Some days I feel like this place is settling down a bit and reasonable discussions are more frequent and long-lasting. But it really doesn't help that some people are really belligerent and will bring all their issues with this game or that into every thread. We're talking about games here, folks, so we shouldn't have stupid wars or sides or teams.
Alas, some people here cannot stop themselves from making absurd statements that are really just caricatures of actual positions. The "4e makes my organs bleed" crowd and the "No reasonable person finds any joy in 3e" crowd need to chill out or go away. Those of us who are more moderate can help them achieve this destiny. When someone who vaguely agrees with you says something dumb that makes your point of view seem ridiculous, SAY SOMETHING. Don't just argue with people who like a different edition. When someone puts something out there that misrepresents your perspective, correct it. Do so in a calm, polite, CoC-compliant way, of course.
Really though, when people you basically disagree with see you telling some extremist that he needs to chill out, good things will happen. People you think won't listen to reason might actually start agreeing with you. Why? Because they will see that you are not an extremist and that agreeing with you doesn't mean surrendering their own point of view and spitting on what they enjoy. And maybe the extremists will start to understand that they are making things bad here and embarrassing everyone who remotely shares their perspectives.
Thanks for enduring my rant if you made it this far. Have a cookie!
-emw
However, I would still travel around the world and beat the crap out of some Posters given the chance.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Here's a thought for those who are unhappy with the state of the 4e forums. If someone "on your side" is being a jerk or an idiot, report the post or, if it's not report-worthy, ask him politely to tone things down.
Good call, Emwasick. Have to say though, no matter what anyone's side, I report-the-hell-out-of everyone if I think the post is offensive.
I'm a strong proponent of reporting - and often. I honestly think everything would go a bit smoother around here if there wasn't the strange "I don't want to be a tattle-tale" attitude with a lot of the posters around here.
From now on, everyone will be required to use Prozac while reading and posting on the board, to keep them from becoming upset or overly emotionally invested.
I'm a strong proponent of reporting - and often.
Agreed.
People should get to know as many like-minded community members as they can and work with them to bring a calm, friendly demeanor to the boards (especially with regard to trolls) whenever possible.
But the OP is also correct that the idea of bringing calmness and civility to the forums means pointing out to your online friends when they are going over the line, either in threads or by PM.
Placing the wellbeing of the forums before all else is a good first step.
Well, since they know where we live now,
Oh, wow. You mean they have the information on where all these bastards live?? WOW. That means a Jay & Silent Bob Beatdown is actually FEASIBLE!
On Topic: I especially like the detail about PMing your friends to get them to calm down. A person who usually agrees with my ideas sent me one when I was going crazy, and it not only helps you get some perspective, it also doesn't "publicly" embarrass you.
EDIT: I also have been reporting people a lot more lately, and the Wizzos are totally on top of things.
Again, even with reporting, and I report a great deal, it ain't in our hands.
I had a pretty good day with reports so far. It kept me busy for a bit, but some threads really got cleaned up. I obviously don't know if my reports in particular did the trick, but I can definitely say that moderation was happening in a big way earlier. Some days are less awesome than others, of course.
My real point though was not about reporting. Consider this scenario. Poster A posts a non-stupid negative criticism of 4e. Poster B responds with, "Yeah right 3e was way worse and if you still play that you're a chump!" Right there things can go two ways: (1) the hardcore anti-4e trolls and the anti-leaning moderates blast that person, resulting in a similarly extreme response from the pro-4e trolls and the pro-leaning moderates OR (2) someone who is clearly pro-4e calmly explains why Poster B is wrong, reducing the need for an extreme knee-jerk reaction from the other "side".
In scenario (2), Poster B is out there on his own being a jerk. People who disagree with him don't feel like their backs are against the wall in a hostile forum. They know that the majority viewpoint isn't thoughtless acceptance of the new mixed with empty-headed bashing of the old. The anti-4e trolls will still spout out the same old lines, but that's a task for the Orcs. Or maybe (I haven't seen a lot of this, alas) some people on the anti- end of the spectrum will make it clear that they trolls are making them all look like jerks.
And Vaal, I've noticed the same passive-aggressive sort of thing that you frequently point out. Sometimes seemingly moderate folks go around patting the trolls on the head and acting like said trolls are some sort of brave crusaders for progressive thought. This really needs to stop- the trolls get their daily affirmation and those of us who like 4e are left feeling like the other end of the spectrum supports trolling. I doubt that's the case and I hope people realize that they can separate themselves from this kind of person without joining WotC's android army.
However, on these boards I've been severally flamed, called sexist, and accused of thinking that those that think 4th isn't perfect as subhuman. That isn't good debating.
All these where reported and deleted. Most of those that did that stopped. One didn't until the IP ban.
Generally I think if more people would read [post=15679705]How to be a Responsible forum member[/post], by mudbunny and adopt better posting and reporting habits the negativity would be reduced.
Good call, Emwasick. Have to say though, no matter what anyone's side, I report-the-hell-out-of everyone if I think the post is offensive.
I'm a strong proponent of reporting - and often. I honestly think everything would go a bit smoother around here if there wasn't the strange "I don't want to be a tattle-tale" attitude with a lot of the posters around here.
Exactly. A little order is a good thing and the Orcs/Wizos cannot be everywhere. It is up to the posters to alert them when there may be a problem.
Agreed.
People should get to know as many like-minded community members as they can and work with them to bring a calm, friendly demeanor to the boards (especially with regard to trolls) whenever possible.
Aren't you promoting the formation of the behind the scenes communication that the trolls like to accuse people of having
;) Actually I agree that it is a great idea, I just wonder how many people actually feel like they know others on the boards.
Aren't you promoting the formation of the behind the scenes communication that the trolls like to accuse people of having
Yes! The Conspiracy of Kindness (don't make that an acronym! :embarrass ) wants to dehydrate all Trolls, everywhere. ;)
Seriously though, there's at least two (maybe three) such PM conspiracies active on the FR Forums that I know of and they do good work.
This is because they’ve opened up private side channels of communication that has allowed FR Forum members with opposing views to open up and be frank with each other about their feelings regarding the FR Forums, without the attendant flame war eruption that would result if such were done in public.
This has also allowed like-minded people to group together and work together to keep things calm.
This has fostered a greater degree of understanding (as much as one can have online, at any rate) between forum members and been a contributing factor IMO to things calming on the Realms forums.
Customer Service has finally gone insane.
If you ask me, reporting people who are engaging you in a discussion, no matter how rude they may be, is pathetic, small-minded and abusive. The report function is and should be reserved for actual violators. You know, the people who intentionally break it as opposed to those with bad tempers who sometimes snap. I've seen it a lot here lately: Some members of this forum have been turned into sheltered, manipulative teenagers. In fact, many of them actually post with a tangible sense of entitlement. I've seen many posts to the effect of "I'm just gonna go ahead and have your post deleted," and I wonder why these wannabe moderators aren't banned instead for abusing the function. Their posts are deleted because technically, they count as baiting, but that seems to be the end of it because they don't stop doing it.
What I'd like to see is a more severe response to the people who report. That is, if someone frequently reports posts that don't really cross the line (and sometimes moderation just needs to butt the hell out, but that is another discussion), they should be warned and eventually banned.
If anyone decides to report this post: Thank you for validating my point.
You can actually report people and have them banned for not liking them.
If you ask me, reporting people who are engaging you in a discussion, no matter how rude they may be, is pathetic, small-minded and abusive.
I disagree. I'm glad to see CS is finally addressing civility on the boards. Good for them. IMO, the post you quoted in your screenshot (which you should really remove) is violative of the CoC:
[indent][Do not] Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community.[/indent]
Excessive incivility is designed to elicit a negative response from the community and it benefits nobody. This is a very good sign, imo.
Agreed.
People should get to know as many like-minded community members as they can and work with them to bring a calm, friendly demeanor to the boards (especially with regard to trolls) whenever possible.
The only PM I have gotten since joinging this board was from someone a few weeks ago thanking me for ignoring a flamewar and responding on topic to the original question asked by the poster. After reading that message I went back and posted another on topic response that again ignored the bickering and tried to help out the original poster.
I disagree. I'm glad to see CS is finally addressing civility on the boards. Good for them.
Actually, they've way overstepped their bounds when they do that. Civility is a matter of respect between two people. Silencing one party because they have a bombastic speech pattern is not only arrogant, it's just plain immoral.
IMO, the post you quoted in your screenshot (which you should really remove) is violative of the CoC:
[indent][Do not] Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community.[/indent]
This isn't a matter of opinion. The post is a far cry from against the CoC, and Customer Service should own up to their mistake. They're not infallible, but they sure sound like they think they are with the signals they're sending.
Civility is a matter of respect between two people. Silencing one party because they have a bombastic speech pattern is not only arrogant, it's just plain immoral.
A bombastic speech pattern is a form of incivility. People can control the words they type. If they can't or won't tone down their bombast, then CS is absolutely right to step in and punish it as a violation of the section of the CoC I quoted.
The post is a far cry from against the CoC, and Customer Service should own up to their mistake.
I disagree. I believe it was a violation of the CoC, just one they had previously been lax in enforcing.
they sure sound like they think they are with the signals they're sending.
Perhaps you only think they sound like they are sending signals that they think they are infallible. ;)
As for pudgeheap, he should definitely be given a reason for his ban, though I note he received that message some time before June, which was over four months ago, and before CS began to become more aggressive.
(Though I wonder how someone who received a temp ban notice to expire on June 4, 2008 could have a Join Date of September 2008.)
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
A bombastic speech pattern is a form of incivility.
There's probably about 20 people in the whole world who can't tolerate bombast. Are you going to lead me to believe that this entire population is working in Gleemax's customer service department, minus you, who is a VCL?
People can control the words they type. If they can't or won't tone down their bombast, then CS is absolutely right to step in and punish it as a violation of the section of the CoC I quoted.
Customer Service would be absolutely right in enforcing the CoC. When an agent steps outside that boundary, that agent is a hypocrite and has shown himself incapable of holding a position of authority, and thus should be fired but not before being made issue an apology to the person he slighted. They haven't done that so I have every right to be angry with them.
I disagree. I believe it was a violation of the CoC, just one they had previously been lax in enforcing.
So basically, you think that disagreement between two posters is grounds for a warning? To which poster? Did I call heads?
Perhaps you only think they sound like they are sending signals that they think they are infallible. ;)
No, it's a pretty clear signal. It's actually so typical for a customer service department to act like this. I'd probably have to aim a gun to their head and squeeze the trigger half way before they'd own up to their mistakes.
Are you going to lead me to believe that this entire population is working in Gleemax's customer service department, minus you, who is a VCL?
Wrecan is not a VCL. He'd have a VCL custom title if he were.
Customer Service would be absolutely right in enforcing the CoC.
That is what they are doing. What you or I or any believes might or might not be a violation of the CoC matters little. CS goes through training, after that training they are able to make decision on whether something someone reports is or is not a violation of the CoC. Now if a member feels they were wrongly warned, etc.. they can appeal it through the proper channels. The boards are not a place to discuss disciplinary action of a member.
That's a WizO (a WotC employee). What about Customer Service representatives? They sit at their desks and make extensive use of macros.
Actually the WizO's (Orcs now, but always WizO's to me) are Customer Service representatives. They are the first Tier of Customer Service. They deal with the reported posts and hand out warnings. I doubt they are the ones that you deal with if you call. I do not know what else that entails either (except moderating the Magic Online chat and similar) However since the complaint is against those that interpret the CoC and whether or not something is a violation this is the Tier of Customer service that the complaint is about.
I believe they also are the first to see the call tickets that are generated from the customer service system I provided earlier, but I do not know for sure.
Actually, I'm only a total ass to people that decide they have some inborn right to be cruel, overly sarcastic and spiteful, or utterly arrogant.
In summary, I'm only a bully to other bullies
This also does not help reduce the hostility of the forums. It is simpler to ignore or report them. As soon as another member starts on the negativity there is little chance that the discussion will get back on track and a greater chance of going into a flamewar and/or needing moderation.. It ends up derailing a thread which is a disservice to the original poster.
While you may think it is justified, it doesn't help. This is why mudbunny has interjected in the D&Di forums.
No. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm criticising them for getting upset about text on a screen. That is not the same thing as "caring" about it. Obviously I care about this debate on some level because I'm engaging in it, but does that affect me negatively in any way? Nope. I'm fine. Now if I were to take things to heart and get upset over the debate, would that affect me negatively? Yes. Do I have any reason to get upset? No. So I'm not doing it.
If you don't care, why criticise? If them being upset about words on a screen doesn't bother you, why even bring it up?
You're ignoring the point.
Which is?
Irrelevant. Answer the question, please.
It's perfectly relevant. If the type of question in question is never asked, why should I answer your query? In fact, the question posed to me would be irrelevant.
And the people lacking self-control are exactly whom you are fighting to protect.
Nope. I feel that if you are concerned with the debate at hand you should be able to control yourself enough not to toss out inflammatory - and absolutely unnecessary - remarks. That's the loss of self-control that starts the war. Not the loss of self-control in response to those inflammatory comments.
Incidentally, you're calling my position dumb an awful lot for someone who thinks we're not supposed to be doing that.
And how much, exactly, has my criticism added to this conversation? ;)
You can, however, choose to dwell upon it and be angry and upset over the fact that I punched you in the face,
And 99% of humanity will be angry and upset. Hence, the 99% Rule.
Right. Ok, sure.
Cause and effect would imply defending yourself and making sure it doesn't happen again. Anger doesn't solve anything. It just clouds your brain and buries your sanity for as long as you remain angry. Anything you do after getting punched is your own responsibility.
The 99% of humanity that reacts to any given stimuli with the exact same or somewhat similar response. They are protecting those of us who believe being talked down to is insulting, and utterly needless.
No, it's a decided minority that can't handle having their arguments criticized. It is, in fact, a minority of intellectual inferiors, and I state this in no uncertain terms. They should not be catered to by drowning out the reasonable people who actually can handle it. It's their problem and their flaw, and so they should be the ones to drown.
Just making a point. And see above. I think 99% of people would agree that it is not my problem if you punch me in the face, it is your problem for punching me in the face to begin with. You didn't HAVE to do that, but for some reason, you did. Now the Law becomes your problem as well (in this comparison, the CoC).
That is not a proper analysis. It's my "problem" for punching you in the face. My "problem" ends there. Your reaction is your own problem. No matter how many people react angrily, as long as there is the potential for a different reaction, then it is not a universal law that people always react angrily. And guess what, people can always choose to not get angry. There is no "99% Rule" and there never was.
If you don't care, why criticise? If them being upset about words on a screen doesn't bother you, why even bring it up?
Again, caring about something is not the same thing as being upset about it.
Which is?
You are criticising "adding extra" as being unnecessary. Making jokes is "adding extra". Throwing in all these winking faces like you're doing now is "adding extra". Why is making jokes and winking faces OK but what I'm doing is not?
It's perfectly relevant. If the type of question in question is never asked, why should I answer your query?
Because it's hypothetical and it illustrates a point. Plenty of people make arguments that, while certainly not as gibberingly, drivellingly stupid as the "applies in the sky" proposal, are still pretty damn silly.
That's the loss of self-control that starts the war. Not the loss of self-control in response to those inflammatory comments.
See below.
And how much, exactly, has my criticism added to this conversation? ;)
Nothing. But you'll notice it hasn't caused any problems either, because I'm not getting bothered about it and the discussion is still progressing smoothly.
See how that works?
But I'm not. The people who read the way I've written my post and decide to disrupt the discussion to vent their anger are contributing to a worse atmosphere. If they didn't do that, the discussion would remain on track and everything would be just peachy.
At this point you're responding to one sentence and ignoring my argument. I'll repeat myself: You can make it easier or harder to stay civil. This is a lot like the idea that a driver can make it easier or harder for other drivers to hit his car.
"But Wight! If you would make your points differently then they wouldn't become angry in the first place!" Yeah, maybe they wouldn't. Or maybe they still would. Some people get angry just over being disagreed with. Some people get angry if you talk to them in a clinical and detached way, even if no actual attacks are made, because they can't handle it if someone doesn't throw in some feel-good nonsense every five seconds. Some people get angry if someone is too nice.
Part of the social contract here is the idea that we're all going to do our reasonable best to maintain an atmosphere that promotes worthwhile conversation. The fact that some people have emotional problems doesn't really connect to that. We all know what reasonable people respond to well or poorly. That doesn't mean we have to be robots- it just means we should edit out the parts of our posts that are likely to lower the discourse. Reasonable people don't flip out when you are polite. They don't require hand-holding and they don't start throwing insults around for nothing. People tend to be less reasonable online, but that still doesn't excuse going out of your way to provoke.
Let me try this another way. If you're at a meeting and you say to a coworker, "That's a stupid plan and here's why..." you have just made it much harder to convince him of your plan. Unless he's really weird, that will get his back up and make him resist your ideas. It will also leave him looking for opportunities to make a fool out of you in return.
Like right now. What if I told you that the way you're writing makes me angry? What if I broke down and started hurling personal insults at you for it? Is that your fault? Do you take responsibility for that happening? Of course not. You didn't know I was going to do that. It was entirely my own decision, and *I*, nobody else, am the one responsible for allowing it to happen.
This is why we have mods. CS determines whether a given response is reasonable. If someone gets angry because of reasonable things people say, that's his problem. The standard here is not, "Could anyone possibly be defended, perhaps due to psychosis?" Avoid offending normal, reasonable people and the discussion here will improve.
Cause and effect would imply defending yourself and making sure it doesn't happen again. Anger doesn't solve anything. It just clouds your brain and buries your sanity for as long as you remain angry.
And? People WILL still get angry and frustrated and take things personally. You certainly cannot change that.
No, it's a decided minority that can't handle having their arguments criticized. It is, in fact, a minority of intellectual inferiors, and I state this in no uncertain terms. They should not be catered to by drowning out the reasonable people who actually can handle it. It's their problem and their flaw, and so they should be the ones to drown.
You're not "criticizing their argument," you're criticizing their worth as a human being by being derogatory in your response, thereby inferring you are being derogatory to them. Also, the inability to respect people despite their flaws does not make you correct.
That is not a proper analysis. It's my "problem" for punching you in the face. My "problem" ends there. Your reaction is your own problem. No matter how many people react angrily, as long as there is the potential for a different reaction, then it is not a universal law that people always react angrily. And guess what, people can always choose to not get angry.
Hence why it's 99%, not 100%.
You are criticising "adding extra" as being unnecessary. Making jokes is "adding extra". Throwing in all these winking faces like you're doing now is "adding extra". Why is making jokes and winking faces OK but what I'm doing is not?
Our additions are a positive personal preference. Your is a negative personal preference.
And? People WILL still get angry and frustrated and take things personally. You certainly cannot change that.
And again (and again and again), it's their problem. I think smilies are obnoxious, irrelevant and stupid. They plain **** me off. By your logic (because you have no right to draw lines wherever you want; you take the good with the bad and that's final), smilies should be banned. Your argument is hypocritical at best.
You're not "criticizing their argument," you're criticizing their worth as a human being by being derogatory in your response, thereby inferring you are being derogatory to them. Also, the inability to respect people despite their flaws does not make you correct.
Irrelevant. A criticism of their argument is a criticism of their argument. If they see it differently, that's also their fault.
Hence why it's 99%, not 100%.
No, it's wishful thinking on your part. You have no proof that it's a majority they're protecting, and no proof that even such a person exists on these forums.
And again (and again and again), it's their problem. I think smilies are obnoxious, irrelevant and stupid. They plain **** me off. By your logic (because you have no right to draw lines wherever you want; you take the good with the bad and that's final), smilies should be banned. Your argument is hypocritical at best.
Irrelevant. A criticism of their argument is a criticism of their argument. If they see it differently, that's also their fault.
No, it's wishful thinking on your part. You have no proof that it's a majority they're protecting, and no proof that even such a person exists on these forums.
I don't need PROOF. That's idiocy! To your entire argument: the CoC is designed to protect the people who react as we all expect people to react, NOT YOU. Your entire argument simply shows that you do not react like most people, so you can either deal with that, or go somewhere else! The CoC will not be changing any time soon, and most of the people here are happy with it! If you continue to be hostile, you will be reported. If you continue to disrespect others simply because you believe their opinions are worth less than yours, you will be reported. The CoC defends against these actions, and most of us like it that way, else you would certainly see more than 2 people arguing against it.
Have a nice day.
The fact that some people have emotional problems doesn't really connect to that.
BUT IT DOES. That's the whole crux of the issue. If you decide to get angry and throw insults at someone because you didn't like the way they typed, that is an emotional problem. People shouldn't do that.
People tend to be less reasonable online, but that still doesn't excuse going out of your way to provoke.
As we've already established, though, I am doing no such thing. It is not my intention to cause someone to break down in a fit of rage when I word things a little drily.
Let me try this another way. If you're at a meeting and you say to a coworker, "That's a stupid plan and here's why..." you have just made it much harder to convince him of your plan. Unless he's really weird
Or capable of looking at people's arguments objectively.
I don't need PROOF. That's idiocy!
Actually, yeah, you do. If 99% of people do not react the way you're suggesting (and all my experiences suggest that they do not) then your argument doesn't work, does it?
BUT IT DOES. That's the whole crux of the issue. If you decide to get angry and throw insults at someone because you didn't like the way they typed, that is an emotional problem. People shouldn't do that.
...in your opinion.
As we've already established, though, I am doing no such thing. It is not my intention to cause someone to break down in a fit of rage when I word things a little drily.
And most people won't and if they get angry and attacks you, report them; if they report you, I'm sure the ORCs will simply ignore it if it's not that bad.
Or capable of looking at people's arguments objectively.
Once again, derogatory comments make anything hard to look at objectively. PEOPLE TAKE THINGS PERSONALLY. They always have, and they always will, and just because YOU don't doesn't mean most of US don't.
I don't need PROOF. That's idiocy!
The two statements contradict each other so wondrously. It's like watching an Escher drawing, except without the twisted perspective and impossible features.
Wait.
The rest of your post: Nothing of value was lost in the scribing of this post.
You are criticising "adding extra" as being unnecessary. Making jokes is "adding extra". Throwing in all these winking faces like you're doing now is "adding extra". Why is making jokes and winking faces OK but what I'm doing is not?
Actually that is covered by the CoC as well.
Do not disrupt chat, forums, blog comments or other communication channels. For example:
Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)
But that is not the subject of the thread, the discussion is on how to reduce the hostility of the forums.
Aggressive arguing (attacking the argument), is one of the factors that lead to the hostility in the forums. The fact that it leads to derailment is just another reason to ask that it not be done not the sole reason.
Now if over the years this type of statement(s) is found to lead to a negative response then the WizOs will start warning people for making it. For example they've made temporary bans on discussions about Katanas, Alignments, and DMPCs. Subjects that should not start flamewars or cause a negative response, however as the discussions went back and forth they did. So they became against the CoC for a while, anyone starting a discussion would have it closed and possibly get a warning.
However it should not come to the point where the WizO's need to step in. Members can regulate themselves, but they choose not to. They choose to continue with statements like "Your argument is stupid" and they choose to get upset by it. That is the way it will always be and everytime someone "attacks" back means the statement is just that much closer to being considered baiting.
Let's take for example the statement" I'm putting you on my ignore list", which is still being considered baiting (I reported one the other day and it was deleted). You would think that this is an innocent enough statement, and it is the fault of the person that gets upset by it, however it is a case where the WizO's disagree. It is another unnecessary statement (if you're putting them on your ignore then why state it, you won't read their response).
That's the real point. Even the more abrasive among us will, I hope, agree that trolls are bad and that generally negative and divided forums make trolls harder to spot. We can help to fix this.
Define "trolls". Are we talking about people who spam and insult and generally talk nonsense? Because they aren't nearly as difficult to spot as you're making them out to be.
No it wouldn't be your fault...but you should feel bad about it. Unless you have screwed up logic.
So it's not my fault, but I should feel bad about it.
You're talking to me about screwed up logic? What you just said is exactly that. It makes no sense AT ALL.
(3) If people are more civil and perhaps remind like-minded folks to be more civil, there will be less general bad behavior.
There is a .5 or an "AND" to this. That being:" If a piece of text does upset a person, they should take a deep breath or come back to it later and respond with a cool head."
These both need to happen in conjunction. It is not an either, or.