Pros
- Taboo topics can be discussed without (too much) worry about a kid coming in and breaking the discussion.
- Editorially-relaxed rules - we can discuss adult topics that wouldn't fly in, say, What's a DM to Do?
- A place to move all discussions not considered fit for WoTC's target market of 12 - 16 year olds.
Cons
- The current moderation model is not flexible, so moderators with blatant anti-mature-forum biases are allowed to run rampant
- There are those people who clearly are not mature enough to be posting there
- There are those people who do not understand the concept of the mature forum in that it is a discussion forum - not a picture forum. Any images used should be part of a discussion, not be the discussion
Does anyone have anything more to add?
Anyway, regardless of your agenda, I'll go ahead and pretend this is a serious effort and identifying the pro's and con's of the forum.
Pros
* ]Editorially-relaxed rules - we can discuss adult topics that wouldn't fly in, say, What's a DM to Do?
Cons
* The current moderation model is not flexible, so moderators with blatant anti-mature-forum biases are allowed to run rampant
These are mutually exclusive elements. Either the rules are relaxed, or the moderation model is inflexible. If moderation is inflexible, the rules are NOT relaxed, no matter what someone may claim.
I would suggest, from what we have been provided in recent threads, that the moderation model is indeed inflexible, and that the rules cannot be flexible. GZ has let us know in pretty direct terms that he does not think we can have two different sets of posting rules going forward. Whether this precludes the existence of a Mature Forum remains to be seen.
I would not mind seeing someone steer this thread into a legitimate listing of the Pro and Con elements of having a Mature Forum (whatever it ends up being called in its reorganized incarnation).
Pros
- Taboo topics can be discussed without (too much) worry about a kid coming in and breaking the discussion.
- Editorially-relaxed rules - we can discuss adult topics that wouldn't fly in, say, What's a DM to Do?*
- A place to move all discussions not considered fit for WoTC's target market of 12 - 16 year olds.
Cons
- The current moderation model is not flexible; moderators must treat the Mature Forum threads with the same enforcement criteria applied in any other forum.
- Such a forum likely attracts people who are comfortable handling such topics in a manner that is anything but mature.
- There are those people who do not understand the concept of the mature forum in that it is a discussion forum - not a picture forum. Any images used should be part of a discussion, not be the discussion.
* I kept this generally as-written, but would suggest it be amended to:
Mature Topic and Mature Approach Purpose: We can discuss or approach topics that wouldn't be as well-received in other topic-specific forums.
I feel that the moderation criteria *can* apply equally to a Mature Forum and a general forum.
The subject of **** is a good example to work from. It is an uncomfortable topic for many. But it has been an inherent part of the game since the half-orc was introduced as a PC race. It can be generally agreed that the discussion of **** is not welcome in just about any general forum, regardless of its relevance to the specific topic at hand. However, a Mature Forum can provide an environment in which the following legitimate topics can be discussed:
- Half-orc heritage and its acceptance in a D&D society.
- Penalties in a medieval-modeled fantasy world.
- Social acceptance or rejection of the victim in different fantasy cultures.
- Definition of in different fantasy world cultures.
Such topics still require the same level of moderation as any other thread would. Inappropriate, even for a mature forum, would include:
- How-to instructions.
- Graphic (and maybe even casual) descriptions.
- Images.
- **** "humor"
- Real-world discussion and analogy.
A Mature Forum would indicate to the visitor/participant that they might see subjects like **** in the forum. It should not change the rules for what is and is not allowable in terms of content, language, or style.
- We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
- All forums must have the Code of Conduct enforced consistently.
- Our editorial policy is that any and all topics (that aren't CoC violations) can be discussed someplace on our forums.*
* This guideline hasn't really been battle-tested yet, so we'll see if it'll hold up after the forum reorg.
My personal opinion: It would be spiffy to have a series of forums in the RPG section --
- Diversity in Gaming Discussions of how to handle issues of race, sexual preference, and so on
- Mature Gaming (renamed to something better) Discussions of how to handle mature subject matters in games
- Family Gaming Discussions of how to keep games family-friendly, how to know what games are age-appropriate, and so on
- Astrid's Parlor (yes, I know it won't get moved here; that doesn't mean it's not the best spot for it) Discussions about gender issues in gaming go here
It'll definitely be a judgment call, and there will be countless corner cases and areas of grey. The VCLs and FLs (who have been doing an awesome job) have to interpret the guidelines as best they can and there will be plenty of times when they get it wrong . As opposed to something like...say...heart surgery, occasional mistakes are okay in editorial moderation. =)
Soo ... why is it that the Astrid's Parlor forum can flex and bend the rules, but a perspective Mature Forum can't?
These are firm guidelines:
- We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
- All forums must have the Code of Conduct enforced consistently.
- Our editorial policy is that any and all topics (that aren't CoC violations) can be discussed someplace on our forums.*
So basically ... Astrid's is allowed to have judgement calls, but other forums can't? That, to me at least, just isn't kosher.
What's good for one is good for all. If it's good for Astrid's, why can't it work for a mature forum?
Let people find thier own forums to discuss more adult subjects as that's what they'll be forced to do any way.
These are firm guidelines:
- We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
- All forums must have the Code of Conduct enforced consistently.
- Our editorial policy is that any and all topics (that aren't CoC violations) can be discussed someplace on our forums.
Astrid's Parlor doesn't violate any of the the above rules.
Astrid's Parlor doesn't violate any of the the above rules.
Do you intentionally ignore arguments from some people?
Do you intentionally ignore arguments from some people?
Given his position he might not be given a choice about that sometimes.
These are firm guidelines:
- We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
Pardon my impertinence, but exactly why can there not be? No Federal, state or local law forbids restriction by age. Any lawsuit by a minor trying to access a restricted website would most likely be laughed out of court. Plenty of websites have age-restricted admission. AFAIK, one cannot (and indeed should not) restrict on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation -- but to say you can't restrict due to age is, pardon the expression, asinine.
- All forums must have the Code of Conduct enforced consistently.
No argument there.
- Our editorial policy is that any and all topics (that aren't CoC violations) can be discussed someplace on our forums.*
That's where problems come up. Some legitimate discussions have been squelched on the non-mature forums because of squeamish readers who "just didn't want to see that sort of thing." (for instance, a thread discussing statting up Satan as BBEG [who got a semi-official treatment in Dragon Magazine back in 1980, BTW.]) I fear that if you open up the other forums to mature topics, more speech is going to be chilled because someone is inevitably going to report a thread because they don't like the content (not because it's violating CoC) and an overzealous WizO will lock the thread without investigation -- it has happened before.
Also: a parent, with no knowledge of D&D, could come into the threads, to check up on where their kid's been, and happen upon a legitimate and mature-in-all-senses-of-the-word discussion of ****, or the ethics of torture in game or another what-have-you-RL-squickalicious topic, and still potentially come back with the impression that the game is much like F.A.T.A.L (if you have no idea what that game is, you are one of the lucky ones. Oh, you have no idea how lucky you are. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.) That's why some of these "borderline" topics (ones that are legit and useful, but that might get the ire of the "think of the children" crowd) ought to be in a roped-off area of the boards.
For instance: what's brewing in the Mature threads, right now?
* Uses of the (WotC official) "Mindrape" spell;
* "C-Snakes" (don't ask)
* whether a newly-freed sex slave forcing herself on a drugged adventerurer in the hopes she'd become pregnant qualifies as ****;
* Mentally dominating a Succubus (and the ramifications therein)
* How to create a god of homosexuality (and whether or not ancient/medieval societies would even consider that a productive/desirable deity)
* How to simulate marijuana in D&D rules;
* Whether a victim of RL ****/incest/sexual abuse should RP in a campaign featuring them;
* The "World of Gor" which posits a fantasy world where women are kept as sex slaves/casual **** objects and enjoy it, and the ethical ramifications of such a world;
* And creating hentai tentacle kaijyu in D&D rules.
How many of those would you feel comfortable in having a 13-year-old stumble over? Or a concerned busybody parent? Now, they're all legitimate topics, and I've even participated in a few of them. But none of them are really suitable for immature eyes.
Pardon my impertinence, but exactly why can there not be? No Federal, state or local law forbids restriction by age. Any lawsuit by a minor trying to access a restricted website would most likely be laughed out of court. Plenty of websites have age-restricted admission. AFAIK, one cannot (and indeed should not) restrict on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation -- but to say you can't restrict due to age is, pardon the expression, asinine.
I'm just going on a hunch. But perhaps it has something to do with their ESRB rating.
squickalicious
Nice word! :D
I'm just going on a hunch. But perhaps it has something to do with their ESRB rating.
Could be, Zherog -- I hadn't even entertained the thought that websites were given ESRB ratings, but it might be.
Nice word! :D
Thanks
. Wish I could take credit for it, but it came from the TV Tropes website.Could be, Zherog -- I hadn't even entertained the thought that websites were given ESRB ratings, but it might be.
There's no "might be" about it. Scroll to the bottom of the page. WotC worked hard to earn their ESRB rating. ;)
There's no "might be" about it. Scroll to the bottom of the page. WotC worked hard to earn their ESRB rating. ;)
Except there's no rating there. just a "privacy certification."
Where else would somebody be allowed to post their "Elfen Lied" themed campaign? :D
Except there's no rating there. just a "privacy certification."
It's not a rating like G, PG, etc. It's a "rating" (or, to use your word, "certification") that the site meets all the requirements of the ESRB in regards to gathering private data. This is the reason, for example, that the birth date you enter during the very beginning of registration for a new account isn't stored in your user profile.
The current "validation" method requires the entry of your birth date into the system. My hunch is that this violates the mandates of the ESRB rating/certification. (along with not exactly being reliable, since it's really easy to just lie in order to gain access to the forum)
Keep in mind that it's purely speculation on my part. I have no actual facts (or even decent rumors) to back that up.
D&D is a game of imagination. A mature forum is an excellent place to stretch the imagination, move beyond what might be seen in a "typical" D&D game. We have a wonderfully creative community here and if there is no mature forum, then a bit of that creativity is being stifled.
A mature forum (whatever it comes to be called) would be an excellent opportunity to expand on the creativity that D&D fosters in us (pro). The community would be less without such a forum in my opinion (con).
We must take responsibility for our conduct of course, but that's true no matter where we post on the forums. A mature forum is not a typical forum, but when have D&D'ers ever been accused of being typical? We can be responsible.
Keep in mind that it's purely speculation on my part. I have no actual facts (or even decent rumors) to back that up.
And I fully take it as that, but it's not a bad surmise, either. Although I still await with bated breath any sort of official reason as to why as well...:D
Artifact: My words exactly. I don't want to see those threads going away -- I don't always agree with all of them, but they serve a purpose. And in a free-form game like D&D, where anything can be roleplayed, there are going to be legitimate situations that, even when delicately discussed, are not "all-ages" appropriate. And I'm worried that the two mandates of "no age restriction" and "free and open discussion under the guidelines of the CoC" are at some point going to collide if they don't make allowances and take steps to make sure that adults can have these free and open discussions without worrying about accidentally contributing to the delinquency of a minor (or to a parental's heart attack and lawsuit).
Pardon my impertinence, but exactly why can there not be?
I've always assumed it was because they had no Age Verification process that was 100% effective.
But that's just a hunch on my part.
I've always assumed it was because they had no Age Verification process that was 100% effective.
But that's just a hunch on my part.
You know, if I ever had a website with age verification, it would goe as follows
Window: Are you over 18?
Button1: Nah, ya got me.
Button2: Sure, why not?
:D
I've always assumed it was because they had no Age Verification process that was 100% effective.
But that's just a hunch on my part.
There is no age verification process in existance that is 100% effective. That doesn't mean that businesses still don't use such processes or take steps to make sure that their places are age-appropriate. We still have 16-year-olds conning grocery clerks out of beer with fake IDs, for Chrissakes. Yet grocery stores aren't saying "because there's no 100% foolproof way to verify age, we can't restrict alcohol sales to minors."
And, if the powers that be find that someone lied about their age, it's a simple matter to boot them from the site.
There is no age verification process in existance that is 100% effective. That doesn't mean that businesses still don't use such processes or take steps to make sure that their places are age-appropriate. We still have 16-year-olds conning grocery clerks out of beer with fake IDs, for Chrissakes. Yet grocery stores aren't saying "because there's no 100% foolproof way to verify age, we can't restrict alcohol sales to minors."
And, if the powers that be find that someone lied about their age, it's a simple matter to boot them from the site.
Grocery stores make money off of their liquor sales.
WoTC doesn't make any money having a Mature Forum. Since there's no revenue to be had, there's no reason to take the risk.
Grocery stores make money off of their liquor sales.
Except in Pennsylvania, where grocery stores aren't allowed to sell beer/wine/ etc...
WoTC doesn't make any money having a Mature Forum. Since there's no revenue to be had, there's no reason to take the risk.
Alright... the whole tangent here is sort of interesting, but really, it's thoroughly moot. Mike has stated that one of the conditions would be that the forum is open to anybody without age verification. Whether there are ways to do that or whether it's easy or whether it's worthwhile just don't matter.
*
Mike -- this is probably a good place for you to chime in with your thoughts on the matter. Has your opinion been changed at all? Is there anything else folks could provide for you to help sway your opinion?
Mike -- this is probably a good place for you to chime in with your thoughts on the matter. Has your opinion been changed at all? Is there anything else folks could provide for you to help sway your opinion?
On the guidelines? No, there hasn't been a change:
These are firm guidelines:
- We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
- All forums must have the Code of Conduct enforced consistently.
- Our editorial policy is that any and all topics (that aren't CoC violations) can be discussed someplace on our forums.
We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
Yet WotC can print books restricted by age?
BoED has Afflections, just compairing them to poison and the rules of the good alignment is a moral debate into its self. It also states one cannot simply cast atonement and expect to be free of sin, they are required to pay penance. Which leads to a topic of what should one do in the cases of **** or killing the onion kid's new family? Heck, the book its self has a drawing of a some snake-bat-female with no shirt on page 23.
BoVD introduces drugs, enchanted nipple clamps, rewards for selling souls, chaining kids to your armor, and is expanded on in the player's guide to faerun to include your classic mistress.
Also, if I may note, BoVD is not the only book that has rules for torturing people. And where is the proper forum to discuss self-mutilation aspects of using grafts? (and what is up with the chick on page 77 of the BoVD)
In fact, I'd almost dare to say there is a growing number of people getting sick of misguided heros being the bad guy. If I see another story of some lonely kid who grow up hating every one until the hero shows up and teaches him a lesson or some alien/cyber augumentation or oops - I - broke - the - law - for - a - good - reason character I'm going to play in traffic. I want a rival in my pokemon games, not a best friend cheering me on. I want a real reason to stab the BBEG in the bloody murder I'm doing without the lame excuses 'just cus he's evil'. I like to hear about the good guy's resolve, determination, and trials as they are tempted and soduced. I want to see a story where you cheer for the good guys at the end instead of feeling sorry for the villain's misguided ways.
There is a lot of stuff no one can really talk about on here. And as far as I can see, no one is asking for some kind of 'send us your password for free porn' forum section. They want a thread that includes a nice little banner proclaiming it to be a mature forum and as such the topics are not appropriate for kids where they can talk about such things without in good conscious post in an area where it is not expected and thus 'forced' on young people.
Yet WotC can print books restricted by age.
Irrelevant to the discussion for many reasons.
1. GZ is talking about the structure of the new Boards, not the old.
2. BoVD is a product of the past. Its publication does not restrict the policies of the future.
3. BoVD does not really have an age restriction. It has a label that is more gimmick than restriction.
On the guidelines? No, there hasn't been a change:
Yeah, repeating that isn't what we asked - that's actually against the CoC, as it falls under "spam through repeat posts" ...(or trolling, since you keep repeating it over and over).
And honestly, stop ignoring us, please?
And please comment on this:
It'll definitely be a judgment call, and there will be countless corner cases and areas of grey. The VCLs and FLs (who have been doing an awesome job) have to interpret the guidelines as best they can and there will be plenty of times when they get it wrong . As opposed to something like...say...heart surgery, occasional mistakes are okay in editorial moderation. =)
Why is it that Astrid's Parlor can have an editorial-based moderation, but any mature forum must strictly follow the CoC? What is the difference?
And why have you ignored this for the past week?
Why is it that Astrid's Parlor can have an editorial-based moderation, but any mature forum must strictly follow the CoC? What is the difference?
That would appear to be comparing apples & oranges. The only editorial moderation of Astrid's is in determining what's on-topic and off-topic and where off-topic threads should go (and, of course, whether a thread violates the CoC). That's identical to the editorial moderation of every forum. I've had plenty of off-topic threads moved out of What's a DM to Do? and DM Rules Counseling.
The problem with Astrid's is that what's "on topic" is a bit vague, but that apparently will be addressed after June when the boards are reorganized.
But moderation based on its off-topic nature is a completely different analysis from moderation because a post violates the CoC. Again, that's going to be handled with the same metric in every forum, because the CoC applies equally to every forum.
On the guidelines? No, there hasn't been a change:
No, sorry I wasn't clear. I understand the guidelines are firm and unchanging.
Originally, you had said you saw no need for the Mature forum. Has that opinion changed?
No, sorry I wasn't clear. I understand the guidelines are firm and unchanging.
Originally, you had said you saw no need for the Mature forum. Has that opinion changed?
My position really hasn't changed, in that I believe everything should be on topic *someplace* and it's CM's responsibility to make sure places exist for all conversations.
Reading the discussions here and having internal discussions with the rest of the CM team, has brought us to the view that we want all those discussions where-ever they are on-topic, and not have a special place for these discussions to live.
Personally, I like the idea of having certain conversations (i.e. Concerns and Criticisms) in a single place where people can both find and discuss things without dragging other discussions off topic. In this case, a compelling point was made that if an on-topic discussion of slavery in a campaign setting was brought up, it would be okay to be discussed in that setting. The point was also brought up that by putting all these topics in a single area, we set up a one-stop shop where those who are a bit younger in age could head to if they are looking to read stuff that's a little more edgy.
I don't necessarily buy into all the arguments presented, but I'm leaning with the team's consensus on this one. No special forum for the type or intensity of discussion, only special forums for the topic of discussion.
My position really hasn't changed, in that I believe everything should be on topic *someplace* and it's CM's responsibility to make sure places exist for all conversations.
So posts on "Divine Homosexuality" would be acceptable in a non-mature-designated forum? So discussions on slavery would acceptable in a non-mature-designated forum? So a discussion of possible adult-themed character concepts would be acceptable somewhere?
Or are we just going to get auto-locked like what would happen now if no mature forum existed.
Because I guarantee, if I posted a "Divine Homosexuality" thread on the Deities and Demigods forum, it would be moved to the Mature forums as the forums exist now.
So posts on "Divine Homosexuality" would be acceptable in a non-mature-designated forum? So discussions on slavery would acceptable in a non-mature-designated forum? So a discussion of possible adult-themed character concepts would be acceptable somewhere?
If those topics are acceptable at all, they're acceptable in the place where they are on topic. A topic doesn't become any more or less acceptable due to the presence of a special forum.
To be more clear, the current view is that we have categories of topics, each represented by a forum. Any non-CoC violating post, should fit into one of those forums based on the topic. I like to think of this as a lateral or horizontal structure, where topics slide along until they find the right bin and fall into it.
We want to avoid a situation where, instead of having that horizontal structure where the only decision that has to be made is which topic area the post best fits, we'd also have to evaluate the level or intensity of the discussion. In other words, we want to avoid adding a vertical level of measurement, where we'd have to measure not only where it would be on topic, but also whether or not the discussion is too adult, or too mature, or too graphic, or too intense for the existing forum.
I mean, you can make a case for those to go in D&D General or What's a DM to Do or What's a Player to do. But then, I could also look through the topics in places like Astrid's and do the same thing.
That's a whole other issue. Runnig with G0's analogy, the Mature forums are a Vertical issue, but distinguishing between General, Astrid's and the DM boards, for example, requires a more clear delineation as to what those forums are for.
G0's already said Astrid's scope will be re-examined after June (I think it should be re-examined now, but I guess CM's got it's plate full right now).
So putting Astrid's aside, it seems to me that the General Board is there only for topics for which no other appropriate board exists.
As for your specific issues, I'm no WizO, but here's how I see it, as of 4th edition:
Discussions about slavery and virgin sacrifice would go in the forum for designing campaigns.
Discussions about drug addiction effects would go in rules counseling to the extent that rules exist, or house rules to the extent they do not.
Since there won't be "lawful good" or "exalted beings" in 4th edition, those discussions would take place in one of the Third Edition forums (either "Rules and References" or the "Characters and Companions" board)
That said, I fear the excellent Pippa's Slave Market thread is not long for this world. I hope I'm wrong.
Gamer_Zero's Quote
If those topics are acceptable at all, they're acceptable in the place where they are on topic. A topic doesn't become any more or less acceptable due to the presence of a special forum.
To be more clear, the current view is that we have categories of topics, each represented by a forum. Any non-CoC violating post, should fit into one of those forums based on the topic. I like to think of this as a lateral or horizontal structure, where topics slide along until they find the right bin and fall into it.
We want to avoid a situation where, instead of having that horizontal structure where the only decision that has to be made is which topic area the post best fits, we'd also have to evaluate the level or intensity of the discussion. In other words, we want to avoid adding a vertical level of measurement, where we'd have to measure not only where it would be on topic, but also whether or not the discussion is too adult, or too mature, or too graphic, or too intense for the existing forum.
A specialized forum is not an option. Is there a way to allow intense discussions to take place, but to tag them so anyone who wanders in isn't caught off-guard? The discussions could still find a place in the appropriate forum but if tagged responsibly, its less likely for anyone to be surprised by the nature of the conversion.
It's a good idea, but I am not sure if that is something that CM should be responsible for, or if that is something that the users can simply do themselves.
Since there won't be "lawful good" or "exalted beings" in 4th edition
Huh, what?
Like put [Adult] or [Mature] or [Sensitive Subject] before or after the subject line.
So as an example:
Paladins and Slavery [Mature]
or
Paladins and Slavery [Sensitive Subject]
Yep. Sorry, Zherog. The Great Wheel cosmology is gone and with it the law-chaos alignment ethos.
I thought one of the previews showed Chaotic Evil -- Evil -- Unaligned -- Good -- Lawful Good as the alignment spectrum?
I thought one of the previews showed Chaotic Evil -- Evil -- Unaligned -- Good -- Lawful Good as the alignment spectrum?
I saw it too, although it may have simply been in a designer blog. It could be translated as:
Really Evil -- Evil -- Unaligned -- Good -- Uber-Good.
I don't necessarily buy into all the arguments presented, but I'm leaning with the team's consensus on this one. No special forum for the type or intensity of discussion, only special forums for the topic of discussion.
*sigh* I would've hoped that after what, 3 threads on the topic? that we would've presented that the point was that "mature" was a topic. It's a specific style of gameplay and deserves a home.
If it's to be that, how about a forum called something like "Setting the Mood" (a suggestion on the d20 forum reorganization thread)- that deals with that-- how to set the mood for your game- whether it is edgy or horror based or even humorous based. It could combine the threads on Mature that doesn't fit in with another board, the d20 Horror board and the d20 For Grins board. It would be a jumble, but would be a good asset to the forum list and would probably get a bunch of traffic that we can't even expect right now.
*sigh* I would've hoped that after what, 3 threads on the topic? that we would've presented that the point was that "mature" was a topic. It's a specific style of gameplay and deserves a home.
4e would seem to be pitched primarily toward the underage crowd. If that's true why mess things up by admitting you have adult players when they can make boards elsewhere? At times i feel the threads are less "discuss the pros and cons of having a mature board" and more a "vent now and get over it" exercise.
4e would seem to be pitched primarily toward the underage crowd. If that's true why mess things up by admitting you have adult players when they can make boards elsewhere?
I guess you can look at the glass as half empty. Or, you could write the same observations in a less cynical fashion:
4e would seem to be pitched toward a playing population that includes the underage crowd. We should be able to assume that adult players can maintain themselves properly in the presence of minors?
I admit, given the response of many folks on many threads across many subjects, that this is perhaps erroneous assumption.
I guess you can look at the glass as half empty. Or, you could write the same observations in a less cynical fashion:
4e would seem to be pitched toward a playing population that includes the underage crowd. We should be able to assume that adult players can maintain themselves properly in the presence of minors?
I admit, given the response of many folks on many threads across many subjects, that this is perhaps erroneous assumption.
Yes but cynical is who I am :D
And I have found that minors are usually discussing things the adults would never consider because they'd find them repulsive. 14 year olds seem to be less politically correct than most of the 36 year olds I chat with.
And I have found that minors are usually discussing things the adults would never consider because they'd find them repulsive. 14 year olds seem to be less politically correct than most of the 36 year olds I chat with.
Nothing stops 14 year-olds from making repulsive threads and posts in the non-Mature Forums right now. So I haven't seen a problem in that regard. So I don't see the justification for the Mature Forums being that adults need some place to get away from all those "repulsive" posts of the adolescents.
Nothing stops 14 year-olds from making repulsive threads and posts in the non-Mature Forums right now. So I haven't seen a problem in that regard. So I don't see the justification for the Mature Forums being that adults need some place to get away from all those "repulsive" posts of the adolescents.
Not quite what I meant.
Well, then I missed your point. Could you restate it?
I would if I saw a point. But considering the last time we chatted a thread got locked not long after I'll skip it.
That's because we went off-topic after several requests to stay on topic. but this discussion is on topic, so don't worry about it getting closed.
Give me a bit. As I write this it's almost 5 am, and the days events have been horrifically disturbing. In my current state if I reply I'd probably simply vent and say something regrettable.
I haven't been to the Mature forums for a very long time, but I did enjoy several of the threads that I experienced there back when I was around. And many of them were things that I think wouldn't have lasted and been nearly as good in the boards at large, to be honest. The idea that the Mature Forums are unnecessary, but that women gamers need a special place to go and talk just seems so irritating and short sighted to me that I can't believe it's considered perfectly fine. So there was a book about someone playing a sorceress in D&D? Does that somehow really necessitate an entire forum?
I keep wondering whether or not we should test this "It's okay in the main forums" business by creating threads we would normally have reserved for the Mature forums in the rest of the boards, and see how long they really last before somehow they get the hammer of god or devolve into a flame war from people who don't know how to handle it.
I keep wondering whether or not we should test this "It's okay in the main forums" business by creating threads we would normally have reserved for the Mature forums in the rest of the boards, and see how long they really last before somehow they get the hammer of god or devolve into a flame war from people who don't know how to handle it.
I think it would be a great idea to test.
I think it would be a great idea to test.
I would suggest a user who is immune to the collection of bans, warns, and soft warns be the one to cast the first stone.
I would suggest a user who is immune to the collection of bans, warns, and soft warns be the one to cast the first stone.
The funny thing about the code of conduct is that a person won't get in trouble if they do not break it. =)
The funny thing about the code of conduct is that a person won't get in trouble if they do not break it. =)
Honestly? You need to stop making comments like this - it shows a serious lack of understanding of how the forums work.
Just because you post something technically on topic and technically following the CoC, does not mean you are free from getting a warning or a ban from it.
And yes - I think we should make a "My PC just tortured a man to death - rammifications to his alignment?" thread, or something, in the What's a Player to Do? forum ... see how long before it gets moved to the Mature forum or simply locked by an overzealous mod.
And yes - I think we should make a "My PC just tortured a man to death - rammifications to his alignment?" thread, or something, in the What's a Player to Do? forum ... see how long before it gets moved to the Mature forum or simply locked by an overzealous mod.
Well, as one of the forum leads for What's a Player to Do?, I'd request it get moved back.
I think D&D General is the better place for this thought experiment, though. More traffic and all that.
Well, as one of the forum leads for What's a Player to Do?, I'd request it get moved back.
Well,I think that speaks volumes,I don't think tagging would be a good idea cuz some one may forget to do that,but iwth a mature forum its implied that the topic is sensitive.
EDIT: If you don't listen to your FLs..then whats the point of asking them for thire thoughts on things that affect thire areas?
My point is that if a thread were moved off What's a Player to Do? without anybody actually making a request, I'd request it get moved back. I'd also be opposed to somebody posting in the requests thread to get it moved, but at least in that case there'd be a cyber-paper trail, and if Webster went along with their request, I wouldn't like it but I'd deal with it.
Swinging this discussion back around to the topic: Mercurius, are you going to start the test thread? The forum rules actually allow a thread to be cross-posted to two forums without it being considered spam. So conceivably, you could post to both WaPtD and D&D General.
I'm also thinking it might be a good idea to have more than one test thread.
I'd be fine with a test thread in What's a DM to Do? as well. I won't ask for it to be moved out of WaDMtD? As Zherog said, if someone else asks it be moved, I'll ask to have it moved back.
At the end of the day, CM decides what is on or off-topic for a forum, and the VCLs execute based on the provided guidelines, with the help from FLs and FGs.
The reason I like the test case idea, is because people seem to be under the impression that CS will do some CoC enforcement on the thread. Whether or not a post is a CoC violation isn't something I can determine up front (or at all, since it's entirely CS's call), so the best thing people can do is make the post.
If the post is made, and it looks like it's being actioned incorrectly by whomever, (WizOs, VCLs, etc) I'll follow up on it internally and find out what happened. However, I can only do that when we have a case in hand to review, otherwise we're dealing entirely in the hypothetical and that's not really helpful in this case.
Because if a "mature" thread can have discussion that doesn't violate the CoC in the Mature Boards, but always end up with violations in the other forums, that's a strong case to be made that the Mature Forums serve a valid purpose.
Please keep this in mind - the discussion of torture as you present it above is not a violation of the Code of Conduct. However, posting a graphic description of the torture would be a violation of the Code of Conduct. Just to be clear, as I would not want anyone to be confused and violate the Code of Conduct as a part of this experiment.
Right - but that's true even on the current Mature forum.
).If the thread doesn't violate the CoC, you shouldn't receive a warning -- even if it's something CM decides they want to lock for whatever reason.
In order to get banned, you have to receive three official warnings.
This isn't true. I was told I would need get only one warning to get banned, because I share the IP of my brother, who was (according to him unfairly) banned.
As far as the policy is concerned, you've already accumulated three warnings and are on your "second" account. That sucks bantha balls for those who share an IP addy, but...
Yeah. What happens if I have a dynamic IP, though?
Let's try to stay on the topic of the Mature Forums, and what niche it might fill in a New World Order.
I wonder how mature topics will fare when folks whine that something isn't appropriate for the forum, where the CoC says it's perfectly valid? Or does the First Amendment not apply here? Freedom of speech means everyone gets to say what they want, no matter how offensive or repugnant. Otherwise it wouldn't be freedom.
Now, the CoC is for etiquette, but that should be the ONLY limit on what can and can't be said on these boards. No flames or insults from other posters should even be considered unless there's a violation of said CoC (and there are just some issues that just shouldn't be touched). And don't go posting about political correctness, please. It only makes issues out of things that shouldn't be an issue.
"It's free speech. You get what you pay for."
Oh, I absolutely agree about that point. And I think Mike really missed the bus on this one. I was only responding to the free speech claim; nothing else.
Ah. Sorry, bad habit of mine. I'm so used to having to reaffirm my point that I tend to forget others might agree with it the first time.
Personally, I don't think Mike ever had any intention of listening to arguments (such as the ones in this thread) about the benefits of having a Mature forum, even though most folks approached the discussion with his ground rules (no age verification, no special CoC exemptions) in mind.
While I'm very disappointed the Mature forum is removed, I'm angry over the way it was handled. The members of the community were not given any sort of notice; neither were the Forum Leads. Then, after the fact, we were told we could request to have threads moved out of the forum -- only to then have that revoked and have Mike make most of the decisions about what would be moved, and to where.
I know the feeling...
Personally, I don't think Mike ever had any intention of listening to arguments (such as the ones in this thread) about the benefits of having a Mature forum, even though most folks approached the discussion with his ground rules (no age verification, no special CoC exemptions) in mind.
I think i noticed this trend when he asked for ideas about the D20 area....and so much for "radical trasnparency" too,cuz both me and Autumn asked questions about the behind the secens decison making that never got answered
If it's any consolation, the absence of a mature forum does not preclude the existence of mature topics. The only real difference is that folks have to actually remain mature in their discussion of such topics. The CoC allows for the discussion of pretty mature things. Drugs, sex, slavery... none of these are patently offensive topics, although there are patently offensive ways to approach them.
Point #4 of the CoC
4. Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense. These topics include crimes relating to drugs, drug paraphernalia, ****, solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation.
That leaves any discussion of drugs, slavery, ****, and many versions of sex open to interpretation as to whether the poster is acting to "plan, glorify, or engage" that activity.
Note that if I talk about engaging in a common-law relationship I am breaking the CoC since it is against the law in several states.
Point #4 of the CoC
You address this in the rest of your post.
That leaves any discussion of drugs, slavery, ****, and many versions of sex open to interpretation as to whether the poster is acting to "plan, glorify, or engage" that activity.
Yes, it does. And "open to interpretation" requires that the poster use a little bit of brain power, common sense, restraint, and (gasp!) maturity in deciding what to post and how. The Mature Forum seemed to have the effect of making a few posters comfortable leaving all of these at the door of the Forum.
Note that if I talk about engaging in a common-law relationship I am breaking the CoC since it is against the law in several states.
Then don't talk about engaging in common-law relationship. This does not preclude talking about the legality of common-law relationships. It does not preclude talking about the in-game morality, laws, and social reaction with regard to common-law relationship.
Too many threads (but a relatively small number of individuals) seemed to think that "Mature Topics" meant the Forum could be used as a how-to manual for fetishes best left to non-gaming forums. You don't have to talk about having sex to have a conversation about the in-game effects of sex, sexuality, or sexual-behavior-restricting laws. Just don't talk about engaging in sex. Save that talk for the MySpace and Facebook.
You address this in the rest of your post.
Yes, it does. And "open to interpretation" requires that the poster use a little bit of brain power, common sense, restraint, and (gasp!) maturity in deciding what to post and how. The Mature Forum seemed to have the effect of making a few posters comfortable leaving all of these at the door of the Forum.
Then don't talk about engaging in common-law relationship. This does not preclude talking about the legality of common-law relationships. It does not preclude talking about the in-game morality, laws, and social reaction with regard to common-law relationship.
Too many threads (but a relatively small number of individuals) seemed to think that "Mature Topics" meant the Forum could be used as a how-to manual for fetishes best left to non-gaming forums. You don't have to talk about having sex to have a conversation about the in-game effects of sex, sexuality, or sexual-behavior-restricting laws. Just don't talk about engaging in sex. Save that talk for the MySpace and Facebook.
Discussing a common-law relationship isn't discussing sex any more than discussing a marriage is sex. It's still illegal in parts of the states.
Is it possible that such threads will be treated kindly by all moderators? Certainly.
Is it possible that some moderator will not treat it kindly? Certainly.
Do I understand why the CoC exists and should be enforced? Yes.
I err on the side of caution. If discussing my spouse and our relationship can be construed to be inappropriate, I won't discuss my spouse or our relationship. I'll find a more congenial forum.
If discussing the ramifications of a character's actions in game may be construed to be inappropriate, I won't discuss those actions -- particularly if any form of description is needed for context. I'll find a more congenial forum.
"Plan, glorify, or engage" is hard to get hold of. Does mentioning how much I love my spouse and how happy we are in our relationship glorify the activity? Does talking about a joint trip to West Virginia in the Rec Room count as planning and engaging in illegal behaviour?
Illegal activity is hard to get hold of, especially when games can devolve into "kick in the door, kill the inhabitant and take their stuff" -- all of which counts as illegal activity, thankfully.
If discussing my spouse and our relationship can be construed to be inappropriate, I won't discuss my spouse or our relationship. I'll find a more congenial forum.
It is inappropriate because it has nothing to do with Dungeons & Dragons.
If discussing the ramifications of a character's actions in game may be construed to be inappropriate, I won't discuss those actions -- particularly if any form of description is needed for context. I'll find a more congenial forum.
Wise. To discuss the ramifications of an in-game action, you probably do not need to discuss the action. "What are the ramifications of engaging in 'relations' with a dominated subject?' does not need to enter into the discussion of the 'relations' to address the subject at hand. Definitely a mature topic. And no need for details.
"Plan, glorify, or engage" is hard to get hold of.
Doesn't sound all that difficult to grasp at all.
Does mentioning how much I love my spouse and how happy we are in our relationship glorify the activity? Does talking about a joint trip to West Virginia in the Rec Room count as planning and engaging in illegal behaviour?
I am confident that neither of those subjects is related to D&D. Why would either of these be relevant to the Boards or the subject of "Mature Topics" in gaming?
Your point seems to be getting lost in the irrelevancy of your examples.
Your point seems to be getting lost in the irrelevancy of your examples.
Well, I would agree if I hadn't specifically referenced the Rec Room, an off-topic forum (apparently one of the very many soon to grace these forums).
Yeah. What happens if I have a dynamic IP, though?
Well, you'd be fine then, unless the WizOs decide to block your entire ISPs IP range, in which case you'll have ruined it for many. But thats unlikely given how heavy handed that would be. Most residential IPs are dynamic to an extent, mine changes every month or so.
As far as doing these "tests" is concerned, if your that worried about over reaction, create and run a second account through a proxy, that way your main account stays safe.
The only real difference is that folks have to actually remain mature in their discussion of such topics. The CoC allows for the discussion of pretty mature things. Drugs, sex, slavery... none of these are patently offensive topics, although there are patently offensive ways to approach them.
Best post on this thread.
This is total rubbish and the poorest excuse I've ever heard on a WOTC forum. WOTC own these forums and and change the rules between forums as much as they please.
So the obvious answer is WOTC didn't want a Mature forum. Their website, their rules.
This coincides with when CM and CS started pruning NSFW pictures from the website. CM's statements that they had to lock the board quickly before their superiors did their own review and the offal hit the fan also indicates that these directives are coming fom up the chain.
Could it have been handled more diplomatically? Absolutely. Do I think there was much chance that the mature forums were going to survive, given the new directives?? Not really.
I'm running a new world campaign in 4th ed and one of the things I need to know about is how certain plants, minerals and animals are going to act. I've divided them up into 5 categories no effect, drug, pharmaceutical, poison and food. However I'd like some help in working out potential rules effects for the various plants. I have some ideas but am looking for suggestions or critique.
No Effect
Plants that are just plants and offer no benefit or harm to the player such as grass.
Food
Plants that can be consumed to provide sustanence such such as apples.
Drug
Plants that affect the players judgment or capacity in some manner. With say
Addiction Rules
Effects e.g. confusion -2 to hit and damage or halucination gm handled description (you see a hideous monster with claws and tentacles lashing around its mouth come charginng towards you). In actual fact the players wife/husband/sister walking towards them.
Saving throw details.
Pharmaceutical
Plants that have a medical benefit e.g. clotting when prepared in manner X can cause the blood to clot and seal around an injury or energy giving (coffee beans) that can allow them to operate an extra hour or two before succumbing to fatigure (from sources other than strenous activity)
Posion
Plants that are lethal or injurous to a character
Examples e.g. plant x impairs judgment (wisdom) while plant y (causes the heart to shut down inducing heartattack) con save or penalties to str, dex and con for awhile.
For example you find the Fugu fish in the lake most of it is tasty and healthy but part of it can kill you. it would therefore come under food and poison
Food: Sustains equivilent to 1 meal per day.
Poison: Make save ? every 2 hours for 12 hours, failed save = -2 to con, if you hit 0 then you die.
Or would this come under planning violation?
I suppose one thing we could try would be to simply PM GZ with any threads we want to create that would've gone in the Mature forums, that way he can tell us that at least our OP is above board.
Unfortunately, GZ has said already that it's not his job to interpret the CoC. I'd take anything he says regarding that with a grain of salt. If you're really concerned that a thread you want to make may be pushing the boundaries of the CoC, ask a WizO or just don't post it at all.
These are firm guidelines:
- We cannot have a forum that is restricted by age.
Why not? What's changed? That's the way it worked before, and there wasn't any real problem. Theproblems were caused by either rules being too harsh, or people not fully understanding the purpose of the forum. Hell, the whole image problem could be cleared up by saying
"This is a forum for the discussion of mature topics within gaming, it is not a picture forum, or a forum in which to discuss art, however tasteful, tasteless, mature or juvenile, for that, try 4chan, here's a [ url to 4chan ]link[ /url to 4chan ]."
The problem of "well y'know my friend was raped and this how she handled it" and "**** only happens because..." could be solved by treating the discussions like the discussion of any other real world topic, by mandating it always remain game related. We can discuss game religion, we can discuss game politics, and so on an so forth, and things only ever get locked when it steps out of the context of the game and into real life, or at least when points of view the mods are uncomfortable with are expressed, and I know this last one from personal experience.
Given his position he might not be given a choice about that sometimes.
In my experience, that's exactly what some mods do, if there's something they don't like, they ignore it, or delete it. A friend of mine got banned because the mods didn't like his religion.
4e would seem to be pitched primarily toward the underage crowd. If that's true why mess things up by admitting you have adult players when they can make boards elsewhere? At times i feel the threads are less "discuss the pros and cons of having a mature board" and more a "vent now and get over it" exercise.
*sigh* y'know, this brings fully to the forefront of my mind the real thing that's bothering me about this crap. Wizards wants to appeal to the 12-16 yo range so they're telling people 18 and over who want to touch upon the harsh realities of any world that isn't full of fluffy bunnies and duckies to GTFO. Is this an apt sumation? play "my little sociopath pony" or leave?
Why not?
It is a common error to use can't in the place of won't. The policy changed and they will no longer use age restriction.
I've gotta admit, I've been wondering exactly what the viability of Astrid's really is. Can't women discuss gaming in the appropriate forums, rather than in their own secluded area? How do you police whether or not a woman is posting there? Why are there subjects that are somehow deserving of their own segregated forum like that, but the discussion of subjects of a mature forum (My character just tortured an NPC to death for information - how would you deal with the ramifications?, for example) somehow be shoehorned into a general forum or something.
I haven't been to the Mature forums for a very long time, but I did enjoy several of the threads that I experienced there back when I was around. And many of them were things that I think wouldn't have lasted and been nearly as good in the boards at large, to be honest. The idea that the Mature Forums are unnecessary, but that women gamers need a special place to go and talk just seems so irritating and short sighted to me that I can't believe it's considered perfectly fine. So there was a book about someone playing a sorceress in D&D? Does that somehow really necessitate an entire forum?
I keep wondering whether or not we should test this "It's okay in the main forums" business by creating threads we would normally have reserved for the Mature forums in the rest of the boards, and see how long they really last before somehow they get the hammer of god or devolve into a flame war from people who don't know how to handle it.
Okay, this is my first day back in a week or so, and a lot's changed(sorry for the multiposts, but I'm replying as I'm reading...) so forgive me if I've missed some things, like, up until now, Astrid's Parlour...
in response to said forum... What. The. FRACK!? Women need their own little forum to discuss women and gaming, but adults in general can't get the mature boards to discuss mature gaming? How the hell does that ake sense!? seriously, I may seem to be over reacting, but that's like saying, "oh, you don't need to seperate children and adults in the restaurant, oh, but women can sit over here to dish." It's asinine, it's offensive to the people that think the Mature Forums could be a great asset but are told that mature topics can be discussed in other forums, and I'd think that women would be offended by it, but apparently women created it, so I repeat:
What. The. FRACK!? Mods, what the hell are you smoking? Might I suggest you either put down the bong, or take a few less hits every now and then? also, where the hell do I get some?
Is this an apt sumation?
play "my little sociopath pony" or leave?
Nope.
More like:
If you can't think of a way to discuss mature-topics-in-a-fantasy-world without resorting to real-world examples, explicit descriptions, or illegal activity advocacy, then perhaps you aren't mature enough for the topic.
We are not being told that we cannot discuss mature topics. We are being told that we cannot discuss the mature topics in a secluded forum in which there is no regulation for how immaturely you can discuss them. We're being told that if a topic is too over-the-top for a specific-topic Board, it is too over-the-top for the Boards.
I was an advocate for the Mature Boards because it kept the graphic crap off the Boards I visited. Now we're being told that the rules are simple: Keep the graphic crap off the Boards. If you can't find a way to discuss ****-in-a-fantasy-world without describing your girlfriend's ****, then you don't need to be discussing ****-in-a-fantasy-world.
Down in the D20 modern area,for a short time we were allowed to have post that owuld if they were anywhere else violate the CoC,but we abosed this privlage and lost it.
If you can't think of a way to discuss mature-topics-in-a-fantasy-world without resorting to real-world examples, explicit descriptions, or illegal activity advocacy, then perhaps you aren't mature enough for the topic.
We are not being told that we cannot discuss mature topics. We are being told that we cannot discuss the mature topics in a secluded forum in which there is no regulation for how immaturely you can discuss them. We're being told that if a topic is too over-the-top for a specific-topic Board, it is too over-the-top for the Boards.
These two paragraphs are spot on.
Further, I think those of us who advocate for a "Mature Topics" forum should do our best to demonstrate that there's a need for such a forum -- not because all that stuff should be tucked away, but because there's a lot of good, reasonable, healthy discussions taking place.
WotC has made their decision; while I'm annoyed at the way Mike handled the closure, I honestly don't think the decision was his; or even his boss's. We can beg or complain or kvetch all we want, but those things aren't going to bring back a forum for the discussion of mature topics. The only thing that's ever going to bring that forum back is our demonstrating to WotC that the subject matter is viable, and that it truly can be handled maturely.
*sigh* y'know, this brings fully to the forefront of my mind the real thing that's bothering me about this crap. Wizards wants to appeal to the 12-16 yo range so they're telling people 18 and over who want to touch upon the harsh realities of any world that isn't full of fluffy bunnies and duckies to GTFO. Is this an apt sumation? play "my little sociopath pony" or leave?
Ding! Colour-coded enemies(Tieflings have dark skin, ergo, evil.), lots of level ups, the accusations of "World of Dungeoncraft", it's all pointing towards the "tweenie(man, I hate that term) dollars". It's the same crap as the Michael Bay Transformers movie. "Let's appeal to those pre-teens, while crapping all over their 20/30-something parents who actually gave us our initial success." Note too, that it's those same parents who are providing said "tweens" with their dollars that these companies are aiming for...
*sigh* y'know, this brings fully to the forefront of my mind the real thing that's bothering me about this crap. Wizards wants to appeal to the 12-16 yo range so they're telling people 18 and over who want to touch upon the harsh realities of any world that isn't full of fluffy bunnies and duckies to GTFO. Is this an apt sumation? play "my little sociopath pony" or leave?
Actually, no, they aren't saying this. What they are saying is that you can discuss it, you just can't do so graphically. All uses of you are to the general, not the specific
As for the 12-16 year old range, D&D has *always* been squarely aimed at that age range. Just for some reason, when people get out of that age range, they forget that fact and expect WotC to continue marketing to the age range that they are in.
Actually, no, they aren't saying this. What they are saying is that you can discuss it, you just can't do so graphically. All uses of you are to the general, not the specific
They aren't saying it explicitly, but it's what 4e is all about.
As for the 12-16 year old range, D&D has *always* been squarely aimed at that age range. Just for some reason, when people get out of that age range, they forget that fact and expect WotC to continue marketing to the age range that they are in.
no it hasn't. 1e was created by an adult for his adult friends to sit around and play over beer and pizza, 2e continued that, then wotc got their hands on it and modified it to be marketed at the 12-30 range, then they decided, "hey, most of our money probably comes from the 12-16 yo range, and they'll buy what ever crap we tell them they need, for however much we tell them it costs!" so they decided to kiddyfy it and market at the 12-16 yo range.
oh, and this seemed fitting for WotC:
1e was created by an adult for his adult friends to sit around and play over beer and pizza, 2e continued that, then wotc got their hands on it and modified it to be marketed at the 12-30 range
That's wrong. The game was always advertised on the covers for "Ages 10 and up".
[post=15095288]This post[/post] has the pictures.
Okay, so it's always been marketed to 10+, well, since it started being marketed anyway, I'm pretty sure the three little booklets don't say "Ages 10 and up" on them.
I'm pretty sure they did on the back cover. (It may have been "Ages 12+" though. I'll check when I get home.) I remember because I was a pre-teen when I first wanted them, and those words on it helped me convince my mom that I should be able to get them.
Regardless, the point remains, the game was designed by an adult for adults, with suitability for children, but now WotC is flipping that by designing the game for children with suitability for adults.
Some of the original members of the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Associations were teenagers when D&D was being developed for them. (Rob Kuntz, for example).
The game was designed, as Gygax often liked to quip, for "children of all ages". And it was always marketed to pre-teens because all the original players recognized that's when they all first became interested in fantasy.
This article from Wired has lots of great info. Did you know that D&D's first play-test group included an 11-year old and a 9-year old? (Don Kaye's two kids, who played a warrior and elf, respectively.) His own four-year old daughter selected the name "Dungeons & Dragons"!
Here's a picture of Gygax playing strategy wargames at an early GenCon. These kids look pretty young to me. (Of course, partly, that's because I'm old. :D )
ok, but do you deny that 4e is being dumbed down for young audiences more than previous editions? I'm serious when I say it feels like they're giving us an ultimatum of "Play 'My Little Sociopath Pony' or get out."
You seem to be mixing up what is done on the WotC forums with the game.
WotC has decided, for better or for worse, that the mature forums should not have been, and thus they got rid of them.
4E, on the other hand, has no rules in it decidiong what you can and cannot play in your game. The only thing limiting that is the tolerance of the players/DM around the table. If, in your game, you wish to describe in extreme detail the process by which you torture information out of someone, go for it. If you want to describe, in complete anatomical correctness, the seducing of a guildmistress by the paladin, go for it.
ok, but do you deny that 4e is being dumbed down for young audiences more than previous editions?
Yes. I deny that it is being dumbed down.
Easier does not mean dumbed down.
Simpler does not mean dumbed down.
Modular does not mean dumbed down.
4e seems to be promising to be easier, simpler, and modular.
It does not look like it will be any less intellectually stimulating.
I'm serious when I say it feels like they're giving us an ultimatum of "Play 'My Little Sociopath Pony' or get out."
That sound like a personal problem.
Yes. I deny that it is being dumbed down.
Easier does not mean dumbed down.
Simpler does not mean dumbed down.
Modular does not mean dumbed down.
4e seems to be promising to be easier, simpler, and modular.
It does not look like it will be any less intellectually stimulating.
From the descriptions of the playtests, it appears that 4E places a great deal of importance on the tactical nature of combat. Positioning, working together, good timing, etc. If anything, this will increase the complexity of 4E.
ok, but do you deny that 4e is being dumbed down for young audiences more than previous editions?
Yes. I completely deny it. "Streamlined" is not "dumbed down".
I'm serious when I say it feels like they're giving us an ultimatum of "Play 'My Little Sociopath Pony' or get out."
I believe that you are accurately describing your feelings. I do not believe that your feelings are an accurate reflection of the game.
Yes. I completely deny it. "Streamlined" is not "dumbed down".
What is the old chinese game?? Go I think. Extremely simple to play, yet it has the depth for extremely complicated play. I think that is the ideal that the 4E dev team was aiming for.
Trying to judge, whether by age or some other qualifier, who is or is not capable of discussing a set of subjects 'the right way' is both pointless and discriminatory.
That said, I'd rather see any given set of topics get its own forum that anyone who can be arsed to adapt their registration info to can get into, than see those topics banned altogether.
That said, I'd rather see any given set of topics get its own forum that anyone who can be arsed to adapt their registration info to can get into, than see those topics banned altogether.
"Mature" topics aren't banned. You just have to discuss them in the rest of the forums.
"Mature" topics aren't banned. You just have to discuss them in the rest of the forums.
Really?
Well, then this change has my complete support.