, technically you can keep making new accounts. Technically there's no rule against it. But... welcome to the other side of the two-wrongs-make-a-right coin. Your accounts have been banned again and again. You must realistically concede that either:
1.) You are doing something a respectful, civil forumgoer shouldn't be doing.
or
2.) Everyone here is wrong but you.
Joke about it if you like, but from a rational standpoint it's pretty clear which is more likely.
Rake, I don't know what anyone else has accused you of, but for the record I have NEVER seen you post in a disruptive manner. You certainly don't like 4e, and I don't agree with 9/10 things I hear you say, but you have never been offensive about what you are saying.
I've not seen an OP post from Rake that was inherently disruptive (though one could wonder, for a while, why Rake didn't just get the books ;) ).
However, like many of the normally "good" posters around here, I've seen responses to responses that were snippy and pointless. A lot folks seem to think that they should respond to offending posts to say that they are offensive - which is exactly what people shouldn't be doing (I've done it too, and later regretted it). Comments like that really drag things out into personal fights and derailments far too quickly, and leave neither poster "in the right" in the end.
However, like many of the normally "good" posters around here, I've seen responses to responses that were snippy and pointless.
Hey, no fair reading the OTT. : P
PS: Only one guy, the DM, owns our group's 4.0 books, and I mainly play 3.5. : P
Yes, technically you can keep making new accounts. Technically there's no rule against it. But... welcome to the other side of the two-wrongs-make-a-right coin. Your accounts have been banned again and again. You must realistically concede that either:
1.) You are doing something a respectful, civil forumgoer shouldn't be doing.
or
2.) Everyone here is wrong but you.
Joke about it if you like, but from a rational standpoint it's pretty clear which is more likely.
Took me a while to come up with a response to this:
I think everyone who gets offended enough over my views to report me for them needs to remember that they are my views and that they need not read them. Those people are wrong. People should be reported for posting aborted fetuses and name calling... not for their views.
Just because I think 4e is a narrow game with 3 power levels does not merit a report to a mod.
Took me a while to come up with a response to this:
I think everyone who gets offended enough over my views to report me for them needs to remember that they are my views and that they need not read them. Those people are wrong. People should be reported for posting aborted fetuses and name calling... not for their views.
Just because I think 4e is a narrow game with 3 power levels does not merit a report to a mod.
Sure it does. Because stating that opinion in such a way is baiting. But that, of course, is the point. Most people probably feel that moderation is skewed against them because they take the bait they're given and run with it. They can't fathom why they were moderated when the bait was plain to see. But that, again, is the point. Amirite? ;)
Just because I think 4e is a narrow game with 3 power levels does not merit a report to a mod.
Agreed, although just up and declaring so out of context might. But:
I think everyone who gets offended enough over my views to report me for them needs to remember that they are my views and that they need not read them. Those people are wrong. People should be reported for posting aborted fetuses and name calling... not for their views.
You have a responsibility to post respectfully and constructively, on-topic, without baiting or provoking your fellow community members. The option to 'not read' what you post does not excuse you from posting rude, baiting, off-topic, or provocational content.
Thinking about this a little more, I think a big part of the problem is also that the "white blood cell" posters care about their accounts more. To a "white blood cell" poster the loss of their account, even for 24 hours, feels like a big thing. They care. Those who troll the boards with multiple sock puppets, on the other hand, don't. To them a ban means next to nothing, except for a reason to don another sock puppet.
The result is that the "white blood cell" posters feel like more is being done to moderate them then the actual problem, because the actual problem just doesn't care when it gets moderated. The problem is inoculated against moderation, and thus virtually immune to it (unless the nature of moderation around here changes). The "white blood cell" posters do care, they do not feel immune to moderation. If something was done to permanently ban the IP of those who have lost their accounts to a ban numerous times, but insist on returning with a different sock puppet account, then the ultimate result of a persons actions would matter a lot more to everyone involved. People who rise to the bait would get 24 hours banns telling them to cool off. People who lose their accounts, and then try and return with a different account, would not be able to (and thus would not be able to continue to bait the rest of the community). This place might finally become civil.
If this process was also more translucent, so that everyone could see from who, and why moderation was handed down, that certainly would help to make the process feel a lot more fair. A slight personal touch to moderation would nice...
I think you just became my favorite poster ever Rake. How something is said is just as important, if not more important, then what is said. If someone keeps getting their accounts deleted/banned, it is not because of what they are saying (unless they are just being total jerks), it is because of how they are saying it.
Thinking about this a little more, I think a big part of the problem is also that the "white blood cell" posters care about their accounts more. To a "white blood cell" poster the loss of their account, even for 24 hours, feels like a big thing. They care. Those who troll the boards with multiple sock puppets, on the other hand, don't. To them a ban means next to nothing, except for a reason to don another sock puppet.
The result is that the "white blood cell" posters feel like more is being done to moderate them then the actual problem, because the actual problem just doesn't care when it gets moderated. The "white blood cell" posters do. If something was done to permanently ban the IP of those who have lost their accounts to a ban numerous times, but insist on returning with a different sock puppet account, then the ultimate result of a persons actions would matter a lot more to everyone involved. People who rise to the bait would get 24 hours banns telling them to cool off. People who lose their accounts, and then try and return with a different account, would not be able to (and thus would not be able to continue to bait the rest of the community). This place might finally become civil.
If this process was also more translucent, so that everyone could see from who, and why moderation was handed down, that certainly would help to make the process feel a lot more fair. A slight personal touch to moderation would nice...
How nice of you to declare some people as viruses simply for their views, even if not directly.
Because two wrongs make a right, yeah?
I'm going to shock the world and agree completely with Rake, just this once
I usually post here just to whine about moderation policies, but people on the 4e forums really need to stop responding to baiting.Baiting is intended to generate strong negative reactions. If you object to someone coming here to start stuff, why would you respond to his baiting remarks? There may be valid psychological reasons to do this, but there is no reasonable excuse. If you know the game someone is trying to play with you, don't play along.
That said, ignore lists are not the way. Ignoring a disruptive post(er) removes your reaction from the list of potential problems, but it only makes the forum a tiny bit more readable. If other people play along with the troll, we still have a problem. That's why we need to use the report button before anyone takes the bait.
Some people spell out for us that they are here to "fix the attitudes" of "4e fanbois". When you know someone has an agenda like that, there's absolutely no chance you can reason with him. If someone isn't here to have a regular, friendly conversation about a game he plays or is thinking about playing, that's it. No good relationship is possible. Don't try to "fix" him back. If you do, you are *doing the same stupid thing*.
The same logic applies to people who make stuff up. If someone lies to get a reaction, don't react with denunciations and "GTFO". Report or ignore, report or ignore.
How nice of you to declare some people as viruses simply for their views, even if not directly.
The declaration was based on actions, not views, and actions speak louder than words.
The declaration was based on actions, not views, and actions speak louder than words.
I don't think you're telling him something he doesn't know. When you respond, you're playing along.
I don't think you're telling him something he doesn't know. When you respond, you're playing along.
When I respond, I do so with at least some control. This forces the opposing poster to either join the discussion, leave the discussion, or resort to more obvious violations against the CoC. If they have a decent point and I'm wrong, no hard feelings, I'm just wrong, and they're free to say so; at least it's actually become a discussion rather than a shouting match. If they leave, then they didn't have a point, and the discussion continues. If they resort to more base tactics, I report them. In this manner, I know what will happen when I respond, whereas just ignoring them leaves them open to continue their activities, usually until someone else responds in a much less controlled manner.
EDIT: Also, as someone who'd been here for over 5 years, believe me, old-timers get NO special treatment. ;)
The point is that new members have to deal with trolls who should have been perma banned long ago. Ignore only works if you know someone is an asshat. Should people first coming here have to deal with this garbage? No. So you have a less lively community because certain individuals are allowed to do as they please. As to "old timers" getting any wiggle room, I laugh at the very idea. Sorry it does not happen. Of course it is terribly amusing to watch a sock puppet trying to do his usual trolling in this thread, way to go ORCs, fantastic job. I applaud your diligence.
For the record, that bolded part of your post is the sort of thing which "white blood cell posters" often find themselves banned for 24 hours for saying. My second 24 hour ban was for a statement that was less offensive then that. I am not saying that you will get banned for 24 hours for making that statement. I don't know exactly how the moderators quantify when such a response should or should not warrant a ban, and when it should or should not simply be deleted (like I said, the policies of moderation here are totally opaque), but I would be careful about making such statements if I were you. Its probably better to avoid saying something like that.
And, in the spirit of what we are all talking about here, the statement is also sort of pointless to make. Whether its true or not, its rising to the bait. Not nearly as bad as I have risen to the bait in the past... but not really constructive either. Its just giving someone a reason to post (a disruptive message) in response to what you have said. And in all fairness, its not really the moderators fault. Its not that they are not being diligent at their job. The fact that the person required a new account proves that they are in fact being diligent. The problem is that the policies of moderation that they employ are virtually worthless at stopping posters who could care less about their account. When a deletion of an account is nothing more but another notch of "street cred" in your belt, and there is nothing to stop someone from simply creating a new account, there is no reason for anyone (but the long timers and "white blood cell" posters who care about their accounts) to worry about an account deletion. To me losing my account would be devastating. I would no longer be able to modify and thus work on the settings and house rules in my signature (one of which I have spent years of effort on). To someone who only comes here to get a rise out of people there is no such fear. But this does not mean that the moderators are not being diligent. It means that their tactics of forum moderation are not working.
Total agreement on everything else you stated though.
Are you sure you put in as much detail as possible? You'd be amazed how many reports come in with nothing more than "trolling", which is NOT enough.
This is directly related to the result of apparently inefficient moderation.
When I first started using the Report feature, I gave an in-depth reason for my reports. Gradually, as I noted little action being taken on my reports, I reduced the information until it became one-two word statements. "trolling" "baiting" "rude" and occasionally "this poster is disrupting the thread".
Without seeing a difference between the two reports, I reduced my statements to the most concise information.
For the record, that bolded part of your post is the sort of thing which "white blood cell posters" often find themselves banned for 24 hours for saying. My second 24 hour ban was for a statement that was less offensive then that. I am not saying that you will get banned for 24 hours for making that statement. I don't know exactly how the moderators quantify when such a response should or should not warrant a ban, and when it should or should not simply be deleted (like I said, the policies of moderation here are totally opaque), but I would be careful about making such statements if I were you. Its probably better to avoid saying something like that.
And, in the spirit of what we are all talking about here, the statement is also sort of pointless to make. Whether its true or not, its rising to the bait. Not nearly as bad as I have risen to the bait in the past... but not really constructive either. Its just giving someone a reason to post (a disruptive message) in response to what you have said. And in all fairness, its not really the moderators fault. Its not that they are not being diligent at their job. The fact that the person required a new account proves that they are in fact being diligent. The problem is that the policies of moderation that they employ are virtually worthless at stopping posters who could care less about their account. When a deletion of an account is nothing more but another notch of "street cred" in your belt, and there is nothing to stop someone from simply creating a new account, there is no reason for anyone (but the long timers and "white blood cell" posters who care about their accounts) to worry about an account deletion. To me losing my account would be devastating. I would no longer be able to modify and thus work on the settings and house rules in my signature (one of which I have spent years of effort on). To someone who only comes here to get a rise out of people there is no such fear. But this does not mean that the moderators are not being diligent. It means that their tactics of forum moderation are not working.
Total agreement on everything else you stated though.
I agree. Normally I would not say these things, but since it is a Community Business thread, and I have related how wonderfully Customer Service has worked for me in the past, I don't really see the need to "control" what I am saying. Most of the other gaming boards I frequent would never allow the kind of romper room bs that is allowed around here. I know for instance WW permabans generally stick, because they block your IP thereby making the recurrence of a happy troll an unlikely event. So whereas the trolls may have nothing to lose if they lose their account in these forums, many other forums take the measures necessary to make sure they don't come back, and if they do it was a significant pain in the rear to do so.
Sorry, but current actions speak louder than words or past actions.
Then why does someone's decision to preserve the same old persona and keep posting the exact same way not "speak loudly" to you? A few folks have even stated explicitly that they are here to "fix 4e fanbois". I'd link posts, but that would be even further from the CoC than the rest of this. If you really need to bash your head against that wall, maybe try a PM. Otherwise you're just playing along with the trolling, no matter what your intentions are.
Then why does someone's decision to preserve the same old persona and keep posting the exact same way not "speak loudly" to you? A few folks have even stated explicitly that they are here to "fix 4e fanbois". I'd link posts, but that would be even further from the CoC than the rest of this. If you really need to bash your head against that wall, maybe try a PM. Otherwise you're just playing along with the trolling, no matter what your intentions are.
As long as it were not off-topic, why would cross-linking posts be away from the CoC?
I think reposting any posts could not be a CoC violation in and of itself.
Are they posted on these forums?
Relax. You don't see me bashing my head there, do you? I'm just saying you should actually read what someone posts if you're going to judge them. If someone with a bad history makes a statement with no malice, then asks about other people's opinions on a specific subject they're interested in, are you really going to just report them/get angry at them?
Not at all
But a couple of guys are doing the same old thing. That's all I'm talking about. You're right that we shouldn't condemn people based on what happened months ago. Alas, what happened months ago is still happening.As long as it were not off-topic, why would cross-linking posts be away from the CoC?
I think reposting any posts could not be a CoC violation in and of itself.
Are they posted on these forums?
I'm pretty sure that if I link to something I consider an example of announcing a desire to be anti-social, that would be a personal attack. Context and all that...
Now, I'm not saying I have been an angel or innocent,
Then try to be that.
Technically there's no rule against [making new accounts]
See, now that's just downright nutty. If you're going to allow making multiple accounts, just give up on moderating. Who the heck is in charge of the CoC? Accounting or the moderation team?
When I first started using the Report feature, I gave an in-depth reason for my reports. Gradually, as I noted little action being taken on my reports, I reduced the information until it became one-two word statements. "trolling" "baiting" "rude" and occasionally "this poster is disrupting the thread".
As someone who has moderated on boards and helped moderators on boards, there isn't really anything more necessary then a single sentence. Its then my job to go into the thread, read the thread if I haven't done so already, or at the very least read the surrounding and relevant posts.
If a moderator doesn't have enough time to do the above, they're being overworked and so we need more moderators. If WotC can't afford more, then perhaps they need to reassess their policy on moderation.
Paying moderators is an interesting experiment. But if it isn't working because there aren't enough, then they need to switch to something that does. Although before they try that, clearly they need different policies and untie the mods hands a bit.
I can't even name another forum except for slashdot that allows multiple accounts (and we all know how well slashdot works). It boggles the mind.
Also, I historically almost always reject the mainstream or popular things.
Yes, HATER, you and every other "unique" person in the world. :P
Now, I'm probably just speaking for myself but:
When 4.5 or 5e comes out, no matter how bad or good it is, I promise I will stop posting dissenting opinions unless I actually decide to play the game and just want something fixed or explained (some view this as trolling, apparently the mods don't). I've stated this before but people seem to have forgotten it.
Reason for this? I'd much rather be playing DotA or CSS than posting here.
Relax. You don't see me bashing my head there, do you? I'm just saying you should actually read what someone posts if you're going to judge them. If someone with a bad history makes a statement with no malice, then asks about other people's opinions on a specific subject they're interested in, are you really going to just report them/get angry at them?
Of course not, but the question is 'how long am I going to keep getting burned until I realize 'fire hot'?'. At this point in my gaming career, I'm generally here mainly to answer questions, help with design ideas and correct misinterpretations. When I'm finding the person I just gave the correct answer to a question kvetching and getting nasty based on the wrong answer because it's easier to complain about that, that's when I get upset. They've wasted my time and basically used me and I don't intend to let it slide.
Which brings us back on topic; I've seen people doing this using things I've (and others have) discussed with them to create flamebait, both with original threads and to knock other threads off topic. Lately, a number of them have been using my bloody name to do it. And at what cost? Well their name at worst. Because while I care about my name, they care neither about my name or theirs so it's just another bit of ammo for their vendetta.
This is what I have a problem with, when people like you post things like this it causes tension and makes it more likely that a mod will lock a thread. I try to be fair and occasionally funny, I do not try to get threads locked. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. I can't help it if people feel that me just being on the boards is a form of trolling so I try to make the best of it. Yes, it's true that I haven't even come close to a book of 4e, everyone knows that already... however, I have read the posts on 4e by others and I think that's good enough for me to have reasonable and involved conversations on it. If that's not good enough for you, I'm sorry, put me on ignore if you want. Also, for those complaining about ignore not working because I keep making new accounts: there isn't a size limit to your ignore lists if I'm not mistaken. You aren't required to respond to my posts either.
You mean like you've admitted via PM? Hmm...
The thing is, there would be no tension here if the trolls would just leave. You know what you're doing, and trust me, it stopped being funny right around June 7th 2008.
See, now that's just downright nutty. If you're going to allow making multiple accounts, just give up on moderating. Who the heck is in charge of the CoC? Accounting or the moderation team?
Worse. Customer service.
And when I started a thread asking how to go over Cust Serv's head to complain about Cust Serv? I got directed to a Cust Serv link
Effectively, you need to get the dragon's help to kill the dragon.
I really don't consider myself a troll...I honestly am not trying to be a troll...But I don't really want to be...[an angel or innocent because] then I would suck and be a push-over and let the vociferous, conceited, condescending, know-it-all gaming gods [read: the rest of this community] run ram shod over people with different opinions, reasons, ideas, or ways to do things!
Take that compilation of what you have said here, coupled with your repeated admission (in other threads) that you don't even play D&D, and the line of your signature that names yourself as "4e Galactus... devourer of Fanbois," and then please tell me: how are people not supposed to be offended by the things you write? How are people not supposed to be offended by being called vociferous, conceited, condescending, know-it-all gaming gods because they don't share your opinion, an opinion you came to without playing D&D, and an opinion which you yourself believe transforms you into the devourer of 4e "fanbois" (read: anyone who likes 4e and says as much)? Now, if you admit that it is very hard for vocal fans of 4e not to be offended by what you write, and that you don't play D&D (let alone 4e D&D), and that you want to (metaphorically and cognitively) devour fans of 4e D&D, please tell me what constructive purpose you could possibly have for posting in the forums for the 4e D&D community? When I say constructive, please note that I mean constructive to the community, not to your personal pleasure.
I'd much rather be playing DotA or CSS than posting here.
Then why post here? Why wait until 4.5/5e? Or, if you are going to post here, why not be respectful enough of others that you never need to create a new account?
Now, I'm probably just speaking for myself but:
When 4.5 or 5e comes out, no matter how bad or good it is, I promise I will stop posting dissenting opinions unless I actually decide to play the game and just want something fixed or explained (some view this as trolling, apparently the mods don't). I've stated this before but people seem to have forgotten it.
That's because it IS trolling. You're not even posting valid critisisms of 4e. You can't, because you've never read it, let alone played it. Somehow the cry of "But in 6 or 7 years time when 5e comes out, I won't post my dissenting opinions" doesn't really seem like a light at the end of the tunnel for me. I don't want to have to put up with you for another 6 years to be perfectly honest.
Worse. Customer service.
And when I started a thread asking how to go over Cust Serv's head to complain about Cust Serv? I got directed to a Cust Serv link
Effectively, you need to get the dragon's help to kill the dragon.
Yea... funny. That is my exact experience as well. I'm hoping that eventually I will run into someone in customer service who is sympathetic and recognizes that an overhaul in forum management policy might be seen as a positive move by the customers they serve.
I can't even name another forum except for slashdot that allows multiple accounts (and we all know how well slashdot works). It boggles the mind.
I think, but I could be wrong, the real reason the D&D forums allow multiple accounts is that D&D is sort of the father of roleplaying games. (Yeah, I know , others that preceded it can be made but I think everyone gets my drift.
) There are a fair number of posters like Crazymonkey who have multiple accounts if I'm not mistaken. People do not consider him a troll, do they? It is part of the fun of roleplaying. Sad thing is that people use it for things other than it was intended.About this:
I think, but I could be wrong, the real reason the D&D forums allow multiple accounts is that D&D is sort of the father of roleplaying games. (Yeah, I know , others that preceded it can be made but I think everyone gets my drift.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the forum already allows you to use multiple "persona's" with a single account, no? Why the requirement that it also allow for multiple accounts then?
But I have never tried to create a second persona, so maybe I am wrong. Maybe the second persona actually requires a second account (and thus account name). Anybody out there built more then one persona, and thus know?
But I don't really want to be... then I would suck and be a push-over and let the vociferous, conceited, condescending, know-it-all gaming gods run ram shod over people with different opinions, reasons, ideas, or ways to do things!
If you think people are doing bad things, report them. The same advice I gave to others applies here: you cannot change people by fighting with them. If you still fight with them, what are you trying to do?
Also, @ Kerym Ammath & Samyueru: You guys seem pretty ****** about stuff, which I get. But there is no need to name names or say things that everyone already knows. It might have some cathartic value, but (guess what!) calling people out is one of the best ways to get threads locked. If you really think people are trying to get threads shut down on purpose, calling them out publicly is an awesome way to do *exactly what they want*.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the forum already allows you to use multiple "persona's" with a single account, no? Why the requirement that it also allow for multiple accounts then?
But I have never tried to create a second persona, so maybe I am wrong. Maybe the second persona actually requires a second account (and thus account name). Anybody out there built more then one persona, and thus know?
I don't know either. I have not tried either one.
I was thinking about doing a Morton Downey type talk show with a bunch of different characters as well as a moderator and encouraging other forum goers to create their own 'loudmouths' (sock puppets) to harangue the pseudo-guests.Maybe I need to look into it then.
The problem is that the CoC specifically says that you can make a new account when your account gets 86'd for bad behavior, provided that you don't reference your old name.
Except the 'don't reference your old name' thing doens't seem to be enforced, seeing how many times people itterate thier avatar/sig combos after banning.
We've also seen occasions of PosterName becomes Poster_Name001 becomes !_PosterName_! repeat until they get bored of trolling.
That's because it IS trolling. You're not even posting valid critisisms of 4e. You can't, because you've never read it, let alone played it. Somehow the cry of "But in 6 or 7 years time when 5e comes out, I won't post my dissenting opinions" doesn't really seem like a light at the end of the tunnel for me. I don't want to have to put up with you for another 6 years to be perfectly honest.
Well then, I honestly don't know what I can do for you. Maybe I could post something at the start of my posts that you could use to identify them and ignore them or something. However, it could be less than 6 or 7 years maybe. Other than that, and back on topic, as you can see my intent is not to shut down threads. Well there was that one instance with 4e motivators but that was a long time ago. As it is, I've carefully evaluated my posts these days so that I don't offend people. It's impossible for me to please everyone, but I'm doing what I can to make the community a better place.
If you really think people are trying to get threads shut down on purpose, calling them out publicly is an awesome way to do *exactly what they want*.
Notice how this is the life cycle of every one of these CB threads? The how and why are exactly the topic of this thread.
So, if you didn't know it was the same person, their new posts would bother you less?
No, because 'they' still behave in the exact same manner. It'd just be nice if the rules, shoddy as they may be, would be enforced.
About this:
And, I never listed who I think the "vociferous, conceited, condescending, know-it-all gaming gods" are... but if it bothers you(people in general), well....
Would you not agree as a general matter of tact that whether or not you intend to single out someone that you are debating with, many such people will feel those types of comments are directed at them because people often do make those sorts of comments with that in mind?
Therefore is it better to not word posts in such a way or if someone not being referred to takes offense, the statement can then be clarified so that particular person would know to not take offense. otherwise, does it not look like the person correctly interpreted the statement with respect to whom it is referring?
Sometimes a little civility can go a long way. (No comments about hypocrisy. I know my faults. :P )
Why exactly 'must I' mean something I clearly and demonstrably don't?
I disagree with you, don't I? Do you feel I need to be reported/banned?
I think everyone who gets offended enough over my views to report me for them needs to remember that they are my views and that they need not read them. Those people are wrong. People should be reported for posting aborted fetuses and name calling... not for their views.
Just because I think 4e is a narrow game with 3 power levels does not merit a report to a mod.
So...you feel people have reported you without reason every time, and that the mods have banned you without just cause every time? Wow. This entire post suggests that you're being "ganged up on" by both the forum-posters and the mods for absolutely no apparent reason. Sounds a lot like the "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" mentality discussed earlier. This might not be the case, but it certainly seems that way.
So...you feel people have reported you without reason every time, and that the mods have banned you without just cause every time? Wow. This entire post suggests that you're being "ganged up on" by both the forum-posters and the mods for absolutely no apparent reason. Sounds a lot like the "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" mentality discussed earlier. This might not be the case, but it certainly seems that way.
What the mods do is up to them. So far I haven't been banned so my efforts to be less offensive in my posting must be paying off which allows me to further my valuable contributions to the community. In the past I simply may not have taken enough precautions to not offend anyone.
I disagree with you, don't I? Do you feel I need to be reported/banned?
No. While you often do things that annoy me (and you know I tell you when you do), it's nothing disruptive to the boards in general.
Further, there are several people who do agree with me who I've reported several times for trying to drive down threads in exactly this manner. In fact, my accuser can't even stand on that because he's agreed with my position at least a dozen times on the alignment thread, even praised my position.
No.
So it must be something else...
it's nothing disruptive to the boards in general.
That's something to consider...
So it's ok for a "pro-4e" person to reference marvel heroes in their sigs along with snide and smug remarks, some of which use "grognard".... but not ok for people who are less than impressed with 4e?
Also, so what if I no longer play D&D? I play other RPG games and I am allowed to be here even if I played NO games. See, when you sign in, you do not have to provide proof of playing... anything...
Irregardless, I come here for my own reasons, most of which I have already listed on another thread, but in any case, I don't have to explain anything to you.
And, I never listed who I think the "vociferous, conceited, condescending, know-it-all gaming gods" are... but if it bothers you(people in general), well....
You didn't answer my question. As you apparently agree with all my assessments of your posting style (though you don't believe that it is a reason for you not to post) I ask you, what constructive reason do you have to post on these forums, constructive to the community and not simply to your personal pleasure? I just want to know what your goal is here, in terms of a constructive contribution to the community.
In the past I simply may not have taken enough precautions to not offend anyone.
I really don't think anyone was ever "offended" by your posts, unless the forum-goers are much more thin-skinned than I thought. I think it boils down to a group having a shared discussion, and someone popping in to simply state something that might or might not be correct...seemingly for no reason other than to disrupt the thread. It's not offensive, but it IS annoying.
Notice how this is the life cycle of every one of these CB threads? The how and why are exactly the topic of this thread.
It is a problem, and it's pretty demonstrative of the problems in the broader, "rest of the forums" sense. Comments are made. People disagree. People disagree with less tact. People respond to the less tactful responses with even less tact. Thread is (at least partially) derailed.
It's really... frustrating that this seems to happen every time. I... yeah, it kinda undermines the original commentary a bit, it feels.
You didn't answer my question. As you apparently agree with all my assessments of your posting style (though you don't believe that it is a reason for you not to post) I ask you, what constructive reason do you have to post on these forums, constructive to the community and not simply to your personal pleasure? I just want to know what your goal is here, in terms of a constructive contribution to the community.
Though I don't agree with some of his opinions, we've been over this at length, Dave, and it gets Threads closed. I'd prefer to avoid it, but suffice it to say he's got fairly good reasons to be here, at least IMO. He just tends to see things from a very solid viewpoint, and it's pretty hard to shake someone with convictions like that (oh, yeah, like I can talk! :nonono
.Though I don't agree with some of his opinions, we've been over this at length, Dave, and it gets Threads closed. I'd prefer to avoid it, but suffice it to say he's got fairly good reasons to be here, at least IMO. He just tends to see things from a very solid viewpoint, and it's pretty hard to shake someone with convictions like that (oh, yeah, like I can talk! :nonono
Fair enough. Whatever his reason is, I have just never heard it. And honestly, I am sort of curious. Maybe it could at least contextualize his posts for me.
Not agreeing with someone is NOT trolling/baiting. Someone doesn't like something in 4e, it doesn't mean they're trolling/baiting, even if they engage in that behavior in other threads.
I don't like THAC0 from 2e. There are things in 3e I don't like either. Does that mean I'm a troll if I post so? The answer is no. Now, if there were say, a THAC0 board, and I posted "THAC0 sux" in every single thread, then yeah, that would be construed as trolling.
I don't think people have an issue with someone that tries 4e and doesn't like it, or finds flaws. Someone that doesn't like 4e once posted about some problems with higher level play- which he tried. I haven't tried a high level character yet, so wasn't aware of the problem.
If you don't have people looking for problems with the game, there would be no errata.
(more)
Fair enough. Whatever his reason is, I have just never heard it. And honestly, I am sort of curious. Maybe it could at least contextualize his posts for me.
Yeah, it does actually help a bit. Just drop him a PM.
And I don't see it as my job to convert people. I just accept that they're wrong and move on with my life. I'm not going to play in any games with them, so it doesn't matter what they think about 4e. 4e is already a success, no matter what hte nay sayers think or want to be.
Now, I have noticed some of the so called trolls actually trying to change. Good discussions can be had if the posting style can be brought further from the CoC line. It's all about posting style and attitude.
You can still like a game system, even if it does have issues. You can still like a system even if others don't. You can still have fun wih a game, even if there are parts you don't like. (See my aforementioned THAC0 comment.)
I had a whole comment for the "other side", but I'll send it off as a PM instead.
The poster include the following behaviors
- Direct repeated insults.
- Spamming images, including insulting ones.
- Multiple sock puppet accounts used at once to get around bans.
- Scrolling "Feal". in large founts across multiple posts under different accounts.
- Pretending to be an ORC, these last two had accounts created just for that purpose.
- Insulting pathfinder and its developers.
Remember these post didn't have anything to do with 4th.
They where just showing up to insult and derail for the sake of schadenfreude. They even gathered in a different website to pat each other on the back and see who's troll was the biggest.Some of this is still left in this thread, so you can check it out if you want.
[thread=1120811]The Fighter -- What are its flaws?[/thread]
It might be, if it weren't for the Ignore function. If you can't do it yourself, there's a button that'll do it for you. If we all used our ignore buttons, there would be no trolling on the boards.
False. This indeed would kill quite a bit of it, but not all.
Ignoring works on the standard types, but those with an agenda, or those getting feed elsewhere will not be detoured so easily.
Also there's other problems with simply ignoring a post. Someone else can still reply to it and thus get moderated for taking the bait and/or get the thread locked by repeated feeding.
So, if you didn't know it was the same person, their new posts would bother you less?
No because the tone of the post would still be the same.
False. This indeed would kill quite a bit of it, but not all.
Ignoring works on the standard types, but those with an agenda, or those getting feed elsewhere will not be detoured so easily.
Also there's other problems with simply ignoring a post. Someone else can still reply to it and thus get moderated for taking the bait and/or get the thread locked by repeated feeding.
Which brings us back to trying to stop the behavior of one by modifying the behavior of hundreds.
If someone is vandalizing mailboxes, you don't tell everyone 'just get a mail slot installed and he can't bother you'.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You can technically follow the code of conduct while still being an antagonizing person, and a worthless waste of life. Meanwhile, it is invariably a violation of the code of conduct to point out that some waste of life is intentionally antagonizing others.
Moderator discretion has its downsides, too, generally in the form of concern trolls endlessly defending the other trolls and accusing the moderators of bias. But it has its upside as well. You can just read someone's posts, and decide that, in your judgment, forum life would be better off without this person. Because sometimes that's true.
By "behave in the exact same manner" you must mean "disagree with me".
You've got the screen name "HATER," an edition war inciting quote in your signature block, and it even includes the "fanboy with an i" thing, which is a way of not only calling people fanboys but also questioning their sexuality that is somehow inexplicably viewed as acceptable behavior.
Now, see, my saying that probably violated the code of conduct. That's the tragedy here.
I had to bookmark the 'add to ignore list' screen for crying out loud. This is stupid.
They need to start doing IP bans for the sock puppets, who in turn need to grow the hell up.
QFT!
Really, this is just the standard problem with a forum moderated under a Code of Conduct instead of under moderator discretion.
You can technically follow the code of conduct while still being an antagonizing person, and a worthless waste of life. Meanwhile, it is invariably a violation of the code of conduct to point out that some waste of life is intentionally antagonizing others.
Moderator discretion has its downsides, too, generally in the form of concern trolls endlessly defending the other trolls and accusing the moderators of bias. But it has its upside as well. You can just read someone's posts, and decide that, in your judgment, forum life would be better off without this person. Because sometimes that's true.
An established code of conduct makes it so that moderation is unbiased in all circumstances. That means if there is an edition war, people who flame and bait on both sides are dealt with according to the CoC and not personal opinion. If someone is not violating the CoC then they do not run into trouble or cause trouble. It's as simple as that. There is no need to bring personal opinions into it.
Also, this is not like vandalizing mailboxes, it's like sending letters to people. They can: Tell the post office not to allow letters to be sent to them from these people OR they can simply choose not to read letters from that person.
An established code of conduct makes it so that moderation is unbiased in all circumstances. That means if there is an edition war, people who flame and bait on both sides are dealt with according to the CoC and not personal opinion. If someone is not violating the CoC then they do not run into trouble or cause trouble. It's as simple as that. There is no need to bring personal opinions into it.
Also, this is not like vandalizing mailboxes, it's like sending letters to people. They can: Tell the post office not to allow letters to be sent to them from these people OR they can simply choose not to read letters from that person.
That logic only applies when everyone has a single account. When people start making sock puppets, moderation has less of an impact on those individuals.
An established code of conduct makes it so that moderation is unbiased in all circumstances. That means if there is an edition war, people who flame and bait on both sides are dealt with according to the CoC and not personal opinion. If someone is not violating the CoC then they do not run into trouble or cause trouble. It's as simple as that. There is no need to bring personal opinions into it.
Also, this is not like vandalizing mailboxes, it's like sending letters to people. They can: Tell the post office not to allow letters to be sent to them from these people OR they can simply choose not to read letters from that person.
A code of conduct has its advantages. Its more uniform.
Problem is, the uniformity means that a troll can find loopholes.
Lets say I go into every thread I possibly can, and find a way to relate the topic under discussion to an assertion that 4e is unrealistic because anything can be a minion, even elder dragons and mammoths. I then derail each thread with this argument. Its easy for me, particularly after the first such thread, because everyone recognizes me and goes nuts when they see me trotting out my obviously falsehoods again and again. And I respond to everything everyone writes to me, turning the thread into an instant 15 page monstrosity full of everyone bashing their head against my willful, pretended ignorance.
Obviously I would be trolling. 4e hasn't got minion elder dragons or mammoths. I just made that up. And even if I were mistaken, someone would definitely correct me very swiftly, meaning that each post after the first would be in bad faith. It isn't hard for one human being acting on his own judgment to intuit that I, in my example, am trolling the forum, intentionally degrading the quality of experience for everyone in earshot, and that I probably should be disciplined or banned.
But in a Code of Conduct forum, I'm home free. I'm not technically violating any rules. Its against etiquette and proper forum conduct to call me a liar, even though I am. It violates forum rules to insult me, or to get frustrated and use poor language to refer to me. I can probably provoke a few people in each thread into getting themselves disciplined for violating the code of conduct. Meanwhile, I can pretend that my own criticisms are honestly held ones, and not at all edition war attempts. And when the heat gets too bad, I can switch screen names and start again. Eventually people will realize that I've sock puppetted myself, and that will make them angrier, and even more likely to violate the code of conduct.... ah, life is good, no?
The code of conduct is the instigator's best friend. Its only real merit is providing a veneer of objectivity. But that's only worth so much.
There's a reason that professional moderators generally don't use them.
I think reporting and ignoring are good things to do, but reports seem not to be working and ignoring only works if (1) everybody does it and (2) the problem eventually goes away, before people get frustrated.
The system breaks down when you can come back from ban and post ironically about your huge history of trolling like we are seeing here. Apparently the detailed reports I write mean nothing as long as someone says, "I'm here to be helpful," even if he's had threads outright deleted for trolling in the last few days. Apparently the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm is totally lost on the mods, who think the claims of good intentions are sincere and not just another form of baiting.
Is WotC afraid that kicking someone off of here for good will lose them business? What about the actual paying customers who don't want a constant flame war? Why are we less important than fan-haters who openly declare that they are here to straighten out all the bad 4e people (or to "smite" all the 3e people who "don't get it") and who openly laugh at the
There are a lot of great people here, but these policies are such that I once again feel like moving on to enworld or some other place with decent moderation. And ironically I think I'm headed toward a ban or at least a delete/warning for posting this. But who cares- I can come back tomorrow with the same avatar, a new name, and a sig that says I'm a supervillain who comes here to destroy people. Because over here that's not hanging up a huge sign that says "I'm a troll and bans don't work!"
Its against etiquette and proper forum conduct to call me a liar, even though I am.
More infuriating, it's against proper conduct to call you a liar or trolls even if you've said you were multiple times.
I really wish I had screen capped it when the whole "I'm only here because you guys are so easy to troll" and "I will keep trolling until 5e comes out" posts waaaaay back in C&C.
Yes, those are the exact quotes. And yes, the mods quietly edited them away with no action
An established code of conduct makes it so that moderation is unbiased in all circumstances.
Agreed. But the current CoC is a joke.
By the way feldspar, you don't have free speech here. Any of us can petition the owners of this board to disallow the type of speech you make. Just as you can petition them to disallow the type of speech I make. WotC's home, WotC's rules. But they haven't made a rule against talking about how ridiculous the current rules are, so we get to discuss it.
Agreed. But the current CoC is a joke.
By the way feldspar, you don't have free speech here. Any of us can petition the owners of this board to disallow the type of speech you make.
-I don't think it is. I think it works and I abide by it because it works.
-Now why would you do that?
-Now why would you do that?
I wouldn't because I don't know how you post. I'm simply saying that anyone can. The part you didn't quote (because perhaps you didn't see it as I added it on in an edit to avoid making my post sound like a personal attack):
Just as you can petition them to disallow the type of speech I make. WotC's home, WotC's rules. But they haven't made a rule against talking about how ridiculous the current rules are, so we get to discuss it.
Now I would/am posting about how I think the current CoC allows way too much flame-bait and trolling and how I think this is bad.
But I'm not personalising this against you because I don't know what you post like. I recognise your avatar as that of another troll, but I don't know if you're him (given its a stock avatar) or how you've been posting since given this latest chance.
moderators ban accounts of people with similar posting styles to banned users more readily when those people exhibit poor behavior.
How many accounts have you had? Because however many they were, it took that many for you to finally calm down (assuming you have). That's ridiculous if it's more then 1, and IMO simply unacceptable.
If you report something with sufficient details, it will be dealt with. Just be the bigger person and report it, it's not hard. If you discuss it or insult them, you're just giving them what they want.
Assuming its against the CoC. I reported one post just yesterday (and did so at length despite the fact good mods don't need me to) that was not dealt with. Either the mods don't have time to address it, or the post isn't against the CoC in which case its simply ridiculous.
-I don't think it is. I think it works and I abide by it because it works.
Of course you do, because you have used it to your advantage...
...so back to the problem the rest of us are discussing.
...YOU are more likely to get banned for caring and trying to actually DO something about it than are those who abuse the System. That is depressing.
I was once (about 7 months ago) banned for 24 hours for warning someone that their post would no doubt draw trolls in to attack them. While I did not understand the reasoning behind it, what I said came true...three posts after the OP's. I get banned for simply warning someone that the trolls would come, yet the trolls that DID come were allowed to post without deletion. It's such a sideways system that I have no idea how the entire forum hasn't fell completely apart by now. You're right Lancer...it IS depressing...not to mention a bit pathetic.
Another great example of how our CoC is botched to near worthlessness: mentioning the name of an old deleted persona can get you a 24 hour ban. However, the person who once used that name is free to troll the boards to their hearts content with yet a new sock puppet.
So, its wrong to mention the name of someone who has been banned from the boards, but its ok for that banned person to continue to troll the boards with a new sock puppet? Really? What was the point of banning them in the first place?
The very fact that feldspar_circlet could get someone banned within 2 minutes for mentioning the forum handle of an old banned member, but that people who have multiple accounts and get one banned for trolling lose nothing but a name, a name they can then use to get others banned for mentioning it in the future, and even get to keep the same avatar picture (which then functions as their persona instead of their name), indicates that there is a fairly major problem with the way moderation is being handled here.
Like you said, Crimson Lancer perfectly summed up the problem.
1. I don't like 4E
2. I don't like 4E, and those of you who do like it are wrong
The difference is tone, and too subtle for a CoC to handle.
This being said, I wonder how much of the forum policy here is to deal with the M:tG crowd as opposed to us D&D people.
Time to go back to wasting time playing World of Warcrack instead of wasting time posting on message boards.
I simply cannot believe what I am reading. People in this thread are assuming such terrible things about people as if they had nefarious motives and are out to destroy the forum in general.
I wouldn't say they're out to "destroy the Forum," not actively. However, these people obviously don't CARE about the overall health or attitude of the Forum; they're just here for the "lulz." If they actually CARED, they'd use a more empathic tone, or treat other posters with respect, or not derail any Thread they didn't happen to like the subject of by tossing a strawman of epic proportions and watching the people who DO care fall for it one by one. They wouldn't use their ignorance as constant bait.
The "bigger person" walks away from a Thread or discussion they don't like or don't agree with, and that goes for TROLLS just as much as it does for the rest of us. The "bigger person" doesn't disrupt an upbeat Community for purely selfish reasons.
The "bigger person" walks away from a Thread or discussion they don't like or don't agree with, and that goes for TROLLS just as much as it does for the rest of us. The "bigger person" doesn't disrupt an upbeat Community for purely selfish reasons.
But...if they simply walked away from it, they would cease to be trolls...and, obviously, there's no fun in that.
The target of this anger is inevitably the dog pooping on the floor and the people who fail to clean it up.
Some people consider this place their "home" of sorts. Some people consider trolling on the forums to be the equivalent of dog poo on the floor of their "home". Ignoring trolls and being mature doesn't make the dog poo disappear. When the rules of the "house" require that certain people(moderators) be the only ones to deal with the dog poo, and that dog poo is constantly on the floor with nothing done about it, people start geting understandably angry.
The target of this anger is inevitably the dog pooping on the floor and the people who fail to clean it up.
And, like dog poo on the floor, it inevitably begins to stink.
The problem isn't a lack of people cleaning it up, it's more like they just kick it under the couch, then when someone says, "hey...there's dog poo under this couch!", they still don't clean it up, they kick out the person that noticed it. No matter how many different grooming styles the dogs get, they still poop on the floor, and it's still frowned upon to point it out.
ORC posts in this thread make it clear that CS has looked at what has been said here and has no objection to people referencing banned accounts and using these references to get more attention. Ironically, however, the rest of us are forbidden from mentioning that we know who these guys are, *even when they go out of their way to make it obvious*.
Again, what sane purpose could this have?
Oh, and just to show that I'm not really a humorless monster, can we please rename this forum "Community Bitterness"?
A member posts something that is flaming/baiting/trolling/etc.
An ORC PMs them (or whatever means they need to take), and asks them to either rephrase their statement or delete it within a certain time period.
If the offender refuses, then the post gets deleted, along with responses to that post. Perhaps have that post "flagged" so others would know that it is being considered for deletion, that way they won't waste their time responding to it, as their posts would get the axe as well.
Three such instances of a member ignoring the request of an ORC, and they get banned for 24 hrs. If it happens yet again, they could be perma-banned.
People respond to suggestions much better than forceful deletions and censorship. If these people claim to mean no harm, as they state they do, then there is no harm in doing things this way.
ORC posts in this thread make it clear that CS has looked at what has been said here and has no objection to people referencing banned accounts and using these references to get more attention. Ironically, however, the rest of us are forbidden from mentioning that we know who these guys are, *even when they go out of their way to make it obvious*.
I find this extremely frustrating as well - I was under the impression that such action was expressly against the CoC, and yet it appears to no longer be enforced. It was, in the past, and against posters who have since "recurred."
In other news, my recent (over-)exposure to Dr. Who has opened my eyes to the truths of the universe.
Namely that PsionX was/is a Time Lord. Anyone have a tally on how many regenerations he's burned through? Maybe WotC already thought about this, and is saving that perma-ban for an oblique Dr. Who reference.
If so, all would be forgiven, because that would be classy.
Namely that PsionX was/is a Time Lord. Anyone have a tally on how many regenerations he's burned through? Maybe WotC already thought about this, and is saving that perma-ban for an oblique Dr. Who reference.
So...are PsionX, Dopplegangster, and Psychic-Robot the same time-hopping person?
For what it is worth, I believe that ORCs may sometimes pm posters but I'm not usre enough that I would put money on it.
I've had ORCs PM me, but it was usually in response to a question.
So...are PsionX, Dopplegangster, and Psychic-Robot the same time-hopping person?
No, they are three separate people. I've never doubted that.
No, they are three separate people. I've never doubted that.
Agreed. Certain profiles are (obviously) the same person. All profiles that dislike 4th Edition are not the same person. Not even all profiles that actively engage in "hating" 4th Edition are the same person.
But we all know those accounts that "die" only to come back again. Like I said, Time Lord. And one that doesn't even change that much after its regenerations.
One suggestion...though I doubt it would be taken seriously...
I don't know why. I've worked under such guidelines and they work well.
I've had ORCs PM me, but it was usually in response to a question.
I've asked an ORC in PM if a post I'm about to make was against the CoC and had that PM ignored.
I've asked an ORC in PM if a post I'm about to make was against the CoC and had that PM ignored.
I don't think they do it anymore, but it used to be that WizOs would send you back a canned answer that was something along the lines of "We're not allowed to discuss things one on one, so send your comments to Customer Support".
ORCs can answer questions, but not through PMs. They use the customer service pages.
I suppose they make exceptions every once in a while, in the nature of good sportsmanship and such. I won't say his name, but there is one ORC inpeticular that I have PMd with a few times now. It was never anything of real importance, but it was a cool conversation. It was nice to see that they really are people and not mindless drones pushing their "Delete Post" buttons.
But in a Code of Conduct forum, I'm home free. I'm not technically violating any rules. Its against etiquette and proper forum conduct to call me a liar, even though I am.
I don't mind "poor language" and "insults" to be banned by the CoC.
(although I've made certain references that were insults, but always in quotes to show that the intent was references... and instead of the references getting changed, the entire post gets deleted
)But the fact that stating true statements about posters in an effort to inform people who may not know the poster in question gets warnings and deletions is frustrating. I want trolls to feel their posting style is unwelcome here, and the moderation doesn't seem able to do anything unless it's a clear violation of the CoC.
I don't mind "poor language" and "insults" to be banned by the CoC.
(although I've made certain references that were insults, but always in quotes to show that the intent was references... and instead of the references getting changed, the entire post gets deleted
But the fact that stating true statements about posters in an effort to inform people who may not know the poster in question gets warnings and deletions is frustrating. I want trolls to feel their posting style is unwelcome here, and the moderation doesn't seem able to do anything unless it's a clear violation of the CoC.
I believe I must express my disagreement with a couple of things here.
First:
the moderation doesn't seem able to do anything unless it's a clear violation of the CoC
Personally, I think it would be bad for the community if mods edited/deleted posts that were not a clear violation of the CoC.
About this:
But the fact that stating true statements about posters in an effort to inform people who may not know the poster in question gets warnings and deletions is frustrating.
Have you tried PMs instead of posting? It won't reach the general audience but it may help if you know of a poster that may react to something. Also, if the posting is a clear violation then it shall be reported. If not, I believe the posting should be allowed because the actual purpose of a forum is to promote discussion. I do not believe informing others of perils with engaging posters is conductive to discussion because it halts it. This, IMO, would be especially true if the case which is not clear cut actually turns out to not be trolling. I guess it becomes a question of allowing a degree of trolling to keep dialogue with little restriction or to restrict dialogue as a result of being heavy handed against trollers.
On this:
I want trolls to feel their posting style is unwelcome here,
But again, I refer to the not clear cut cases. Intentionally making someone unwelcome would IMO be against the CoC.
Coc 3.
Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members
For clarity, I added the emphasis. Also, anytime a specific person is singled out that makes it very easy to show to the mods that, well, a person is being singled out rather than points in a post being debated. Therefore it is easy for a troll to have such posts removed.
Finally, about this:
(although I've made certain references that were insults, but always in quotes to show that the intent was references... and instead of the references getting changed, the entire post gets deleted
I am not sure exactly what situation is being described so I am not sure what to make of this. I can interpret it many ways with different appraisals (for instance one way is saying 'stuff like this might be deleted if you say it to someone' could be relayed to a person most likely without trouble, but if it were being referenced yet still targeting someone the whole post may be considered baiting.), so I will leave it be.
I don't mind "poor language" and "insults" to be banned by the CoC.
(although I've made certain references that were insults, but always in quotes to show that the intent was references... and instead of the references getting changed, the entire post gets deleted
I got a warn for quoting the one shot troll when the quote tags broke. And not as in 'it looked like I posted it', it was a missing bracket. The Quoted part was listed as the 'offending' material in the email message. Nothing happened to the troll.
The code of conduct is the instigator's best friend. Its only real merit is providing a veneer of objectivity. But that's only worth so much.
This whole post is a perfect summary of what we're dealing with. Cadfan has a talent for putting things perfectly, but it doesn't take any particular brilliance to see through some of the games people play here. I'd like to think the folks running the show can't tell what's going on here, but I have a hard time believing it.
More infuriating, it's against proper conduct to call you a liar or trolls even if you've said you were multiple times.
I really wish I had screen capped it when the whole "I'm only here because you guys are so easy to troll" and "I will keep trolling until 5e comes out" posts waaaaay back in C&C.
Yes, those are the exact quotes. And yes, the mods quietly edited them away with no action
This has been making my head hurt for a while too. Why bother deleting the confessions? If you're allowed to do something, you may as well be allowed to say you're doing it. I have the frightening impression that there is some weird standard in effect here: you're not a troll unless you claim to be. That would explain a lot.
The only real effect of these policies has been to make the trolls more subtle and more skilled at escaping moderation. Reports require more and more detail, evidence, and careful reasoning. Anything that takes more time and effort is less likely to be done. What a wonderful evolution: better trolls, fewer reports, more frustrated outbursts, more short-tempered mistrust of new posters, more bitterness, more polarization.
For what it is worth, I believe that ORCs may sometimes pm posters but I'm not usre enough that I would put money on it.
I had an ORC PM me once about a problem. It turned out to be a misunderstanding.
I've also heard they give soft warning ever now and then.
[edit]
Here's a list of some more threads that managed to be derailed to the point of locking recently.
Community Business
[thread=1137893]Let's Have A Talk, 4e General[/thread]
I find this one to be an interesting example. It was created to defend criticism of 4th and was possible an argument to end the prohibition of edition war topics. However, it was derailed. Over the course of a day it was locked and cleaned up twice, if the posts are to be believed. In the end it was locked as a poster that will go nameless used it to fling poo at people.
Classes & Class Features
[thread=1127437]Humans vs Other Standard Races[/thread]
[thread=1122095]What do class tiers mean, and who's in them?[/thread]
Previous Editions General
[thread=1142377]Are we forbidden to discuss our dislike of 4th edition?[/thread]
[thread=1132886]4e Rants and Raves[/thread]
[thread=1128314]Pathfinder: Great Game?[/thread]
So, its wrong to mention the name of someone who has been banned from the boards, but its ok for that banned person to continue to troll the boards with a new sock puppet? Really? What was the point of banning them in the first place?
Because, to paraphrase Dr. Cosby, ORCs are not interested in justice! ORCs are only interested in QUIET! If they throw an egregious troll into their little witness protection program with a nod, a wink, and a tacit understanding that the troll won't openly state that they're so-and-so with a new face, then it appears to the casual observer as though something had been done. Thus Peace Is Restored. If you speak up and point out to the casual observers that no justice was actually done, then you're Disrupting The Peace. The trolls aren't drawing any flack because they're playing the game; it's in their best interest to present the facade of being a new troll every few weeks, rather than the same old troll who's been around forever. The trolls are treated as the good scouts they are, while the people who dare call them on their repeated disruptions by pointing out the public secret of their identity get hammered for not playing ball. The dog poo analogy is not inaccurate; the ORCs kick these pieces of crap under the rug, and we're considered bad guests if we say that the situation stinks.
Not agreeing with someone is NOT trolling/baiting. Someone doesn't like something in 4e, it doesn't mean they're trolling/baiting, even if they engage in that behavior in other threads.
I don't like THAC0 from 2e. There are things in 3e I don't like either. Does that mean I'm a troll if I post so? The answer is no. Now, if there were say, a THAC0 board, and I posted "THAC0 sux" in every single thread, then yeah, that would be construed as trolling.
Disagreement isn't an issue for anyone here. That's not what any of us are complaining about. Sure, there are times when I read a post and think, "Wow, do you really run games that way, or are you screwing with me for a laugh?" But no one here is complaining about that sort of poster. We're talking about posters who refuse to discuss D&D at all, except in the loosest sense, and are here explicitly to provoke people or teach people humility.
I'm kind of worried that folks in CS or CM look at threads like this and think, "Man, those 4e guys really get worked up when someone doesn't like their game." No- we get worked up when people say whatever it takes to get a reaction, when people treat us like a "self-updating web-comic" (I hope you catch the reference).
I'm also alarmed at the simplistic example you give for trolling. Spamming that something "sux" is certainly one form of really obvious trolling, but I'd really like to see some sign that CS is able to pick up on more subtle stuff. I have to say though, it is still downright scary that the people who frequently do post "that sux" are still here in this thread talking about their innocent motives and their desire to get along.
I've also enjoyed discussions with folks I don't necessarily agree with as well.
Likewise. Those of us who are complaining do engage in actual discussions with people who hold significantly different views. We don't just sit around stroking our 4e books and high-fiving each other for having the bestest kewl powerz evar. But it's hard to have those conversation when people who don't want any honest dialogue keep dropping in to spam threads with nonsense.
And I don't see it as my job to convert people.
Right, so why keep people around if they can't show basic respect? If someone thinks it's OK to repeat bad behavior after multiple "permanent" bans, if someone makes an effort to say, "It's me, back from a ban with a new name, and I'm here to straighten YOU out," why are we letting him stick around? Sorry, but what's the purpose of a ban? To let people know that they're being oppressed and need to make a new persona that will avenge the wrongs done to the old persona by 4e fanbois? We've got a few of those right here- I guess the bans are working.
Now, I have noticed some of the so called trolls actually trying to change.
Great, but we just agreed that we're not trying to convert people or save souls, right? If someone wants to change, he can start by not taking pride in all of his trolling exploits.
It comes down to this: what's the purpose of moderation? Why are posts deleted and accounts banned? Unless the purpose is to force people to do the exact same thing under new names, moderation in its present form isn't working.
Users don't run this board and CS has to stick to its principles. I'm just not sure what those principles are or what they're meant to promote.
When I respond, I do so with at least some control.
Hey Crimson lancer, just look at the Fallout 3 thread closed due to a flame war where you were included. I opened it to discuss a game, then some people derailed it into a war about another game. Those who kindly asked to stop doing that have been ignored until the thread was closed by an ORC.
I think that instead of closing the thread right away the ORCs should post a message, clearly indicating those who are disrupting the thread and invite them to stop. If that doesn't happen their posts should be removed from the thread and the thread should be left open (if something remains, otherwise it should be closed).
I gave up a while ago for a couple of reasons. One, I was warned for calling a troll a troll. And that's BS. Two, reporting posts only seems to work half the time - at best - and, when it does, it quite often kills the thread that the reported post was in. So, largely, it's a waste of time at best and a detriment to discussion at worst. So why bother?
It's frustrating to watch someone exhibit what's supposed to be condemned behavior and get in trouble for mentioning it while they're free to continue it. It's frustrating to see people flaunt their sixth or seventh persona knowing that we can't do a damned thing about it without getting in trouble ourselves. That's baiting by existance. It really is. Same avatar, same style, same sig, number of perm bans listed in the sig, etc. They do it to bait by simply being here. Last I checked, baiting is a CoC violation. Unfortunately, the CoC also protects these people because they changed their name. Everyone knows what's going on, yet nothing is done about it. And if you call 'em out, you pay. And they know that. And that's why they're here. The CoC itself encourages them to troll this way. If that's not a problem, what is?
Maybe this site only wants "yes-men"?
Yeah. Warweaver's a real "yes-man". For that matter, so am I.
Discuss in a civil manner and offer reasons for your opinions and you'll be respnded to in kind by the vast majority of posters here. There's some "pro" posters that are real d-bags, too, but overall if you do those two very simple things, you'll get discussion instead of flames.
On another note, just to point out how impossible it is for someone to get permed here; we had a guy that threatened to assault and/or kill other posters on several occasions.
Keep in mind that if he did these things in real life or via email, it's an arrestable offense.
Here? Day ban. He was back in the same week spamming pictures. It was only when he went way way way too far with a *picture* that he got permed.
*sigh*
I have! It doesn't get you anywhere. The conceited, know-it-all gaming gods will only belittle you and make you feel inferior if you do things differently than they do...
I am almost sick of this site anyway, what with all the pettiness and crybabies...
If - with a previous persona - you (general) were a jackhole and posted in an offensive enough way to lose your screenname and then came back and purposefully crafted your new and improved persona to exactly resemble the old one, is it any wonder people treat you as they did when you were the guy that got banned? Why wouldn't they question your motives if you came back and rubbed your old identity in their face? If you honestly came back and are making an effort to be a better poster, there's no reason at all to remind people who you were. When you attach all that baggage to yourself on purpose, it shouldn't be any wonder when people treat you a certain way because of it. That's not how I roll (I don't hold message board grudges), but a crapton of other people do.
I simply cannot believe what I am reading. People in this thread are assuming such terrible things about people as if they had nefarious motives and are out to destroy the forum in general. In case you haven't noticed, moderators ban accounts of people with similar posting styles to banned users more readily when those people exhibit poor behavior. The mods are effective and they deal with name calling and other such violations of the CoC very promptly. I again mention the case when someone was referencing a banned username in a thread and I reported it. It was dealt with within 2 minutes. I'm absolutely serious about this: If you report something with sufficient details, it will be dealt with. Just be the bigger person and report it, it's not hard. If you discuss it or insult them, you're just giving them what they want.
Although, banning accounts has little effect on those with multiple accounts. One troll actually admitted to me that he's had over 10 (!) accounts, and more stored up for when his current persona gets banned, and that intends to continue trolling until 5e is released.
Banning this persons current account will do practically nothing to stop them trolling the boards.
Hey Crimson lancer, just look at the Fallout 3 thread closed due to a flame war where you were included. I opened it to discuss a game, then some people derailed it into a war about another game. Those who kindly asked to stop doing that have been ignored until the thread was closed by an ORC.
Yeah, that would be because the guy wouldn't leave it alone; he kept PMing me, hounding me and accusing me of the exact same insanity he was practicing, and even though I just totally left him alone after the Thread got locked, he still persisted in sending me hateful PMS about how I should never procreate, and I eventually sent CS a screenshot and the like and reported him for harassment. I haven't heard from him since, so at least they take care of extreme cases fairly well.
Nonetheless, I really don't think you can blame me for trying to defend myself against absolutely bat-**** insane people, huh?
Have you tried PMs instead of posting?
Talking about someone behind their back? No. I dislike doing so.
Does "baiting" mean:
stating contrary opinions
stating falsehoods
insulting non-specific people
or "the intent to get responses"?
Which one is a clear violation of the CoC?
Now, I'm not saying I have been an angel or innocent, but I honestly am not trying to be a troll... regardless if I actually am or not.
I'm curious as to what you think trolling *is* when you post things like:
The conceited, know-it-all gaming gods will only belittle you and make you feel inferior if you do things differently than they do...
I am almost sick of this site anyway, what with all the pettiness and crybabies...
While not meaning to.
According to Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Edit: Which brings us full circle, as on this forum threads can get locked for any amount of disruption, so all forms of trolling are effectively posting to get threads shut down.
Are the other forums you post on dealing with issues you have intense dislike for? It seems as though someone who dislikes 4E so intensely would have NO interest in populating forums that deal exclusively with it, yet they do so anyway. Are the other forums the same way? You dislike the topic of debate, but continue to hang around anyway?
I seriously doubt that you conduct yourselves in other forums in the same manner you do here and have NOT been labeled as "trolls".
For example, the other day I was reading a thread here about a Christian Fundamentalist website that thinks that anyone who plays D&D is a devil worshiper and will go to hell. There was a link. I went to the website. At first I got a bit of an emotional reaction. I mean, these people were outright racist, homophobic, and bigoted. Hell, they even thought Catholics were going to go to hell! Some of their opinions were based on a very faulty sense of history and facts. I was thinking about creating a web handle and posting to tell them so. And then I realized: I had no reason for joining their community except to get a rise out of them. So I didn't. I left them to their forum in peace, and have not been back there since. If I had joined their community, on that website, I would have been a troll.
To people who have similar feelings about 4e and its fans in regards to my feelings about this christian fundamentalist organization, if you post here you are a troll. Its not that your feelings are wrong. Its not that your opinion is wrong. Everything is subjective. However, to post here just to vent your hatred for what the majority of the community here loves is posting for no reason other then to get a rise out of this community. That makes you a troll here, even if you are not elsewhere.
And no, that doesn't mean that everyone here who doesn't like 4e is a troll. First of all, there is an entire section dedicated to the 3e game where people who like 3e can post. And second of all, despite my disagreements with certain posters, posters like Rake, RUMPLESTIX, and it seems Zombie_Babies (if I misunderstood one of your statements in this thread, and you do actually like 4e, I apologize Zombie_Babies) seem to not like 4e D&D. And yet they manage to populate these boards without being a regular and intentional disruption. Whatever their goals are for being here, it seems to be more than just venting their hatred for something everyone else here loves.
Same here...
Maybe this site only wants "yes-men"?
That is not true. They want an echo chamber.
Now about this time lord stuff... I've never heard of Dr. Who before or this regeneration bit.
All I know, and this topic seems to have strayed far from the original point, is that I do not post with the intent to shut down threads. Some people say that I post with the intent to harass, I say I post with the intent to criticize the system and others just take it far too personally as if they had some stake in the system. Let's try to stay on topic please.
Also, what the hell? People calling me a career troll? A troll with a vendetta? Just because I won't change my views so easily? That's low.
Banning this persons current account will do practically nothing to stop them trolling the boards.
True, but blocking their IP and perma-banning the persona would at the least make it progressively more difficult to continue their trolling.
(snip)
To people who have similar feelings about 4e and its fans in regards to my feelings about this christian fundamentalist organization, if you post here you are a troll. Its not that your feelings are wrong. Its not that your opinion is wrong. Everything is subjective. However, to post here just to vent your hatred for what the majority of the community loves is posting for no reason other then to get a rise out of the community. That makes you a troll.
And no, that doesn't mean that everyone here who doesn't like 4e is a troll.
(snip)
Whatever their goals are for being here, it seems to be more than just venting their hatred for something everyone else here loves.
Its not only hating the people who play the game, its hating the people who play it and particularly the "fanbois" who talk about it on the net.
PS: I'm not presuming to know what these people think, I just believe that the above statement is the best explanation to the behavior I have seen.
All I know, and this topic seems to have strayed far from the original point, is that I do not post with the intent to shut down threads. Some people say that I post with the intent to harass, I say I post with the intent to criticize the system and others just take it far too personally as if they had some stake in the system. Let's try to stay on topic please.
There is a post not to far back which points out that all trolls, no matter what their posting intent, are essentially posting to get threads locked.
Also, what the hell? People calling me a career troll? A troll with a vendetta? Just because I won't change my views so easily? That's low.
See my last post. I am not saying you are a troll. I am not saying you are not. But I posted a nice way for someone to figure out whether they are or are not a troll above. Note, if the manner in which you post will lead everyone to come to the conclusion that you are here for the reason I posted above, then it doesn't matter what your actual reason is. Because your actual reason is obfuscated, and people are reading a certain intent into your posts due to the manner in which you post, you would still be a troll. Again, note, what I claim people are reading into "your" post is hypothetical. I am not saying they are. I am just saying...
True, but blocking their IP and perma-banning the persona would at the least make it progressively more difficult to continue their trolling.
In addition, they would have to IP ban an entire university library to get rid of one of them.
That is not true. They want an echo chamber.
All I know, and this topic seems to have strayed far from the original point..
...Let's try to stay on topic please.
This right here. This is what I'm talking about. Drag the conversation around to be specifically about you and your concerns, then when responded to, say things like the above. Excellent case in point of the title topic. If nothing else, you're making a great example for us all to see.
This right here. This is what I'm talking about. Drag the conversation around to be specifically about you and your concerns, then when responded to, say things like the above. Excellent case in point of the title topic. If nothing else, you're making a great example for us all to see.
Indeed, stating an insult/accusation(that we want an echo chamber) followed by "I am not the badguy here" is an invitation to respond, wouldn't you say?
Its not only hating the people who play the game, its hating the people who play it and particularly the retard "fanbois" who talk about it on the net.
Um, the portion of my post that you quoted makes it look like you are saying that that is the reason the people who are NOT trolls are posting here. I don't think that is what you meant. :P
But in any case, as I understood what you mean: If a person who is posting here is not posting because they hate the people who play the game, but because they hate the "fanbois" who talk about it on the net, that would still indicate that they are posting to get a rise out of this community. As we are on the net, and these are the 4e D&D forums, and it is mostly populated by those who like 4e, it would stand to reason that EVERYONE here is a "retard fanbois who talks about 4e on the net." And the fact that these posters in question essentially say so time and time again only makes it more frustrating that they are still around.
No one is required to read or respond to that information.
Just as you are not required to read or respond to those who enjoy what this forum is here for, that being discussions of 4E.
Just as you are not required to read or respond to those who enjoy what this forum is here for, that being discussions of 4E.
So criticism of 4e is not discussion of 4e?
...I feel sorry for them ... it isn't their fault...I hate 4e...I hate 4e...it seems that some on these forums want an echo chamber...This is a more severe form of the yes-men syndrome.
And you honstely claim that this is not trolling or baiting? Really?
No one is required to read or respond to that information.
That no one is required to read or respond to that information doesn't mean that the statement wasn't designed to draw certain responses. This is one of those CoC loopholes that have been mentioned before, that certain people take advantage of.
As for the echo chamber, there is a difference between that and wanting the forums to be run in a sane manner to remove baiting and trolling.
In addition, they would have to IP ban an entire university library to get rid of one of them.
Host ban, not IP ban, actually. Certain parties know how to get around IP bans.
So criticism of 4e is not discussion of 4e?
You're not contributing criticism of 4E. You're contributing to something you do not, by your own admission, understand. You've been told things and see things other have written, and are, in fact, being critical of THOSE things. Huge difference there.
That no one is required to read or respond to that information doesn't mean that the statement wasn't designed to draw certain responses. This is one of those CoC loopholes that have been mentioned before, that certain people take advantage of.
As for the echo chamber, there is a difference between that and wanting the forums to be run in a sane manner to remove baiting and trolling.
I'm not going to argue with you on this because we clearly have different views and further discussion would be pointless. Let's just agree to disagree?
So criticism of 4e is not discussion of 4e?
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It depends whether or not the criticism is designed to discuss the game, or to draw people into a flamewar. People can and have done the former without doing the latter. Other people can't seem to say anything without causing a flamewar.
You're not contributing criticism of 4E. You're contributing to something you do not, by your own admission, understand. You've been told things and see things other have written, and are, in fact, being critical of THOSE things. Huge difference there.
Whether I understand it by your standards or not is irrelevant because I can never meet your standards it seems. What is relevant is that I am criticizing 4e and discussing it. I am not discussing things on those forums with no relation to 4e.
You're contributing to something you do not, by your own admission, understand.
To be fair, I'm certain that that entire thing is a fabrication because in several iterations, books were quoted word for word.
Ironically, that's better than some who have said they've read the books, but make arguments against things not even in the books. For example: "Iron golems in the MM aren't immune to disease", which I guess is accurate in the sense that iron golems aren't even in the MM.
To be fair, I'm certain that that entire thing is a fabrication because in several iterations, books were quoted word for word.
That wouldn't surprise me, either.
Since the time-clock on this particular bomb is ticking away, I better make it brief. This thread alone has shown conclusive proof that something needs to be done. If none of the discussed threads were investigated, or any of the accusations were followed up on, there has been enough laid-out proof in this very thread.
QFT. There is more than enough proof in this thread alone.
Since the time-clock on this particular bomb is ticking away, I better make it brief. This thread alone has shown conclusive proof that something needs to be done. If none of the discussed threads were investigated, or any of the accusations were followed up on, there has been enough laid-out proof in this very thread. I realize I'm probably talking to a very thick brick wall, but moderation needs as much of a kick in the pants as the Digital Initiative does. If the lack of enticing material on the home page is not enough to drive people off, a few days on these forums just might do the trick. This forum is in dire need of attention on a more serious level. I'm not blaming the mods, as they have rules they have to follow...however...whoever makes these rules needs to sit back and take a good, long look at what's going on and re-evaluate this situation.
Amen. I think some of the posts in this thread are a perfect illustration of the problem.
So criticism of 4e is not discussion of 4e?
In my earlier example, if I had joined that christian fundamentalist website, I would have attempted to engage in "discussion" of their beliefs. This would not indicate that I was not have been trolling. Just because you are entering into "discussion of 4e" does not automatically ensure that what you are doing is not a form of trolling. In this thread alone you have made a number of very questionable statements, some of which seem to bear no purpose except to illicit negative and emotional responses. I mean, honestly, telling people that you feel sorry for them because they don't see things the way you do? I can find no reason why it should be acceptable that people who continue to post such demeaning remarks stick around these forums. And in the case of another poster, I can see no reason why it should be acceptable that people stick around if they think that it is just "too bad" if you don't like these sorts of remarks.
The moderation policies of this website need some serious scrutiny. Because, honestly, this is a corporate website. The purpose of this website is to attract people who could potentially be customers of a company, and to attract those that already are (hopefully in order to entice them to purchase more products). Right now, this website is a decidedly hostile environment towards customers that purchase and enjoy WotC's products. And honestly, I think that is the goal of those who troll these forums. I mean, lets not forget, these were the people who wanted 4e to fail. These were the people that stated that they didn't want the game to exist, that they wanted to see its market crash. Is it any surprise that these are now the people making this place a hostile environment towards those that enjoy the product they hate, the product these forums are supposed to be here to promote? Does keeping these sorts of posters around benefit ANYONE, in this community, except for those posters looking to gain some pleasure at the expense of the rest of the community?
Cyber-Dave...
I do enjoy 4e. I stated that I wasn't a "yes-man" because I've had some heated discussions that came about because of certain opinions about previous editions and some 4e stuff that I don't see the same way as others. I've posted in support of 4e and I've posted about poblems I have with it. So I've been on both sides of the fence, I guess. I should have been more clear in what I meant, so there is no apology needed though I do appreciate the effort. :D I'm sure in some thread somewhere, we'll disagree. And in another, someplace else, we'll agree quite happily. It seems that's how it works for me. ;)
In addition, they would have to IP ban an entire university library to get rid of one of them.
You gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. :D
At least it documents the pattern for any that doubt it.
It wouldn't bother me if they stickied it as an example. At least people would see what they're getting into by signing into the forums.
You gave rise to Hater and Feldspar....good lord you have fed them so much they are like Gargantuan. Just stop feeding into each other. But i must admit it makes for some entertaining reading...
Like sands through the Hourglass.....
Actually, despite all of us discussing it, nobody has really taken the bait to derail this yet.
Partly because they've been trying to come "in under the radar" more in this thread than others, yet you can still note a few posters have a gradually increasing antagonistic tone in their post, and all still remain "technically" correct, accourding to the CoC.
The moderation policies of this website need some serious scrutiny. Because, honestly, this is a corporate website. The purpose of this website is to attract people who could potentially be customers of a company, and to attract those that already are (hopefully in order to entice them to purchase more products). Right now, this website is a decidedly hostile environment towards customers that purchase and enjoy WotC's products. And honestly, I think that is the goal of those who troll these forums. I mean, lets not forget, these were the people who wanted 4e to fail. These were the people that stated that they didn't want the game to exist, that they wanted to see its market crash. Is it any surprise that these are now the people making this place a hostile environment towards those that enjoy the product they hate, the product these forums are supposed to be here to promote? Does keeping these sorts of posters around benefit ANYONE, in this community, except for those posters looking to gain some pleasure at the expense of the rest of the community?
You're giving most of them waaaaay too much credit here. I've seen some of them free style trolling the Previous Editions forums, Paizo's forums and several other forums for other DnD iterations. Those guys are just garden variety trolls and thier channer speak tells you as much.
Not that all of them are, of course. Some of them very much are behaving in just this way.
True, but blocking their IP and perma-banning the persona would at the least make it progressively more difficult to continue their trolling.
But they're never ever going to do that, and you know it as well as I do.
Whether I understand it by your standards or not is irrelevant because I can never meet your standards it seems. What is relevant is that I am criticizing 4e and discussing it. I am not discussing things on those forums with no relation to 4e.
No you don't understand 4e, because you've never read the books, or played the game. You are criticizing 4e, but you're not discussing it. All you're doing is jumping up and down and shouting a lot of things very loudly, that, honestly, we're all tired of hearing.
I don't know what you're hoping to achieve, but without read and playing the game, your "opinions" amount to little more than hearsay and second hand information. And you know what? It's very very boring at this stage to hear you ramble on about it.
This is what, your 9th or 10th account? Is that not a big enough hint that your behavior is unacceptable?
This is what, your 9th or 10th account? Is that not a big enough hint that your behavior is unacceptable?
I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that this account I use has yet to be banned means that my reasonable and insightful discourse of criticisms about 4e is acceptable.
I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that this account I use has yet to be banned means that my reasonable and insightful discourse of criticisms about 4e is acceptable.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. This account isn't banned yet because I haven't found the time to send your little PM to Customer Services yet, but hopefully I will, either over the weekend, or sometime next week.
We'll see how "reasonable" your behavior is then.
I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that this account I use has yet to be banned means that my reasonable and insightful discourse of criticisms about 4e is acceptable.
Would be if you actually engaged in anything like that, yes.
Methinks it's more to do with the fact that you've been posting a LOT less this iteration.
You having insightful discourse about 4E is like a blind man having insightful discourse about the color Blue: You may have heard a WHOLE lot about it, and talked with people about it for hours at a time, but it's not like you've ever actually SEEN it in action.
You... Well... I mean... This is an awkward question, but can I have your babies? I mean - not all of them, just a few?
I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that this account I use has yet to be banned means that my reasonable and insightful discourse of criticisms about 4e is acceptable.
Could you, perhaps, provide a few examples of "insightful" posts that you made?
If this isn't evidence of puposeful baiting through creating a mirror account, I have no idea what is. Too bad the bait's been gobbled up. Frustration does that to people, though. Eventually, it becomes too much.
Could you, perhaps, provide a few examples of "insightful" posts that you made?
Oh ho, I'm lookin' forward to this!
You... Well... I mean... This is an awkward question, but can I have your babies? I mean - not all of them, just a few?
WOAH! If you're gonna derail a thread, by God, do it this way! No mincing words or passive-aggressive BS...just straight-up whammo! An e-conception would fairly interesting to document...
Oh ho, I'm lookin' forward to this!
Don't get too excited...the chances of a follow-through on this one are slim to none.
I'd watch. What? ;)
Let's see...insert USB connector into port A...begin upload...
Let's see...insert USB connector into port A...begin upload...
Don't stop! You tease ...
Don't stop! You tease ...
As long as you don't exceed her bandwidth or have her mother-board over-heat, we should be okay...
Could you, perhaps, provide a few examples of "insightful" posts that you made?
Maybe someone could pull specific posts (from this thread) in order to demonstrate the problems. I think it's a pretty good example, at this point. Of course, doing so would probably get one at least a warning.
Perhaps someone could create a new account to do so?
How many accounts have you had? Because however many they were, it took that many for you to finally calm down (assuming you have). That's ridiculous if it's more then 1, and IMO simply unacceptable.
I slightly disagree. I think it's perfectly OK if somebody gets one account banned, realizes they ought to change their style, re-registers, and then actually changes their style. It's more than OK; it's a damn good thing.
The ridiculousness comes in once you get past the second account.
As long as you don't exceed her bandwidth or have her mother-board over-heat, we should be okay...
You're asking me to make a promise I simply cannot keep ...
(Shall we stop? I fear we may be playing into you-know-who's hands ... If not, I'm always good for a hawt derailing. ;))
I slightly disagree. I think it's perfectly OK if somebody gets one account banned, realizes they ought to change their style, re-registers, and then actually changes their style. It's more than OK; it's a damn good thing.
The ridiculousness comes in once you get past the second account.
I think you're talking about the same thing, just starting the count at different times...
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... re-registers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... registered accounts
(Shall we stop? I fear we may be playing into you-know-who's hands ... If not, I'm always good for a hawt derailing. ;))
That ship has already sailed, I'm afraid, but yes, let's stop. It's getting kind of borderline creepy anyway. I shouldn't feel dirty when talking about USB plugs...
That ship has already sailed, I'm afraid, but yes, let's stop. It's getting kind of borderline creepy anyway. I shouldn't feel dirty when talking about USB plugs...
I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but this has got nothin' on some of the conversations I've participated in elsewhere on these boards. It was fun while it lasted, though. :D
Still, creepy is a good word for where it was a' goin' ...
I think you're talking about the same thing, just starting the count at different times...
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... re-registers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... registered accounts
Could be. John said, "how many accounts have you had?" That's what lead me to believe we had a slightly different take on it.
I slightly disagree. I think it's perfectly OK if somebody gets one account banned, realizes they ought to change their style, re-registers, and then actually changes their style. It's more than OK; it's a damn good thing.
The ridiculousness comes in once you get past the second account.
Or maybe even when you get to the second account and do everything exactly the same from day one. That's what always gets me. People return holding up a sign that says, "I'm back!" and yet I still have to report posts from the new persona for a few weeks or months to get it banned. I don't have the ability to check IPs or keep a log of how much moderation was required on a given account or series of accounts, but somehow I seem to realize that it's the same shtuff on a different day long before CS gives up on the person's current screen name.
And then it happens again and again, with the same leeway given to each new account. That's a small part of what blows my mind: I doubt that new accounts have significantly different ban requirements than old accounts do(e.g. "You get another chance, but this time and every future time, you're out after 49 strikes, not 50. No more Mr. Nice Guy!").
I'd love to see people come back and actually be different. When they come back and aren't different, it's not just a sign that the poster who got banned has some issues. It's also a sign that the system doesn't work. A ban currently amounts to asking people, "Would you please stop doing that?" There's something wrong with a moderation system whose harshest penalty is, "Pleeeeeeease?!? Come on! OK, we reeeeeally want you to stop this time. No? This time then? How about now? Will you stop? Pretty please?"
Unless you *repeatedly* post pornography, hate speech, or the like, that's as tough as WotC will get.
Unless you *repeatedly* post pornography, hate speech, or the like, that's as tough as WotC will get.
I have experienced certain posters who shall remain unnamed, make racist comments, physical threats, and the like. After reporting it their post was edited, I got reprimanded for responding, and they continued upon their merry way. There is definitely some seriously screwed up garbage going on, on these boards. My hope for this thread is that they might actually fix the Customer Service links. Fat chance of that happening, they don't really want us flooding Customer Service with moderation issues.
The ridiculousness comes in once you get past the second account.
Or maybe even when you get to the second account and do everything exactly the same from day one. That's what always gets me. People return holding up a sign that says, "I'm back!" and yet I still have to report posts from the new persona for a few weeks or months to get it banned. I don't have the ability to check IPs or keep a log of how much moderation was required on a given account or series of accounts, but somehow I seem to realize that it's the same shtuff on a different day long before CS gives up on the person's current screen name.
Completely agree. I absolutely think moderation against a second account should be stiffer than the moderation against a first account. The poster has already earned and used up his/her three strikes. I'm in favor of giving them a chance to start over with a new account, but I'd really love to see the reins pulled in even more on that new account. The revolving door policy is ridiculous.
I'd also love to see Community Management do something about it. I don't really know what they can do, though, because of the insane schism between the Community Management and Customer Service departments.
- You're not a moderator. Nor has anyone here hired you to provide him/her with psychiatric care. If you think someone is an arrogant, elitist, know-it-all, gaming god who needs to be taken down a peg, that shouldn't be something you try to accomplish by posting on a forum. If people are creating an environment that prevents this forum from being what it should be, CS is supposed to deal with those people.
Ironically, we have this thread here with people trying to convince each other to change, but the general business of this forum should not be to improve anyone's personality. If you see bad conduct, *please* report it to the people who are supposed to fix it instead of trying to address it in an open forum. The latter behavior derails a thread absolutely every time, and then you become the offender. - When you post about your dislike of 4e and people disagree with you, it might seem like you are being mistreated in a unique way because of your past. But take a look around. For example, [thread=1143881]here[/thread] is a thread in which Cadfan (who may or may not be on your "gaming god/fanboi" list, but let's just use this poor guy as an example) takes a lot of abuse for suggesting that there is a problem with the upcoming shaman class. He complains that one build is a bit underpowered and needs a fix if things are as they appear. In response, people call him a power-gaming whiner who wants his favorite class to be super awesome at everything.
So who is the jerk fanboi? Is it Cadfan for "worshipping balance" and insisting that he has spotted a problem with a yet-to-be-released class? Do his claims of understanding the math behind 4e better than most make him an elitist gaming god who dismisses other perspectives out of hand? Or is it the crowd of people defending the class as written who are a pack of rabid fanbois for claiming that WotC is great and knows more than the guy giving detailed math to back up his points? Shouldn't they be more open to criticism instead of blindly accepting whatever WotC shovels into their troughs? Shouldn't they be grateful that someone is providing a useful critique of their precious game?
Ultimately, neither side is doing anything too terrible. Cadfan and others are concerned about a problem that may exist, while the other side generally says that we need to sit down with the books and try things out first (some also go too far, but see #3). Depending on whom you agree with and which arguments convince you, either side or both or neither can seem like the sort of person you complain about. - What you have to accept when you participate in an online community is that people there will be gathered together because of a common interest. Some people will have different insights about what should happen with the object of their interest, but most will think that the thing they like is pretty good as it is. Like anyone who is being asked to change, they are going to resist and offer reasons why things are just damn fine. If you propose that something is broken or wrong, the last thing you should expect is a pat on the back and an award for being awesome. Just like in real life, there's a strong chance that anyone who proposes a change or points out a problem will be dismissed and ridiculed until people reach the same conclusion on their own, if that ever happens.
If you participate in a forum in which you expect to disagree with everyone, you should be prepared to get a lot of resistance. That's human nature, on every message board and in real life.
I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that this account I use has yet to be banned means that my reasonable and insightful discourse of criticisms about 4e is acceptable.
Your logic is seriously flawed. If you have multiple accounts, then at any given time one of your accounts has not been banned. Just because one of your accounts has not been banned, this does not mean that your "reasonable and insightful discourse of criticism about 4e" is acceptable, reasonable, insightful, or even a critical discourse. After all, while one of your accounts will still necessarily exist (because there is no limit on how many account you may create), a large number of your accounts still had to have been deleted. Thus, the fact that any given poster currently has an active account only means that the particular account in question has not managed to accumulate enough problematic posts to have been banned yet. Indeed, as you have the ability to accumulate as many sock puppets as you like, those who have been required to do so have indicated that their posts are anything but reasonable, insightful, or acceptable, because they have had to lose accounts. The only posters who have reasonable, insightful, and acceptable posting styles are those who have yet to have EVER had to accumulate a second account due to the loss of one. Those who have had to accumulate more than two accounts, perhaps even enough accounts to count into the double digits, have no right to make that sort of claim whatsoever.
And this is part of the whole problem being discussed here. Those without reasonable, insightful, or acceptable posting styles should not be allowed to stick around here at all. They should not be able to lose one account only to create another. The fact that someone is here at all should indicate that they are reasonable, insightful, and post in a generally acceptable manner. Currently, it doesn't. All it indicates is that someone knows how to fill out a "create an account" form.
the people who post in a condescending and conceited tone
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Means you shouldn't complain when your attitude is thrown back in your face.
Aye, but my "attitude" is what it is due to the way I was treated when first here...
Unprovable, because you claiming a banned account as your own is against the CoC.
It is also against the CoC for me to claim you used a specific banned account.
The only thing that can be proved is what posts of HATER's were allowed to remain after editing/deletions.
I, uh... I won't hold my breath...
Unprovable to you maybe... but I was there and I know...
But where did I say I had a banned account?
It's really besides the point...
I've never really had a problem with you at all. As a matter of fact, I have found myself agreeing with a great many things you've said. Yeah, you can be a bit snarky here and there, but hey...we all can. To be perfectly honest, I don't mind at all having someone on the opposite side of the fence to debate things with. You conduct yourself a whole lot better than a few others that float around here. Dissenting opinions are a great thing to have, as it expands the debate pool, it's just when people start personal attacks, nay-saying for the simple pleasure of nay-saying, and straight-out lying about the debated topic that I get ruffled. You don't seem to do that very much.
This thread, you've been... swingy.
I've also seen a couple try a poisoned pill tactic. That is they post some disagreement and include a blatant code of conduct violation along with it. After that code of conduct violation is taken a hold of they then claim that those that speak out against it are actually railing against the the disagreement.
I've also seen them accuse the moderation of being biased for deleting the post because the of the code of conduct violation. Of course they say that they are deleting the opposition statements instead of the blatant code of conduct violation.
Cite: forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=178067...
Also take note of these quotes
1 or 3 day bans for repeatedly spamming the forums with very long trollish posts. Not liking 4.0 is a greater offense than carpet bombing the forums.
I added the emphasis. This poster has admitted to "carpet bombing" and "repeatedly spamming the forums with very long trollish posts."
*sigh*
I have! It doesn't get you anywhere. The conceited, know-it-all gaming gods will only belittle you and make you feel inferior if you do things differently than they do...
I am almost sick of this site anyway, what with all the pettiness and crybabies...
See, this is what I'm talking about.
You can say this about "the site" when we all know you're talking about specific people, but if I respond to YOU, I'm responding to a specific person and I'm commiting a COC violation.
I slightly disagree. I think it's perfectly OK if somebody gets one account banned, realizes they ought to change their style, re-registers, and then actually changes their style. It's more than OK; it's a damn good thing.
The ridiculousness comes in once you get past the second account.
How many times do you have to stick your hand in the fire before you know its hot?
Also banning isn't done straight away (under a good set of moderation guidelines). You get several posts edited, then if it continues X amount of warnings (typically 3), then finally a banning for 24 hours, then a banning for a longer period of time. Then a perm-ban.
That's plenty of second chances there. IMO no-one should be able to get a 2nd account because it erases their history, and no-one deserves that. Instead they should have to wait a while, then petition a moderator to allow them to come back, convince that mod they've changed, and then get their account back. Bannings aren't a one-way thing. You can ban and unban.
And yes trolls can change. I've seen reformed trolls. The current system doesn't encourage trolls to change though. It instead aids them in their trolling and baiting because if I say what past accounts trolls have had to show people this person isn't having a bad day, but is repeating a set of established behaviour, my post gets edited.
Ironically, we have this thread here with people trying to convince each other to change
I'm not. I'm 1) venting frustration at the how ridiculous this forum is being run and 2) posting my thoughts and experiences.
If railing against the rank and file fans of a game on that games message board isn't trolling, what is?
Railing against it is trolling. Posting criticisms isn't trolling. I'd post some examples of trolling, but then my post would get edited. Suffice it to say read some of the threads in the "Running the Realms" subforum. Someone asked for information on how to run a particular race in a 4th edition game. Someone comes in and uses it as an excuse to say how bad 4th ed is and how no-one should play it. Its off-topic, and yet the ORCs are either unwilling or unable to remove the content. The OP came in and asked people not to discuss the validities of 4e in the thread because its off-topic. Fortunately his post was the last so the troll hasn't continued.
Aye, but my "attitude" is what it is due to the way I was treated when first here...
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Clean up your own house before you criticise someone else's.
;)
I'm starting to become afraid that posting trolling techniques in this thread won't result in changes to the CoC, but will instead teach trolls new techniques.
Also banning isn't done straight away (under a good set of moderation guidelines). You get several posts edited, then if it continues X amount of warnings (typically 3), then finally a banning for 24 hours, then a banning for a longer period of time. Then a perm-ban.
This only works, like you say, under a good set of mod outlines. However, in my case, I received no warnings (still have not), yet was banned for 24 hrs. for warning someone of an imminent troll attack. I have had posts edited (and a few responses to trolls deleted), but never an official warning of any kind. Proof of a LACK of a good set of mod guidelines.
This only works, like you say, under a good set of mod outlines. However, in my case, I received no warnings (still have not), yet was banned for 24 hrs. for warning someone of an imminent troll attack. I have had posts edited (and a few responses to trolls deleted), but never an official warning of any kind. Proof of a LACK of a good set of mod guidelines.
In fairness, that would be because the troll post(s) was(were) deleted, and your responce quoted them, and there's no point in leaving your responce to a post which no longer exists. It wasn't anything against anything you'd posted, H-S, just the fact that the troll was being modded, and all his content, if you follow me. You probably don't, but hey
.In fairness, that would be because the troll post(s) was(were) deleted, and your responce quoted them, and there's no point in leaving your responce to a post which no longer exists. It wasn't anything against anything you'd posted, H-S, just the fact that the troll was being modded, and all his content, if you follow me. You probably don't, but hey
Absolutely I do...mine had to be deleted for continuity issues, and the mod stated so when it happened (I had to delete a number of posts for XXXX and for continuity). I was simply pointing out that I have had posts deleted myself.
As for two accounts sharing one IP... my wife has an account on the forum, and I'm fairly certain she and I show up under the same IP address.
To use a different persona, you should be able to use the "switch to" box up at the top, where it says "Welcome, ." Sometimes, however, the drop down list doesn't work, and you need to actually log out and log back in for the persona switch to take effect.
As for two accounts sharing one IP... my wife has an account on the forum, and I'm fairly certain she and I show up under the same IP address.
At least I am good for everyone else's amusement while learning new ( and sadly very simple...) tricks.
Thanks again Zherog
Stupid tunnel vision ...
How many times do you have to stick your hand in the fire before you know its hot?
Also banning isn't done straight away (under a good set of moderation guidelines). You get several posts edited, then if it continues X amount of warnings (typically 3), then finally a banning for 24 hours, then a banning for a longer period of time. Then a perm-ban.
It's WAY above 'typically 3'. I know at least two goobers with at least a dozen CoC-violations, and neither has been even remotely banned for 24 hours, much less perm. Of course, they could be liars (quite reasonable), but certainly the perm hasn't happened, or is likely ever to do so.
It's WAY above 'typically 3'. I know at least two goobers with at least a dozen CoC-violations, and neither has been even remotely banned for 24 hours, much less perm. Of course, they could be liars (quite reasonable), but certainly the perm hasn't happened, or is likely ever to do so.
I meant under reasonable guidelines, not under this forum's guidelines.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that some people may legitimately use extra accounts but was informed that those are merely differing personnas. However, I can go to a (gleemax?) page and make personnas but can't figure out a way to access them. Making one as default doesn't seem to work. That is how I posted my 'test' above. Do they work? If not, does that mean there are legitimate uses of differing accounts with the same IP?
When a new persona you still have the same account information and therefor you cannot use it to get around an email ban.
Also for my setup there is a box at the top right have of every screen that allows to to switch personas easily.
This is a test.
When a new persona you still have the same account information and therefor you cannot use it to get around an email ban.
Also for my setup there is a box at the top right have of every screen that allows to to switch personas easily.
I alreadyu figured that out thanks to Zherog.
I posted that not realizing personas on the same account were operable and was referring to people using a separate email account to make a separate personna rather than get around a ban. However, it was a moot point because personnas can be made and used.
The way it is going I predict at least one thread lock within a day or two.
[edit]
Now they have admitted to trying to get a thread locked.
More trouble could be avoided, also, if more people took things less seriously and personally. But that's just my two cents, which in this economy is more like half a penny. Heh.
Well it seems one of the Previous Editions disruptors is back.
The way it is going I predict at least one thread lock within a day or two.
[edit]
Now they have admitted to trying to get a thread locked.
Can you PM me the guy's name?
^ Lol. Have you considered the fact he might be talking about you?
Liking 4e doesn't make you right. It's not the reason you're so often totally wrong, but it doesn't help.
However, that poster managed to have two different screen names banned since the weekend.
He'll likely be back tomorrow with one of his other backup screen names.
As far as I know he has two left that are not permanently banned.
Also one of the other Previous Editions disruptors came back and got banned.
Fortunately that one doesn't seem to use sock puppets to get around bans.
Well, I was completely wrong about threads getting locked.
However, that poster managed to have two different screen names banned since the weekend.
He'll likely be back tomorrow with one of his other backup screen names.
As far as I know he has two left that are not permanently banned.
Also one of the other Previous Editions disruptors came back and got banned.
Fortunately that one doesn't seem to use sock puppets to get around bans.
Who are we talking about here? Please PM.. i think i might know.. but i am not sure..
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1155612
The disruptor repeatedly violated the code of conduct between to accounts until the thread was shut down.
However, the ORC that locked it stated that it is temporary
[edit]
The thread has been cleaned up and reopened, but the disruptor is still on the boards under at least one screen name.
Also, I'm at the point now, thanks to that and the other joker, that I hear someone in my day to day life use 'fail' as a noun and instantly think less of them as a person.
And we have thread lock.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1155612
The disruptor repeatedly violated the code of conduct between to accounts until the thread was shut down.
However, the ORC that locked it stated that it is temporary
[edit]
The thread has been cleaned up and reopened, but the disruptor is still on the boards under at least one screen name.
The thread was probably locked to clean it up. And yes, CoL gets on my nerves, too. At least, he's trying to argue now, instead of just trolling.
Well, I was completely wrong about threads getting locked.
However, that poster managed to have two different screen names banned since the weekend.
He'll likely be back tomorrow with one of his other backup screen names.
As far as I know he has two left that are not permanently banned.
And how would you know that ? And why do you dislike that person so much?
And how would you know that ? And why do you dislike that person so much?
We do know that he uses at least 6 different names. He is incredibly disruptive and admits that he trolls. I have all known names on ignore so that I can enjoy a thread without having to see what he posts. I found that I have a much better experience now. I shouldn't have to do that though. It's one thing to put someone on ignore. It's another to put him on ignore 6 times.
How often can you tell one guy not to make personal attacks before you notice a pattern forming?
Also, I'm at the point now, thanks to that and the other joker, that I hear someone in my day to day life use 'fail' as a noun and instantly think less of them as a person.
You damn kids and your nonsense internet lingo!
And how would you know that ?
I temp ban come with the loss of the ability to PM, so the option is removed from the menu that drops down when you click on a persona's name.
Also he has admitted being a sock puppet on both accounts as well as posting his trolling on another web site for laughs.
And why do you dislike that person so much?
He was one of the people that was involved in the organized trolling of the boards awhile back. On the other web site he admitted to doing it for fun as well as intentionally shutting down threads.
He's also the one that created a sock puppet account pretending to be an ORC.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1158621
Two accounts have managed at least a temp ban in the last two days and I suspect that a third sock puppet account is up and running to get around the bans.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1167431
Given the general shenanigans that keep coming up I suggest that that thread be watched closely as possible.
It's only a matter of time before the same poster starts it all over again.
Possibly under a new screen name, as even the new suspected sock puppet managed to be banned already.
Thanks for the effort Webster.
Given the general shenanigans that keep coming up I suggest that that thread be watched closely as possible.
It's only a matter of time before the same poster starts it all over again.
Possibly under a new screen name, as even the new suspected sock puppet managed to be banned already.
Hereit is. Post 118, gotta love it.
Hereit is. Post 118, gotta love it.
IP ban'll probably clear that right up.
Too bad they're verboten, huh?
I think there's certainly some benefits to the 24/7 coverage, but this seems to be a huge problem caused by the switch. And its disheartening that CS doesn't seem to give a dire rat's hairy ass about fixing it.
The thread-wreckers get to prance about, giddy in the fact that nothing permanent will happen to them. They hide behind the "I hate XXX, but I have the right to have my say" jargon while spreading discontent and hater rhetoric throughout the forum. A few try to help, and they get 24-hr. bans. Others try to help, and it's their posts that get deleted, instead of the baiter's. It's a sad, pathetic state of affairs. I truly feel terrible for someone new to D&D who happens to stumble into the forums looking for advice or good conversation.
Also he has admitted being a sock puppet on both accounts as well as posting his trolling on another web site for laughs.
On the up side, the poster in question is so distinctive in his posting style that people immediately recognize him on sight no matter the name. Seriously, not a word a lie, I once recognized a sockpuppet of his when the only post he made in a thread was (and I quote): "...What?"
Recently when trying to make a point to him (I know, I know... why bother?) I asked him to invite a "friend" in for another opinion. Sure enough, he brought some "friend" in from another site within moments (complete with disclaimers that he "just happened to be online"... riiiiiiight). I don't really believe for a second the fellow is anything other than an accomplice (perhaps from that site? Who knows?), still, I was polite and accepted the "friend's" take on the situation, under the guise that I took him completely at his word. I expect it will be a matter of days before the "friend" implodes through association. I already know that if the "friend" posts again, he will likely turn on anyone who disagrees with the problematic poster in question.
Seriously, the more we draw him out, the more credibility he loses. It's only a matter of time before most see his posts and ignore it as mere rambling, without even bothering to use the ignore feature at all. I'm almost there myself. Still, it a shame that he must misinform new players so rudely. I know I shouldn't respond, but garsh, it's just so easy to poke holes in his theories, and do it politely to boot. I guess I just love playing the part of the "paladin" by directing him politely, and wagging my finger at the attacks with a "no, no, no..."
I suppose I'd like to ignore him entirely (using the feature), but A) I loathe the ignore feature for personal reasons, and B) What's the point of it when I'll just see the poster again under a new name in a few days. Now, if there was an "ignore IP" option, well then, that would be quite tempting.
I managed to ID this one just by the screen name.
Anyway he's still disrupting threads.
You guys seem to enjoy this cat and mouse game. Seems like a waste of time to me.
I would like to discuss thing in some of the threads that he gets involved in.
However, I will not because I have no desire to be personally insulted for playing differently.
Obviously you guys are feeding this troll, then complaining when he grows out of control. Stop playing into his hands.
I have never seem him on this board.
Given his posting nature, it would be likely that he would flame and derail this thread if he knew of it.
As he hasn't done this, it is unlikely that he knows of it.
If he doesn't know of it, then we cannot be feeding him.
Personally I would prefer that people quit responding to his posts.
PS Sorry to rant here, but this looked like the right spot.
I managed to ID this one just by the screen name.
Same here. And now he's back to an older alias for which the suspension expired. ::sigh::
I would say it's cat and mouse game ApollyonsChosen, but it doesn't really matter whether or not he's responded to. He responds to any post with equal derision and vitrol, regardless as to whether or not it's directed at him. Still... I get what you're saying and you're right. Though not responding directly won't necessarily impede him even remotely, responding at all doesn't help either.
Bear in mind, I don't really respond to him at all really. I counter his points only so as to keep other new forum members aware of his lack of impartial veracity. I'm all too well aware that anything I tell him will fall on deaf ears; I simply use him as an example for anyone else who may be listening who might take him too seriously.
If it's any consolation though, I've spoken my peace in the thread in question, and since his vitrolic (and as of now, completely deleted) response just went back to the same old rhetoric he favours, I feel no need to continue posting in that thread. I'll let the people who read that thread come to their own conclusions (on not just the topic, but the posters as well). Assuming new people even bother reading threads that long (8 pages).
You guys seem to enjoy this cat and mouse game. Seems like a waste of time to me. Obviously you guys are feeding this troll, then complaining when he grows out of control. Stop playing into his hands.
Actually I'm tired of having to put another one of his names on ignore. I am tired of his derailing threads simply because he has nothing better to do with his time. I am especially sick and tired of the moderators allowing him to continue with this crap. If it wasn't baiting in and of itself, I would start a thread to have him banned completely.
This thread continues simply because we want the mods to know that this is getting worse every day. We can't simply report every one of his posts. Not every post is baiting or trolling but the very high majority is. He needs to go and the mods need to know that we are tired of it.
Actually I'm tired of having to put another one of his names on ignore. I am tired of his derailing threads simply because he has nothing better to do with his time. I am especially sick and tired of the moderators allowing him to continue with this crap. If it wasn't baiting in and of itself, I would start a thread to have him banned completely.
This thread continues simply because we want the mods to know that this is getting worse every day. We can't simply report every one of his posts. Not every post is baiting or trolling but the very high majority is. He needs to go and the mods need to know that we are tired of it.
This.
On the up side, the poster in question is so distinctive in his posting style that people immediately recognize him on sight no matter the name. Seriously, not a word a lie, I once recognized a sockpuppet of his when the only post he made in a thread was (and I quote): "...What?"
This part I don't really care about, because it does not address me. I'd just hope that you would give a new user some more space before attacking her. And yes, he does indeed link me to a lot of threads.
Recently when trying to make a point to him (I know, I know... why bother?) I asked him to invite a "friend" in for another opinion. Sure enough, he brought some "friend" in from another site within moments (complete with disclaimers that he "just happened to be online"... riiiiiiight).
I am online a lot just like Roy is. Trust me, if you got happened to have my MSN address, you would see that. I don't blame you for the misconception though, it's not easy to separate between people online.
I don't really believe for a second the fellow is anything other than an accomplice (perhaps from that site? Who knows?), still, I was polite and accepted the "friend's" take on the situation, under the guise that I took him completely at his word.
The site?
I expect it will be a matter of days before the "friend" implodes through association. I already know that if the "friend" posts again, he will likely turn on anyone who disagrees with the problematic poster in question.
We will see that now don't we? Hopefully you can at some point read my opinions as what they are, my opinions.
Seriously, the more we draw him out, the more credibility he loses. It's only a matter of time before most see his posts and ignore it as mere rambling, without even bothering to use the ignore feature at all. I'm almost there myself.
As far as I know, the situation is very strange. He has gone through the same debate over and over and cannot be bothered to post everything again, while the others are in the same situation and bother to post everthing again. It's weird for someone who hasn't read every debate around here.
I suppose I'd like to ignore him entirely (using the feature), but A) I loathe the ignore feature for personal reasons, and B) What's the point of it when I'll just see the poster again under a new name in a few days. Now, if there was an "ignore IP" option, well then, that would be quite tempting.
Roy aside, do you really want to block anyone? From what I've learned from life, the more wrong some is, the better.
No names have been mentioned in this thread, thus you may infer whatever you wish. It is none of my concern what you decide for yourself.
And now he's back to an older alias for which the suspension expired. ::sigh::
That one managed to get rebanned already.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1155612
I'm starting to think the issue is the result of lax moderation on other gaming forums entirely (a problem the ORCs can't solve). If someone gets too used to posting on a poorly moderated board, then comes here (where moderation is much more stringent), that person may not understand why his/her posts are modded/deleted at all. Such a person may have a skewed perception of forum ettiquette, and is unable to break their posting habit patterns; That is to say, they don't see (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between forum policies.
I'm not saying that's any kind of excuse (because it isn't), I'm just trying to understand the mindset of posters who disrupt threads.
From what I can tell, they've taken the viralant bitterness that festers on that site (because they and only they know the True Sercret of Gaming) and have turned it into an epic trolling campaign against pretty much everything that looks remotely like DnD or d20. I've blundered upon thier antics on multiple sites and I'd not run into a single constructive, non-disruptive post.
Also the violations of the Code of Conduct are not defined in the Code of Conduct and the term can vary quite a bit from site to site.
Notifications to each poster citing their specific CoC violation would no doubt help matters a bit. OTOH, such things are probably quite time-consuming, and in the case of some posters, even futile (as they simply don't care, or violate the CoC intentionally). Additionally, I imagine being an ORC is a thankless job as it is; I wouldn't want to make the ORCs comb through the real "garbage" posts in order to cite specific reasons for that poster's (assumed) benefit. It's bad enough they have to sort through that garbage every day, I wouldn't want them to also have to inhale deeply and then describe the smell.
Besides, I feel common sense should kick in somewhere. I mean, if someone sticks their hand in a fire and gets burned for their trouble, then does it again and again and gets burned every time, I would like to think that person would be smart enough to figure out they shouldn't stick their hand in a fire. They shouldn't need someone of authority to come up to them every time and say: "You aren't fireproof." The level of etiquette of this forum is pretty tranparent to anyone who reads the threads... common sense should dictate that a similar level of civility is in order.
Meh... the way I see it, forum members who have been here for months, and still violate the CoC consistently, either A) Don't care, and violate the CoC intentionally, and/or B) Don't recognize the CoC as something that pertains to them (via skewed perception or outright anonymity-based arrogance).
They didn't spell out what I did.
But I knew.
If someone says they don't know what they did, I generally assume that they're lying. They know, they're just intentionally playing dumb. Insincerely posting demands that everyone explain to you the exact letter of your code of conduct violation, when you know darn well that you were intentionally being a jerk, is just another form of trolling.
Hmmm it all seemed kind of like the Immovable Object meeting the Unstoppable Force...even still i don't know all the details in the background. Maybe some of these people will get over their initial misgivings and do what i did concerning the new edition..grow up.
If someone says they don't know what they did, I generally assume that they're lying.
Except occasions where you point out that someone is distributing false information, or where you point out hypocrisy and bias, and posts are deleted for that reason, and the baiter's post remains.
Which is part of what this thread is about: Moderation is leaving posts that provoke emotions up, and deleting the responses that point out errors.
I don't know what I said wrong. Your argument is the claim that the the stereotype of a woman telling her bf/hb, "you know why I'm angry, you know what you did wrong!" is never in error.
Which is part of what this thread is about: Moderation is leaving posts that provoke emotions up, and deleting the responses that point out errors.
I doubt there's anything that can be done about posts that merely stir up emotions. Posts that stir up emotions in one person may not stir up emotions in another. (Banned topics notwithstanding.)
The posts with obvious CoC violations (baiting, trolling, etc...) oh yeah, I totally agree those are just powder kegs waiting for a fuse. Problem is, some people may disagree with a non-violating post so emotionally that they convince themselves the whole post is simply a trolling or baiting attempt. Some folks, seeing something posted that they disagree with vehemently, come to the conclusion: "I'm angry, therefore this post is trolling." In many of those cases, it isn't the post at all, it's just the reader getting too worked up over an opinion that differs from their own. We've all seen that happen way too often.
Posts that merely point out errors in a calm and rational manner aren't typically modded. Posts that point out errors in a disruptive manner (baiting, personal attacks, yada yada...) get modded all the time, for obvious reasons. We've all seen those posts.
All that being said, I have seen a few posts deleted entirely that, although riddled with baiting and malice, do have good points buried within them. But too be honest, if I were an ORC (and I'm glad I'm not) if I saw a post that started and ended in flames and vitrol, I likely would delete the entire post rather than have to pick through each sentence to salvage whatever I could on behalf of the violating poster. Some posts can be easily modded by snipping out a little bit, a paragraph here or a statement there. But I assume there's a point at which an ORC says: "Screw it... I have better things to do than filter a 10 paragraph post down to only 2 paragraphs."
Well... that's how I see it anyway.
In many of those cases, it isn't the post at all, it's just the reader getting too worked up over an opinion that differs from their own. We've all seen that happen way too often.
But how do you draw the line? The CoC explicitly states that posting to generate emotion is baiting, and not tolerated.
This same guy and his 'posting buddy' from the site he'd been linking his 'smites' to did this same thing on the Paizo boards and have been banned there too.
From what I can tell, they've taken the viralant bitterness that festers on that site (because they and only they know the True Sercret of Gaming) and have turned it into an epic trolling campaign against pretty much everything that looks remotely like DnD or d20. I've blundered upon thier antics on multiple sites and I'd not run into a single constructive, non-disruptive post.
Well, say what you like about Paizo, but at least they ban the trolls on their boards...
But how do you draw the line? The CoC explicitly states that posting to generate emotion is baiting, and not tolerated.
That's the challenge the ORCs face every day. Sometimes people just get worked up even though nothing in the original post was meant to do that. Sometimes people are just posting to get others worked up. It can be difficult to tell the difference sometimes.
That's the challenge the ORCs face every day. Sometimes people just get worked up even though nothing in the original post was meant to do that. Sometimes people are just posting to get others worked up. It can be difficult to tell the difference sometimes.
And we're back to the first page of this thread again:
This is all fine and dandy, but please explain to us why 50 Pack Trolls like and his multiple personas have not been permabanned via an IP ban. This is the first board I have been on where the sock puppets are allowed to roam free with impunity no matter how many times the original poster breaks the CoC.
And we're back to the first page of this thread again:
That is baiting, and I don't think it was meant to elicit an emotional response but it certainly would. The ORC that edited it did the editing correctly and simply removed the baiting portion rather than simply delete the whole post.
The question is legitimate though. I would love to see an official answer as to why posters who continuously break the CoC can simply keep coming back to do the same thing over and over again while those of us who follow the rules end up having to take extra steps to enjoy ourselves here.
That is baiting, and I don't think it was meant to elicit an emotional response but it certainly would. The ORC that edited it did the editing correctly and simply removed the baiting portion rather than simply delete the whole post.
NONONO, I didn't mean this part at all.
I just meant the second part of your post. Because it can be difficult to make the distinction, ORCs choose to delete the responses, rather than the cause.
First off, if you can't handle a little sand in the face, don't play in the sandbox. My idea of a little sand in the face goes farther than simple heated disagreement. Name-calling happens...that's life...get over it and call them names back, you'll feel better.
That said, if you're going to try to emotionally gut everyone else on the playground solely as your own personal form of pschological Viagra...you should be dealt with accordingly. In the most...permanent...manner...possible.
I also feel the terms...nimrod, idiot, fool, moron, half-wit, and related terms are completely acceptable means to openly describe 90%+ of the world's population.
Now...peace is quite nice, but sometimes war is unavoidably necessary. After all, there often will be times when one simply cannot ever resolve the issue diplomatically because one side or the other absolutely will not accept anything less than getting everything exactly their way. In such a case...dead (or online, IP banned) enemies are best, because they can't come back to cause problems later.
If you won't solve the problem permanently, don't waste our time with your poor attempts at canned firefighting. Half-measures lose wars, and mercy is for the weak. If enemies cannot be eliminated, war continues and escalates...that's just the nature of the beast. Accept it and move on if you won't genuinely DO something about it.
For what it's worth...typing out a response doesn't prevent it from being a "canned" response. A canned response simply follows a certain repetitive format and tone, much too akin to legalese that is excessivlely, unrealistically, and harmfully polite and PC. Remember positive energy in 3.5? Too much would still hurt ya, even though it was life-giving. Being too PC is the same. It's one thing to keep things under control...it's another to spare people's feelings to the point where a healthy emotional sneeze from the real world will crush them utterly. Which it often does, much to the glee of psychologists, I'm sure...those mind-killing witch-doctors are almost as bad as lawyers.
I guess to sum up...either start IP banning, or stop interfering altogether, because these half-measures of yours are just messy, pointless, and utterly ineffective under any circumstances.
I guess to sum up...either start IP banning, or stop interfering altogether, because these half-measures of yours are just messy, pointless, and utterly ineffective under any circumstances.
Heh - and with that name ;) The question is, do you believe in redemption?
-vk
Also, I'm at the point now, thanks to that and the other joker, that I hear someone in my day to day life use 'fail' as a noun and instantly think less of them as a person.
These boards have made bile rise within me when I see or hear the word hyperbole.
…And ergo, verisimilitude, sans, alas , fallacious and a few others I can't recall at the moment.
Maybe it depends on the moderator...?
I suspect so, yes.
After reading just a portion of that locked thread, i think i will pounce on, and choke the life from, the next person who says "fail" lol.....I have this general feeling across the whole of the boards. Whoever decided that "fail" could be used like that on the internet... well, it makes me miss 1337-speak.
These boards have made bile rise within me when I see or hear the word hyperbole.
…And ergo, verisimilitude, sans, alas , fallacious and a few others I can't recall at the moment.
I agree completely with you in all possible ways on that specific point.
That is baiting, and I don't think it was meant to elicit an emotional response but it certainly would. The ORC that edited it did the editing correctly and simply removed the baiting portion rather than simply delete the whole post.
The question is legitimate though. I would love to see an official answer as to why posters who continuously break the CoC can simply keep coming back to do the same thing over and over again while those of us who follow the rules end up having to take extra steps to enjoy ourselves here.
The way I see if the person is spamming or writing obscene or in appropriate material, baiting or otherwise ignore the poster and notify a mod. Isn't that why you have that option to put people on the ignore list? If you do not like what a poster is saying ignore them otherwise keep adding fuel to the flame war fire.
The way I see if the person is spamming or writing obscene or in appropriate material, baiting or otherwise ignore the poster and notify a mod. Isn't that why you have that option to put people on the ignore list? If you do not like what a poster is saying ignore them otherwise keep adding fuel to the flame war fire.
It's not that I have the option but that I have to exercise it too often with the same poster. He keeps coming back with a different name. I have to then go and use another tool to ignore him. I now have the same person on ignore at least 7 times, possibly more since I can't be sure that all the names are his. That's ridiculous. I don't come here to place people on ignore. I come here for the interesting discussions.
It's not that I have the option but that I have to exercise it too often with the same poster. He keeps coming back with a different name. I have to then go and use another tool to ignore him. I now have the same person on ignore at least 7 times, possibly more since I can't be sure that all the names are his. That's ridiculous. I don't come here to place people on ignore. I come here for the interesting discussions.
Then ignore them out right like I said in another post you don't need an ignore button to ignore someone, just don't respond in kind no matter who the poster is or how many times that particular poster comes back.
Putting someone on the ignore list will not prevent someone else form taking the bait and derailing the thread.
That's the other persons problem the only person you have to worry about is yourself.
That's the other persons problem the only person you have to worry about is yourself.
Wrong. If the thread is derailed then that affects me.
Also this kind of thing can lead to locking thread (see thread topic), which also affects me.
Other people taking the bait can also incourage such behavior.
Wrong. If the thread is derailed then that affects me.
Also this kind of thing can lead to locking thread (see thread topic), which also affects me.
Other people taking the bait can also incourage such behavior.
Not if the thread is derailed and you contribute to it then it's your fault and if that particular thread leads to locking because of other people there is nothing you can do about it anyway but create a new thread and ignore those people again. My guess is if everyone kept ignoring them and moved on they have no reason to keep baiting?
Not if the thread is derailed and you contribute to it then it's your fault and if that particular thread leads to locking because of other people there is nothing you can do about it anyway but create a new thread and ignore those people again.
Wrong again. I generally report and ignore.
If the post is dealt with then other posters cannot take the bait.
Also creating a new thread of a locked one is against the rules.
I also created the guide stickied on top of this board.
My guess is if everyone kept ignoring them and moved on they have no reason to keep baiting?
For the most part. The organized trolling awhile back could be handled by ignoring it. That's because the trolls where being feed on another site and didn't need to get the attention here to keep at it.
Wrong again. I generally report and ignore.
If the post is dealt with then other posters cannot take the bait.
Also creating a new thread of a locked one is against the rules.
I also created the guide stickied on top of this board.
For the most part. The organized trolling awhile back could be handled by ignoring it. That's because the trolls where being feed on another site and didn't need to get the attention here to keep at it.
Excuse me? let's start with "wrong again" see this to me is rude behavior, could you please be more polite in your response, second if the poster is dealt with then there is no longer a problem. Creating a new thread of a locked one that is due to a violation of the Coc is wrong but creating a new thread with similar topic is not otherwise over half the threads now would be in violation. Care to prove otherwise? Maybe I am still wrong ;). Believe it or not I am not trying to argue with you but help with a solution.
Excuse me? let's start with "wrong again" see this to me is rude behavior, could you please be more polite in your response,
I'll try.
second if the poster is dealt with then there is no longer a problem.
If is a big word for two letters.
Most of the time the poster is left on the boards to do it again.
I've seen one poster have has managed over 20 moderations for the same behavior and kept at it.
Another had what was basically the same post deleted in the same thread about 8 times in a row.
Creating a new thread of a locked one that is due to a violation of the Coc is wrong but creating a new thread with similar topic is not otherwise over half the threads now would be in violation. Care to prove otherwise?
Here you go.
Webster,
I get that you don't want edition wars on the FR General Forum.
Really, I do.
What I want to know is why both you and the ORCs are aggressively closing threads that don’t have anything to do with edition wars?
For example, after only two posts on the So anyway, I like playing D&D in the 4E Realms thread, ORC_Piper came in and closed it “due to complaints received” about the thread.
Can you explain the logic behind locking a thread that talks about enjoying the 4E Forgotten Realms (we are on the official D&D/FR Forums, aren’t we?) because a tiny number of people falsely reported it as a “re-opening” of a previous thread?
If your position and that of Community Management is that it’s not OK to post anything positive about the 4E Realms on the forums set aside for the setting, then what is the point of those forums?
Please contact ORC_Piper and ask him/her to reopen the thread immediately.
It has to do more with re-starting a thread that was closed. No, we don't mind positive posts, but thumbing your nose at the thread being closed isn't a good idea. If the ORCs let that happen, then they'd have to let all the "FR sux" threads be re-posted.
Things get closed for a reason. Sometimes to let things cool off before re-opening if it's a good thread. (I'm all for positive threads.
It's kinda weird...
at first when I got banned, there was no explanation... just... BAN!
Then, they started to define the violation and even link it... but then that stopped...
Maybe it depends on the moderator...?
I personally think that if you get banned, you know exactly what it's for.
Banning tends to be a last resort on most forums. You get warnings, suspensions and then you get banned.
So if you're banned, you know what it's for, and linking you to the violation is going to do nothing to change your behaviour.
Creating a new thread of a locked one that is due to a violation of the Coc is wrong but creating a new thread with similar topic is not otherwise over half the threads now would be in violation. Care to prove otherwise?
I found some direct proof of this.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18253033&postcount=2
Also, reopening threads that are locked for VCL review is also disruption and against the Code of Conduct.
Keep in mind my original statement, "Also creating a new thread of a locked one is against the rules."
If someone manages to get a thread locked you cannot simply start a new thread and contunue the conversation.
No... not really.... at least not all the time.
People are so easily offended that sometimes I had no idea what got me banned. Turns out, more often than not, it was my opinion and stating of such that was met with opposition. And no, sometimes no warnings or explanations.
So, what you personally think, IMHO, seems to be in error.
I rest my case, your honor.
More to the point, it's not your opinion that people disagree with, it's your attitude. Q.E.D.
And I say the same thing about pro people....
*bolded emphasis mine.
Well, you're the one who was banned, not the pro people, so I sort of see a bit of a pattern showing itself here.
And I say the same thing about pro people....
*bolded emphasis mine.
I haven't seen anything of yours that should get you banned or a warning. I assume that it's not what you said but how you said it. If your posting style hasn't changed then it is possible that the other(s) were easily offended. If your posting style has changed then the ban worked and I'm glad to see you around here.
Anti people tend to speak less often, but much more loudly.
Both are generally equally guilty of making posts that disrupt their respective threads and get them locked, and themselves and/or others banned.
I'm rather stunned that I haven't been banned yet...not even once. I sometimes get rather heated by discussions regarding certain topics (which are almost never directly related to the topic of the thread at the time).
I do sympathize with you to an extent, Hater. Sometimes it's very hard to be civil with someone who's only interest is showing off their supposed intellect by belittling anyone who disagrees with them or exposes them for what they are...egomaniacal half-wits with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Now...such people exist in abundance on both sides, so there's no blame on either side to be had there.
Now, I dunno that I'm in the pro camp...but I know I'm not in the anti camp. I try to remain as neutral as possible. What I hated about 3.5 wasn't how my group used it...but rather what I saw on these boreds, and it's not right to hold that against a game system...but 3.5 was terribly broken, and needed to be fixed or scrapped. 4e maybe went too far, but I think it's a better ground to start from. Time will tell.
Believe it or not, I try to be/remain civil.... but boy! is it hard sometimes!
I can understand this. I've seen a few people go out of their way to insult others. I think mainly it's because some people has a tough time disagreeing without taking it personally. I've seen this on both sides of the Edition WarTM.
However there are a few that pretend to be against something so they can start trouble and fling poo. They make the side that they take look bad and result in a hostile posting environment for both sides. Which, of course, is most likely their goal.
Is there a maximum number of names you can put on "ignore?"
Don't think so.
I've got over 50 on there.
Many I assume are simply sock-puppets.
My viewing pleasure is greatly enhanced!
I do know that the "ignore signature" field has a limit, because I ran into that before I turned off all sigs. However, I don't know if the ignore user code has the same structure. As a database designer, I would hope they store it in a table, though.
As a database designer, I would hope they store it in a table, though.
As a poster, I agree.
The question is whether the ORCs will ban the poster or lock the thread.
Honestly however, the topic is getting heated enough, I wouldn't blame them for the lock.
The question is whether the ORCs will ban the poster or lock the thread.
Those two actions aren't mutually exclusive. ;)
The question is whether the ORCs will ban the poster or lock the thread.
Considering how useless bans are given you can reregister without any issue, I'd say locks are more likely.
That thread managed to go peacefully long enough to have to be restarted, but got locked by a single poster being disruptive. That particular poster has admitted to insulting people that they think are stupid as a standard course of action and has at least now four threads to be locked by flinging poo.
This is all fine and dandy, but please explain to us why 50 Pack Trolls like and his multiple personas have not been permabanned via an IP ban.
IP ban isn't effective: it uses the adress given to your computer by the internet provider (this is technically incorrect, but clear enough).
some internet provider cycle trough IPs: your IP changes whenever you go on-line (a.k.a. you get IP banned ... next morning your neighbor can't get on these forums)
Also, people use different computers (home, work, school, ...) blocking one IP doesn't prevent the user to come to the forum
Also, some people use NAT (network adress translating) ... basically, a network of computers looks like one computer to the outside (If I go to site 1, or my collegue goes to site 2, from the outside (IP adress, mac adress) it looks as though it comes from one computer.