Some threads are moved while others equally and as obviously belonging in a more specific forum remain in the general forum.
Until such time as there are resources to consistantly move EVERY SINGLE off topic thread, the current methodology encourages and rewards those who wish to stifle conversation by requestin the movement of certain threads.
Beyond that, the idea that a thread needs to be removed likely ought to be revisited, as there isn't so great a number of new conversations taht active conversations are being lost. Moving threads confuses new posters and is frustrating to the older participants.
I see this movement being used as a form of moderation, moving topics that might be interesting to some posters but have the potential to be volatile out to the back 40 where they will see little attention and wither and die. I would prefer that moderation address posters at posts that are disruptive and avoid discouraging conversation.
Some threads are moved while others equally and as obviously belonging in a more specific forum remain in the general forum.
What threads should be moved but aren't?
Good luck with that, buddy. You should see what they do to the OTT...
Some threads are moved while others equally and as obviously belonging in a more specific forum remain in the general forum.
What threads should be moved but aren't?
In player forums: (thread content will indecate what's a player to do or ops forum)
Have you took a level in badass?
Going to try to create my own arc
4th Edition Races with No Class
Monks are a Mistery
Modified Classes in Heroes of Feywild 1
DM forums:
Semi-permanent curses in 4E
Awesome Encounters: making more of encounters 4
General Advice
DDI:
Art question
Homebrew:
Far Realm: The Root of All Evil . . . Sort Of
THE limiting factor for divine class balance is what your gods domains are, regardless of balance issues (do you actually play the game? or do you use gobs of houser">Rejected DRAGON article: The Athar 8
This is NOT a request to have a have these threads moved. Topics buried in obscureb subforums dont' see the back and forth that the same topic in general would.
"Modified Classes in Heroes of the Feywild" and "Awesome Encounters" are not appropriate for player forums because they are discussing the Encounters program and the contents of an exsiting release. They aren't asking for player advice.
"Far Realm" is not a homebrew thread. It's a thread trying to consolidate what is known about the Far Realm and hypothesizing what that means about the Far Realm in the Core World. Until there is a specific forum for the Core World, there's no place else to send it. Even if the thread were trying to devise a new version of the Far Realm, it would be sent to Campaign and Adventure Workshop, not Homewbrew.
I agree with you about Athar. That was an oversight on my part. I apologize.
Topics buried in obscureb subforums dont' see the back and forth that the same topic in general would"
Then make a request that we eliminate all other 4e subforums. The point of GD is not to render all subforums obsolete.
As an aside, I have no idea how you thread title relates to the topic. Nothing has been "threadjacked". Threadjackign is when someone posts something off-topic that becomes the main topic of the thread. That's not what's happening. All that's happening is that threads that shouldn't have been posted to 4e GD are getting moved to the forums where they should have been posted in the first place.
Most of those threads have been requested to be moved. Threads only get moved once a week or so, depending on VCL availability.
This is an issue. Unless said cleanup is occurring on a regularly scheduled basis, it creates in inconsistant framework for when materials are moved.
"Modified Classes in Heroes of the Feywild" and "Awesome Encounters" are not appropriate for player forums because they are discussing the Encounters program and the contents of an exsiting release. They aren't asking for player advice.
"Modified Classes in Heroes of the Feywild" is a discussion of which classes received which changes in the book named. "Awesome Encounters" is a request for collaborative DM encounter creation and stats that it like should be in another forum in the initial post.
"Far Realm" is not a homebrew thread. It's a thread trying to consolidate what is known about the Far Realm and hypothesizing what that means about the Far Realm in the Core World. Until there is a specific forum for the Core World, there's no place else to send it. Even if the thread were trying to devise a new version of the Far Realm, it would be sent to Campaign and Adventure Workshop, not Homewbrew.
I would argue that is it is homebrew fluff which is still homebrew. When it passes beyond a summary into supposition, it becomes homebrew material.
I agree with you about Athar. That was an oversight on my part. I apologize.Topics buried in obscureb subforums dont' see the back and forth that the same topic in general would"
Then make a request that we eliminate all other 4e subforums. The point of GD is not to render all subforums obsolete.I've made a bit of noise here, but these forums aren't really worht my time to rail and wail against. I'm more likely to simply vote with my feet.
As an aside, I have no idea how you thread title relates to the topic. Nothing has been "threadjacked". Threadjackign is when someone posts something off-topic that becomes the main topic of the thread. That's not what's happening. All that's happening is that threads that shouldn't have been posted to 4e GD are getting moved to the forums where they should have been posted in the first place.
I apologize for not considering the common usage, i feel that moving a thread is as much or more hijacking it as is changing the content. If you'd like to edit the thread title (or explain to me how if users have access) somthing to the effect of "Thread movment is hijacking conversation and being used as moderation . . ."
This is an issue. Unless said cleanup is occurring on a regularly scheduled basis, it creates in inconsistant framework for when materials are moved.
It is happening on a regular basis: weekly. It isn't happening on an instantaneous basis, which is an unrealistic expectation.
"Modified Classes in Heroes of the Feywild" is a discussion of which classes received which changes in the book named.
Yes, it is. It's still not specific enough to be moved to another forum.
"Awesome Encounters" is a request for collaborative DM encounter creation and stats that it like should be in another forum in the initial post.
Encounters (which is referring to the Wizards program) creation is not the purview of DMs but of the freelancers and writers retained to write the encounters. It's not specific enough to be sent to What's a DM to Do?
"Far Realm" is not a homebrew thread. It's a thread trying to consolidate what is known about the Far Realm and hypothesizing what that means about the Far Realm in the Core World. Until there is a specific forum for the Core World, there's no place else to send it. Even if the thread were trying to devise a new version of the Far Realm, it would be sent to Campaign and Adventure Workshop, not Homewbrew.
I would argue that is it is homebrew fluff which is still homebrew.
That's not what the homebrew forum is for.
If you'd like to edit the thread title (or explain to me how if users have access) somthing to the effect of "Thread movment is hijacking conversation and being used as moderation . . ."
I don't have that capacity. As I said, it was merely an aside.
At any rate, I hope you see now that the process is not "selective" or biased on my approving or disapproving of the content of the post. I request threads to be moved that I enjoy and participate in. I know you see thread moving as a puishment. I don't. I see it as placing it where people who are interested i the topic can see it without having to go to a generalized forum.
If VCLs cannot even be bothered to read the threads that are or aren't being moved to verify what needs to be done, this is truely a lost cause.
This is an issue. Unless said cleanup is occurring on a regularly scheduled basis, it creates in inconsistant framework for when materials are moved.
It is happening on a regular basis: weekly. It isn't happening on an instantaneous basis, which is an unrealistic expectation.
True, but daily isn't an unreasonable expectation. Once per ORC shift probably isn't all that unrealistic, either. Just sayin'.
If VCLs cannot even be bothered to read the threads that are or aren't being moved to verify what needs to be done, this is truely a lost cause.
Welcome to the forums!
This is an issue. Unless said cleanup is occurring on a regularly scheduled basis, it creates in inconsistant framework for when materials are moved.
It is happening on a regular basis: weekly. It isn't happening on an instantaneous basis, which is an unrealistic expectation.
True, but daily isn't an unreasonable expectation. Once per ORC shift probably isn't all that unrealistic, either. Just sayin'
how dare the VCLs have lives outside of the forum
True, but daily isn't an unreasonable expectation. Once per ORC shift probably isn't all that unrealistic, either. Just sayin'
how dare the VCLs have lives outside of the forum
Have you looked at that thread? ORCs are the ones who actually do the moving, all VCLs do is request them to be moved, which, theoretically, could be done almost daily. And most ORCs have no capacity for independent thought, so they won't even bother looking at a move request by a non-VCL.
That said, I misread the statement and thought he had written "ORC availability".
Just to point out...
Going to try to create my own arc
This thread, at the suggestion of myself and a few others who initially posted in the thread in General, was already reposted in the DM forum...
Art question
This thread actually does belong in General - if you actually read the initial post, it's not a question about the DDI character builder at all, but about locating a specific piece of D&D art that also just happens to have been used in the builder as well as the original place it was published...
These things said, i stand my my objections.
If VCLs cannot even be bothered to read the threads that are or aren't being moved to verify what needs to be done, this is truely a lost cause.
Webster (the Senior VCL responsible for all of D&D except for DDI) has a thread in this forum that is open to *anyone* on the forums to post in and make a request in. Wrecan is one of Websters forum guides, which means that Webster trusts Wrecan to read a thread, determine if it is in the right forum, and make the request to move it to the appropriate forum. When Webster gets to the thread, and sees requests by Wrecan, he will (more than likely) skim the thread quickly, and place the request for the ORCs to process.
However that doesn`t mean that only wrecan can make a request in the thread that Webster has started. *Anyone* on the forums can make a request in that thread as it pertains to the D&D fora. If there are threads that you think are in the wrong place, post in that thread, and Webster will consider the request, look at the thread and move it if he thinks it is appropriate.
Why do these threads have to be moved, exactly? Are there really enough of them that it pushes off the "on-topic" threads?
People keep saying "forum reorg! forum reorg!" but that hasn't happened. In all seriousness, why continue to adhere to a system that's already been declared broken?
What would happen if you just didn't move the threads? What cost is there, and what benefit is gained by sticking them in some subforum that gets a post once a week?
True, but daily isn't an unreasonable expectation. Once per ORC shift probably isn't all that unrealistic, either. Just sayin'
how dare the VCLs have lives outside of the forum
Have you looked at that thread? ORCs are the ones who actually do the moving, all VCLs do is request them to be moved, which, theoretically, could be done almost daily. And most ORCs have no capacity for independent thought, so they won't even bother looking at a move request by a non-VCL.
That said, I misread the statement and thought he had written "ORC availability".
ORCs aren't allowed to make the decision regarding moving threads. Only members of the Community team, including VCLs, are permitted to make those decisions. So making such a request of ORCs is asking them to do something they aren't allowed to do. That's actually been the case for quite some time now.
So, if you see something that needs to be moved, or something you think was moved but should not have been moved, you need to post in Webster's thread. You can also try PMing me, Trevor, or Crazy Monkey, but since we work various hours and days that still may result in a delay.
Hope that clears some things up
Dragonette
What would happen if you just didn't move the threads? What cost is there, and what benefit is gained by sticking them in some subforum that gets a post once a week?
How dare you uestion the status quo?!
Have you looked at that thread? ORCs are the ones who actually do the moving, all VCLs do is request them to be moved, which, theoretically, could be done almost daily. And most ORCs have no capacity for independent thought, so they won't even bother looking at a move request by a non-VCL.
That said, I misread the statement and thought he had written "ORC availability".
ORCs aren't allowed to make the decision regarding moving threads. Only members of the Community team, including VCLs, are permitted to make those decisions. So making such a request of ORCs is asking them to do something they aren't allowed to do. That's actually been the case for quite some time now.
That's what I said.
So, if you see something that needs to be moved, or something you think was moved but should not have been moved, you need to post in Webster's thread. You can also try PMing me, Trevor, or Crazy Monkey, but since we work various hours and days that still may result in a delay.
I have posted in Webby's thread. That's how I know they won't move anything unless it's requested by a VCL. WotC's policy says that they want our help policing the forums. WotC's actions seem to say otherwise.
If something like that comes up again, I will definitely PM you or Trevor. Thank you.
Hope that clears some things up
Dragonette
It's clearer now. Thank you.
These things said, i stand my my objections.
If VCLs cannot even be bothered to read the threads that are or aren't being moved to verify what needs to be done, this is truely a lost cause.
Webster (the Senior VCL responsible for all of D&D except for DDI) has a thread in this forum that is open to *anyone* on the forums to post in and make a request in. Wrecan is one of Websters forum guides, which means that Webster trusts Wrecan to read a thread, determine if it is in the right forum, and make the request to move it to the appropriate forum. When Webster gets to the thread, and sees requests by Wrecan, he will (more than likely) skim the thread quickly, and place the request for the ORCs to process.
However that doesn`t mean that only wrecan can make a request in the thread that Webster has started. *Anyone* on the forums can make a request in that thread as it pertains to the D&D fora. If there are threads that you think are in the wrong place, post in that thread, and Webster will consider the request, look at the thread and move it if he thinks it is appropriate.
Electricbee's points still stand. Doing the moving once a weeks creates confusion and a lack of constance. Is a daily moving by the nightshift ORCs (less moderation at night so they have more time do this?) so unreasonable?
The ORCs have *nothing* to do with Editorial policy. That is solely the role of the VCL program.
And this is besides the debate that what trully belongs in 4e General is very vague (the arguing in this threat as evidence) and is affected by WotC's interests (like not talking about 4e and Pathfinder sells in the 4e General forums
It's not unclear. 4E General is the place where you put your thread when there are no other better places to put them.
Why should, for example, Monte Cook's column be in 4e General?
Monte's column is an official column put out by an employee of WotC. It has, as its topic, all of D&D, past, present and future. Thus, I made the decision to have it go in 4E general.
The Merry Christmas thread, it should be in Off-Topic Tavern. Christmas has nothing to do with 4e General.
Have you made a request to have it moved? Wrecan is not the person who makes the final decisions on that. Webster is. Put the request in the thread with an explanation of why you think that it should be moved. If Webster agrees with your decision, he will put in the request. If he doesn't, he will say why he doesn't.
I have a serious, non-rhetorical question, that I aksed in another thread on this subject but it was deleted to make for a nice pristine sticky:
Why do these threads have to be moved, exactly? Are there really enough of them that it pushes off the "on-topic" threads?
People keep saying "forum reorg! forum reorg!" but that hasn't happened. In all seriousness, why continue to adhere to a system that's already been declared broken?
What would happen if you just didn't move the threads? What cost is there, and what benefit is gained by sticking them in some subforum that gets a post once a week?
One of the goals of the VCL program is to ensure that the forums are newbie-friendly. If everything is simply dumped in 4E general, then it becomes *very* difficult to find a given topic, and people are less likely to hang around and become regular members of the forums. By ensuring that topics are in the most appropriate forum, it is much easier for users to find the place where the topic they are interested in is being discussed and jump into the conversation, as opposed to hoping that it is found on the first page or two of 4E General.
I have a serious, non-rhetorical question, that I aksed in another thread on this subject but it was deleted to make for a nice pristine sticky:
Why do these threads have to be moved, exactly? Are there really enough of them that it pushes off the "on-topic" threads?
People keep saying "forum reorg! forum reorg!" but that hasn't happened. In all seriousness, why continue to adhere to a system that's already been declared broken?
What would happen if you just didn't move the threads? What cost is there, and what benefit is gained by sticking them in some subforum that gets a post once a week?
A lot of it is controlling the message. Talking about 5e might scare potential 4e customers away, so 5e discussions are systematically moved (except if it's a L&L thread, cause that is WotC a message). Comparing 4e to Pathfinder is also moved, even if 4e is involved. People shouldn't know Pathfinder books sell better.
Controlling the message is the word.
The 4e forums exist to serve 4E fans playing 4E. It stops being an inviting place to discuss your game when you have to wade through thread after thread of fights over 4E sucking or not.
Electricbee's points still stand. Doing the moving once a weeks creates confusion and a lack of constance. Is a daily moving by the nightshift ORCs (less moderation at night so they have more time do this?) so unreasonable?
No it does not. If you actuality looked at the thread link that I provided you would notice that ORCs generally complete move requests within an hour.
The slowness of moving instead comes from the lag of the VCL passing the request up the chain.
The 4E General Discussion forum is better off without that crap, unless you're somebody who misses the flamewars.
Electricbee's points still stand. Doing the moving once a weeks creates confusion and a lack of constance. Is a daily moving by the nightshift ORCs (less moderation at night so they have more time do this?) so unreasonable?
No it does not. If you actuality looked at the thread link that I provided you would notice that ORCs generally complete move requests within an hour.
The slowness of moving instead comes from the lag of the VCL passing the request up the chain.
*nods* That's exactly it.
Errr what? The number of threads moved each week and people asking why some are moved and others stay would indicate otherwise. 4e General's critirias are very subjective and are not clear. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they were.
Just because some people don't want to bother making a basic attempt to figure out where threads should go, or simply don't care that it isn't the right place and just put it wherever it is convenient doesn't mean that we (the VCL team) shouldn't put it where it should go. That some people don't think that we should be moving the threads also doesn't mean that we will stop. Trevor is the person in charge of the VCL program. If you think that we should stop moving threads, convince him that we should be doing otherwise. (Note, I will be making him aware of this thread in my weekly report as well, whether you contact him or not.)
Monte's column is an official column put out by an employee of WotC. It has, as its topic, all of D&D, past, present and future. Thus, I made the decision to have it go in 4E general.
So the critiria is talking about 4e? It's a great official line, and maybe some believe it, but it is not what is happening in practice. Threads about 4e and 5e belong in 4e General according to this policy. Same for threads talking about 4e and 3.5 (Pathfinder or not). Threads who just talk about 5e should be in Future Releases, since they are talking about DnD, not another RPG.
Nope. 5E threads belong in Other RPG. It does not belong in 4E General, as it is not a thread about 4E general. It does not belong in Future Releases as there has never been any sort of annoucnement about 5E, and that forum (Future Releases) is for discussion of products that have been announced.
As for threads comparing 4E and 3.5E, I will defer to Webster on that. He has more experience dealing with those threads than I do. I am not going to take the chance that anything I say will contradict hiom, which will inevitably lead to the "HA!! TOLD YOU!!" style of posts. I will say that in those that I have seen, I have yet to see one that *doesn't* end up in an edition war, so my general feeling would be to simply close them as soon as they pop up.
I do not care about it being in 4e or in ComBiz or OTT or whatever. I am just saying that the critirias aren't applied systematically and are subjective. This creates confusion and frustrations. Hence this thread. No?
The rules are applied as objectively as they can be applied. When it comes down to it, human beings make the rules, and human beings interpret and apply them. It will be impossible to apply them and *not* have people upset. Either because their thread was moved, or because they don't like the decision that was made because it disagrees with a particular viewpoint that they have.
Overall, there is an extremely, extremely small number of people who may be unhappy about the threads being moved. A number that is much, much smaller than the number of people who would be unhappy if threads weren't moved.
One of the goals of the VCL program is to ensure that the forums are newbie-friendly. If everything is simply dumped in 4E general, then it becomes *very* difficult to find a given topic, and people are less likely to hang around and become regular members of the forums. By ensuring that topics are in the most appropriate forum, it is much easier for users to find the place where the topic they are interested in is being discussed and jump into the conversation, as opposed to hoping that it is found on the first page or two of 4E General.
That's a valid goal. How is it accomplished by directing them to post in subforums nobody reads?
One of the goals of the VCL program is to ensure that the forums are newbie-friendly. If everything is simply dumped in 4E general, then it becomes *very* difficult to find a given topic, and people are less likely to hang around and become regular members of the forums. By ensuring that topics are in the most appropriate forum, it is much easier for users to find the place where the topic they are interested in is being discussed and jump into the conversation, as opposed to hoping that it is found on the first page or two of 4E General.
That's a valid goal. How is it accomplished by directing them to post in subforums nobody reads?
Most people who post in the wrong forum do so not out of a desire to be difficult, but out of a lack of knowledge of the proper way.
When a thread is moved, IIRC, there is an email sent out to the people who have posted in the threads that the thread has been moved and the location of the thread after the move. (note that this was done the last time a thread I posted in was moved. This *may* have changed since then.)
As people see that their threads have been moved to a more appropriate subforum, they will start to become aware of the additional forums and start posting in the right place.
I'm directly challenging you guys as to the wisdom of your policy because quite frankly I don't think it accomplishes what you claim is its goal. We've already established that a reorg is needed. Until that happens, why not be not-quite-so-vigilant with the forum move policy? I mean, there are some cases where it makes sense, sure (there are maybe a half-dozen actually active subforums that are worthy redirects), but if I were to say post an Eberron-specific question in 4e General, would you seriously move it to the Eberron Lore forum, which (for me) has the last thread on the first page last posted in three months ago?
I ask you - try being a little less quick to move threads for say a week. See what happens. And then decide whether the actual result is worth doing something about, rather than just upholding policy because it's the policy.
I don't object to you implementing the policy. I challenge the need for such a policy.
I ask you - try being a little less quick to move threads for say a week.
As discussed in this thread, moves already happen about once a week. Are you saying that we should see what happens if we move threads every other week?
I know what happens, since we tried that a while ago. Half of 4e General threads were edition wars, and the fact that they weren't moved led people to believe that they were just peachy in 4e General and started more of them. We know the result of not moving threads and it's not a good state for the forums to be in.
Perhaps people should get used to checking more than one forum when they come here. Most threads are sent to Other RPGs, and the Player and DM forums. So start frequenting those forums
What are the other threads that are being moved? Again, I'd like demonstrable harm as a justification for the policy, rather than organizational preference. The different subforums have different populations of frequent visitors. That should be respected as much if not more than the heading of the forum. Maybe that's not a distinction new posters will pick up, but if I have to tolerate a few extra threads I don't read in order to have the sense that I can ask a certain group of people a question without it getting shuffled off out of sight, then I'm fine with that.
Edition war threads aren't productive in any forum. They could get locked without much reasonable objection.
Only when they violate the CoC. Some editin war threads can go on for soem time without getting closed down. And a forum full of edition war threads is completely alienating to people who want to actually discuss the game. What ended up happening is that people would turn a thread on any topic to discussions of what 5e should have or what 3e used to do better. Somehow, when the ediitorial decision was made to move threads about 3e and 5e to Other RPGs, that sort of behavior lessened considerably and the 4e General forum was better for it.
Again, I'd like demonstrable harm as a justification for the policy, rather than organizational preference.
So people who are looking for threads on a topic know they can go to the forum for that topic and find those threads. They don't have to check the 4e General Discussion forum for topics when they want to disucss Strikers.
The organizatin preference is born from the demonstravle harm. The harm is that a 4e General Discussion that allows discussions on everything is not conducive to a place that makes it easy for the casual user to find what he's looking for.
Maybe that's not a distinction new posters will pick up, but if I have to tolerate a few extra threads I don't read in order to have the sense that I can ask a certain group of people a question without it getting shuffled off out of sight, then I'm fine with that.
And that may be your "organizational preference", but it's not how the forums were designed, and it's not friendly to newcomers. I'm glad you don't think yourself a newcomer anymore, but this is not supposed to be a place of unwritten cliques who gather in their territories. And if that's what you want this place to be, i will oppose that editorial preference as much as I possibly can because I think it is a terrible way to organize forums.
If you want to "ask a certain group of people a question" than make a private group and invite that certain group into it, or send your question to that certain group and send them a PM. Don't stake out a forum and declare it territory for this "certain group". The forums are organized by topics, not cliques.
As I complained about here a while back, the email blast is unreliable at best. I've had threads I was actively posting in vanish without any idea of where it went. It's been established that there's no in-forum announcement, but there was also no email either.
I will poke WOtC to see if they have done anything to that. I know (anecdotal evidence at best) that every time a thread has been moved that I have posted in, I got an announcement. I know that a while back they were having back-end problems with some automated emails. Perhaps it was around that time?
I'm directly challenging you guys as to the wisdom of your policy because quite frankly I don't think it accomplishes what you claim is its goal. We've already established that a reorg is needed. Until that happens, why not be not-quite-so-vigilant with the forum move policy?
Because if we stop moving threads, or are less vigilant, then people become accustomed to putting their thread wherever it is convenient for them. Then, when the forum re-org happens, it becomes even more difficult to fight the inertia people have gathered up. "I have always posted here, even before the re-org, so why should I change now?"
I mean, there are some cases where it makes sense, sure (there are maybe a half-dozen actually active subforums that are worthy redirects), but if I were to say post an Eberron-specific question in 4e General, would you seriously move it to the Eberron Lore forum, which (for me) has the last thread on the first page last posted in three months ago?
Again, I am not Webster, but yes, yes I would. Eberron threads go in Eberron. SImple as that and very clear.
I ask you - try being a little less quick to move threads for say a week. See what happens.
OK. Whose dislike of the current policy on moving threads is more important? Yours, which can be resolved by only moving every other week, or that of Resurrection Man, above, who wants it done more often, daily at a minimum?
And then decide whether the actual result is worth doing something about, rather than just upholding policy because it's the policy.
The VCLs are very happy with the current ppolicy, as we feel it does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. Currently, your argument that it should be changed can be boiled down to "I don't like it." You have given us no solid argument on the advantages to the forums. In addition, you seem to be arguing that discussion of a topic may be best suited to happening in a forum other than the forum dedicated to it.
Would you be happier if it was anounced in the thread that it was going to be moved, say 24 hours before the move request was submitted?
Threads about 4E and Pathfinder and threads about 5E that weren't massive flamewars did not exist. 4E General Discussion does not need to be the home of the Edition Wars.
Half of 4e General threads were edition wars...
Somehow, when the ediitorial decision was made to move threads about 3e and 5e to Other RPGs, that sort of behavior lessened considerably and the 4e General forum was better for it.
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
And that may be your "organizational preference", but it's not how the forums were designed, and it's not friendly to newcomers. I'm glad you don't think yourself a newcomer anymore, but this is not supposed to be a place of unwritten cliques who gather in their territories. And if that's what you want this place to be, i will oppose that editorial preference as much as I possibly can because I think it is a terrible way to organize forums.
No, it's not my preference, but it is an admission of the reality of the forums. No need to snipe at me backhandedly for being secretly elitist.
You're welcome to join us in the Off-Topic Tavern. We welcome all... except for WotC employees. We just tolerate them because we have no choice.
OK. Whose dislike of the current policy on moving threads is more important? Yours, which can be resolved by only moving every other week, or that of Resurrection Man, above, who wants it done more often, daily at a minimum?
Actually, I was the one who suggested daily. RM supported my position. That means ours is twice as important as Mand's.
The VCLs are very happy with the current ppolicy, as we feel it does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. Currently, your argument that it should be changed can be boiled down to "I don't like it." You have given us no solid argument on the advantages to the forums. In addition, you seem to be arguing that discussion of a topic may be best suited to happening in a forum other than the forum dedicated to it.
How dare you suggest that the VCLs do extra work! Like you said , the VCLs like being lazy the current weekly system. If they can't be bothered to do it daily, why would they bother to do it twice a week? Plus, that doesn't address the fact that there will likely be moves necessitated within that 24-hour period, which means waiting another week to move it, or just upsetting people in that thread because they didn't get the 24-hour notice. One way to do it would be to kepp a stickied thread (like we do in the OTTers group) for "Moderator actions". If you can't find a thread, look there, and there SHOULD be a notice by an ORC letting you know that it's been deleted or moved. And if the latter, where it was moved to.
I get notification when my subscribed threads are updated, when people leave me messages, and when I get friends requests and similar things.
I do agree that the main problem is that forum needs to reorganized. Way too many subforums that no one uses or which go out of date after a few months of use. I think reducing it to about 15 subforums or fewer would be good.
No, it's not my preference, but it is an admission of the reality of the forums. No need to snipe at me backhandedly for being secretly elitist.
I wasn't backhanded, and I didn't say you were secretly elitist. You want to classify the forums based on the "certain group of posters" who frequent it, rather on the topic of the thread, even though you admit it won't be particularly useful for newcomers. And I think that's a terrible way to run a forum.
And the "reality" of the forums has been shaped by the VCL policy that you're complaining about. It's because of the thread moving that you have the "certain group" of people in 4e General who feel comfortable enough with the tenor of the forum to want to be recognized as having some sort of territorial privileges with in. Before the policy was implemented, the tenor was much different. it was the place to go to argue about prior editions. Any other topic would be turned into a cmparison of prior editions. And that attracted an entirely different group of posters.
So changing the editorial policy would not in fact preserve the group of posters that are there. It will change the tenor of the forum, attracting a different group of posters, and probably making the current group feel unwelcome. I believe this because that's been our experience in these forums.
There is nothing magical about 4e GD that attracts the regulars to it. It's the editorial policies that have been put in place that created the atmosphere where such people found a home. And while parts of that same editorial policy may be irksome to them, the cost of the drastic change you advocate -- a return to what we had before -- will not preserve the atmosphere; it will destroy it.
@draco: There is a stickied thread in 4e General Discussion that explains to people where to look if they think their thread has been moved. I think the creation of the thread is what prompted the most recent spate of calls for there to be no editorial policy.
@GelatinousOctohedron: Yes! I agree the forum needs reorganization. Crazy Monkey said they'll revisit it at the beginning of the year. I hope it happens soon.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
"The game" was suposed to mean 4e. The problem was that text was written at the beginning of 4e. The reorg should have beeter description of the forum.
Mand12 also raised an interesting point with his Eberron question. The Eberron forums have very low traffic, almost dead. What are WotC's goals with the forums? Do they want to provide fans with forums where a reasonable amount of discussion about their products will happen or direct discussions into very narrow boxes, because that is where such discussions belong (whether their is traffic to support conversation). It's not like Eberron is flame war material.
The Eberron forums are going to be consolidated into 1 forum. It serves not only as a place to discuss Eberron but a repository of information about Eberron. I just ran an Eberron one-shot on Christmas and I found that searching in the Eberron forums was a great way to get information about Eberron and creative ways to run games in that setting, even though there isn't much traffic.
OK. Whose dislike of the current policy on moving threads is more important? Yours, which can be resolved by only moving every other week, or that of Resurrection Man, above, who wants it done more often, daily at a minimum?
This is my point. Individual preferences aren't a valid method by which we should determine policy. It should be determined by what happens, how the forums are behaving, what impact the policy is having.
My point here is that it's not about what I prefer. What I prefer is completely irrelevant. What I'm hoping to do is to challenge the inertia that is in the VCL program as "well this is the way we do it" to ask you whether after a real, legitimate appraisal of what you're doing if you still think it's the best option.
If the answer is "yes" then I'm fine with that. Really. As long as you've done your homework on it and aren't just saying yes.
Looking at the VCL request thread, you are pretty much the only person who is asking for so many threads to be moved. Maybe misplaced forums do not bother posters that much.
It's what he does as a Forum Guide,he goes thru and finds threads that are out of place and he then request them be put in the right place.
But a lot of stuff that gets put in general should be in forums that still get fairly high traffic like ddi general, whats a player to do, or whats a DM to do.
Again, the main problem isn't that threads get moved. The main problem is too many subforums (I counted earlier and its 128 subforums, with 46 for errata alone) so people either can't figure out where to put a thread or put it in general since they want a response and know people will see it there.
Looking at the VCL request thread, you are pretty much the only person who is asking for so many threads to be moved. Maybe misplaced forums do not bother posters that much.
It's what he does as a Forum Guide,he goes thru and finds threads that are out of place and he then request them be put in the right place.
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
and in some folks eyes WotC's community management irates people more than anything else......
I think threads need to moved as well. I am more bothered by charop forum threads that shouldn't be there since you are often lucky to get a post to stay on the front page for 12 hours.
But a lot of stuff that gets put in general should be in forums that still get fairly high traffic like ddi general, whats a player to do, or whats a DM to do.
Again, the main problem isn't that threads get moved. The main problem is too many subforums (I counted earlier and its 128 subforums, with 46 for errata alone) so people either can't figure out where to put a thread or put it in general since they want a response and know people will see it there.
Thats being worked on the number of subforums...hopefully it will get taken care of in January
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
The VCLs are very happy with the current ppolicy, as we feel it does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. Currently, your argument that it should be changed can be boiled down to "I don't like it." You have given us no solid argument on the advantages to the forums. In addition, you seem to be arguing that discussion of a topic may be best suited to happening in a forum other than the forum dedicated to it.
How dare you suggest that the VCLs do extra work! Like you said , the VCLs like being lazy the current weekly system. If they can't be bothered to do it daily, why would they bother to do it twice a week? Plus, that doesn't address the fact that there will likely be moves necessitated within that 24-hour period, which means waiting another week to move it, or just upsetting people in that thread because they didn't get the 24-hour notice. One way to do it would be to kepp a stickied thread (like we do in the OTTers group) for "Moderator actions". If you can't find a thread, look there, and there SHOULD be a notice by an ORC letting you know that it's been deleted or moved. And if the latter, where it was moved to.
First note. As I have mentioned before, the current system is not "weekly". Usually, it is every day or other day that Webster puts in the requests. It has been that way for the past coupld of years. It is only the last couple of weeks that there have been delays longer than that. Now, chances are *very* good that these delays are due to the holiday season. I can almost guarantee it.
I have never recieved any emails about a thread being moved. I have had one thread of mine moved from 4E general that I remember about 2 months ago and did not receive any notification. I have posted in other threads that were later moved and did not receive notification when those are moved. I don't delete emails from that account and I checked going back a couple months.
I get notification when my subscribed threads are updated, when people leave me messages, and when I get friends requests and similar things.
I will poke WotC to see if a setting got changed in one of the latest updates.
I do agree that the main problem is that forum needs to reorganized. Way too many subforums that no one uses or which go out of date after a few months of use. I think reducing it to about 15 subforums or fewer would be good.
As mentioned in the stickynote up higher in the forum, the forums *are* going to be re-organized in the coming months.
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
Note that if you want to change the editorial policy, there are a number of ways to go about it:
1 - Make a good, well-reasoned argument as to why the new way is better.
2 - Become a VCL and have a more direct input.
3 - Convince Trevor that there should be a new way.
As for whether this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, this is cyclical. About 6 months or so ago, with there having been no change in editorial policy in the intervening time, there were numerous calls that there were too many off-topic threads in GD.
*shrug*
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out. thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
Looking at the VCL request thread, you are pretty much the only person who is asking for so many threads to be moved. Maybe misplaced forums do not bother posters that much.
It's what he does as a Forum Guide,he goes thru and finds threads that are out of place and he then request them be put in the right place.
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
and in some folks eyes WotC's community management irates people more than anything else......
Well, if the shoe fits...
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
I'm not sure that's true. I see out of place threads sometimes that I might otherwise mention in the VCL thread, but usually Wrecan is already on top of it so it's unnecessary. I don't agree with every single thread move, but I do agree that forum organization is important and if you don't enforce that organization then it might as well not exist.
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
As mudbunny said, six months ago, people complained that there were too many off-topic threads in the GD forum. Now people complain about stuff getting moved to more appropriate forums. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Personally, I prefer that people post in the forums for that subject. Otherwise, we should have just one forum and let people who want communities of like-minded posters create groups.
Again, the main problem isn't that threads get moved. The main problem is too many subforums (I counted earlier and its 128 subforums, with 46 for errata alone) so people either can't figure out where to put a thread or put it in general since they want a response and know people will see it there.
I agree. I would like to add the addendum that the problem I have isn't that threads are moved, it's that the system for doing so seems to be arbitrary, clunky, and user-unfriendly.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
"The game" was suposed to mean 4e. The problem was that text was written at the beginning of 4e. The reorg should have beeter description of the forum.
I hope VCLs and WotC staff understand why some people feel frustrated and make mistakes when posting. It is not necessarely laziness, since a lot of stuff isn't clear or up dated.
A valid point which I also address below...
What are WotC's goals when it comes to its forums? Create an environment where fans can discuss DnD products with a certain freedom or restrict conversations to very specific areas without any flexibility?
Haven't we learned the answer to this question in the last 9 months or so?
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
So it's just the unofficial position. Gotcha.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
The VCLs are very happy with the current ppolicy, as we feel it does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. Currently, your argument that it should be changed can be boiled down to "I don't like it." You have given us no solid argument on the advantages to the forums. In addition, you seem to be arguing that discussion of a topic may be best suited to happening in a forum other than the forum dedicated to it.
How dare you suggest that the VCLs do extra work! Like you said , the VCLs like being lazy the current weekly system. If they can't be bothered to do it daily, why would they bother to do it twice a week? Plus, that doesn't address the fact that there will likely be moves necessitated within that 24-hour period, which means waiting another week to move it, or just upsetting people in that thread because they didn't get the 24-hour notice. One way to do it would be to kepp a stickied thread (like we do in the OTTers group) for "Moderator actions". If you can't find a thread, look there, and there SHOULD be a notice by an ORC letting you know that it's been deleted or moved. And if the latter, where it was moved to.
First note. As I have mentioned before, the current system is not "weekly". Usually, it is every day or other day that Webster puts in the requests. It has been that way for the past coupld of years. It is only the last couple of weeks that there have been delays longer than that. Now, chances are *very* good that these delays are due to the holiday season. I can almost guarantee it.
Yet wrecan says that is "weekly". Maybe you guys should bring that up in the VCL-only thread so that you can get your stories straight. This goes back to the OP's entire point of the thread-move "policy" feeling arbitrary. Because from here, it sounds like it is completely arbitrary as to how often it happens.
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
You've been told what the official WotC policy is, and have information other than just what is written in the forum header. According to just what is written in the forum header, 5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out.
That was.. what, four years ago? You guys haven't learned anything new in that time? How's this: decide on a timeframe for thread moves, announce what that timeframe is, and stick to it. There, you just learned something new.
thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
So are most of us; we're not happy with what seems to be an arbitrary, clunky, user-unfriendly system for doing so.
Threads about 4E and Pathfinder and threads about 5E that weren't massive flamewars did not exist. 4E General Discussion does not need to be the home of the Edition Wars.Half of 4e General threads were edition wars...Somehow, when the ediitorial decision was made to move threads about 3e and 5e to Other RPGs, that sort of behavior lessened considerably and the 4e General forum was better for it.
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
So it's just the unofficial position. Gotcha.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
I can't for the life of me figure out the point you're trying to make here.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
I can't for the life of me figure out the point you're trying to make here.
In the Off-Topic Tavern (OTT), they lock and delete threads that (for example) might become political in nature. They also call it a CoC violation, even though politics aren't mentioned anywhere in the CoC. Their excuse reasoning for this is "because politics always starts flamewars". If they have the same excuse knowledge about EdWars, why can't they just lock and/or delete threads/posts that have them? I'd be willing to bet that The Monkey knew exactly what I was talking about, and I'd be very surprised if wrecan and bunny didn't. Is that clearer?
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
I can't for the life of me figure out the point you're trying to make here.
In the Off-Topic Tavern (OTT), they lock and delete threads that (for example) might become political in nature. They also call it a CoC violation, even though politics aren't mentioned anywhere in the CoC. Their excuse reasoning for this is "because politics always starts flamewars". If they have the same excuse knowledge about EdWars, why can't they just lock and/or delete threads/posts that have them? I'd be willing to bet that The Monkey knew exactly what I was talking about, and I'd be very surprised if wrecan and bunny didn't. Is that clearer?
I did not understand what you were writing. I'm still not sure I understand your point. Can you restate it without snark or sarcasm? Because right now I cannot be certain which of the sentences you wrote are meant to be taken ironically and which are meant earnestly. I'm assuming some of your comments make reference to moderator decisions taken in the Off-Topic Tavern, and I really have very little knowledge of the Off-Topic Tavern as I don't frequent it.
Keep in mind I am not an ORC. I am not a VCL. I have no moderation powers. In fact, I have no powers at all, beyond any trust and/or respect I have earned through my actions as a member of the forums. I'm just an active community volunteer. Also keep in mind that the VCL and ORC programs are separate. They don't coordinate editorial policy. I don't coordinate forum policy with either VCLs or ORCs. I am just aware of the design of the forums because I was a member of the forums when they were set up. I make recommendations on the VCL Request Thread. Webster reviews them and he either accepts the recommendations or not. Sometimes he or Crazy Monkey or mudbunny explains -- in public threads -- why certain threads will or will not be moved, and I incorporate those editorial decisions into my own future recommendations.
It seems to me that your use of the word "they" in the above-quote is supposed to signify your belief that the VCLs, ORCs, and me (as forum guide) are all some sort of amorphous interchangeable anonymous corporate entity, and that actions of which you disapprove by the ORCs can be used to impugn the motivatins of the VCLs or of myself. But I could be wrong. As I said, I'm still not entirely certain which or your statements are meant sarcastically, which are meant merely ironically, and which sincerely.
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
So it's just the unofficial position. Gotcha.
I am not sure how you can look at me saying that the official position of WotC is that Edition Wars are not tolerated anywhere on the forums and then turn around and say that it is the unofficial position of WotC. I thought I was being pretty clear, but just in case I wasn't, let me state it clearly:
The official position of WotC, as has been communicated to the VCL team, is that Edition Wars are not to be tolerated on the forums. When they are found, they are to be closed and/or deleted immediately.
... why not use mod action for EdWars?
Ermmm, they are. When ORCs are made aware of an edition war thread by it being reported, they will close it. If there is doubt in the mind of the ORC as to whether it is an Edition war or not, they will close it and let the VCL know that there is a thread that needs reviewing in order to determine whether it should stay closed or be re-opened.
First note. As I have mentioned before, the current system is not "weekly". Usually, it is every day or other day that Webster puts in the requests. It has been that way for the past coupld of years. It is only the last couple of weeks that there have been delays longer than that. Now, chances are *very* good that these delays are due to the holiday season. I can almost guarantee it.
Yet wrecan says that is "weekly". Maybe you guys should bring that up in the VCL-only thread so that you can get your stories straight.
Apparantly tonight is the night where I have to say everything more than once. Been doing it with my daughters all night...
Normally, the turnaround time for Webster taking care of the requests that are put in the VCL request thread is a couple of days. It is only since about the beginning of December that the turnaround time has been longer.
Now this is a silly question, but did any of the posters that are unhappy with the longer delay in the threads being moved bother to ask Webster why there has been a delay? Did you post in the thread saying that you would like the processing times to be a bit shorter?
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
You've been told what the official WotC policy is, and have information other than just what is written in the forum header. According to just what is written in the forum header, 5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Can you point out to me what the official position of WotC is? I really, really hope that you are not going to base your determination of what the official position of WotC is based on a 1 sentence description of a forum. The VCL team was formed by WotC so that they would have people who are intimately familiar with a given set of forums who would assume responsibility for the editorial moderation of those forums. Editorial moderation includes the determination of what is and isn't on topic for a given forum. It appears to me that Webster has made the decision that discussion of 5E is off topic for the Future Releases forum. Webster, due to his role as Senior VCL for the D&D forums, the final say on the matter, barring any direction from Trevor Kidd (the only person on the VCL team senior to Webster).
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out.
That was.. what, four years ago? You guys haven't learned anything new in that time? How's this: decide on a timeframe for thread moves, announce what that timeframe is, and stick to it. There, you just learned something new.thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
So are most of us; we're not happy with what seems to be an arbitrary, clunky, user-unfriendly system for doing so.
This discussion has been going on for 3 days, including Christmas. This is very much mountain-molehill territory right now.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
"The game" was suposed to mean 4e. The problem was that text was written at the beginning of 4e. The reorg should have beeter description of the forum.
I hope VCLs and WotC staff understand why some people feel frustrated and make mistakes when posting. It is not necessarely laziness, since a lot of stuff isn't clear or up dated.... why not use mod action for EdWars?
Ermmm, they are. When ORCs are made aware of an edition war thread by it being reported, they will close it. If there is doubt in the mind of the ORC as to whether it is an Edition war or not, they will close it and let the VCL know that there is a thread that needs reviewing in order to determine whether it should stay closed or be re-opened.Edition war threads aren't productive in any forum. They could get locked without much reasonable objection.
Only when they violate the CoC. Some editin war threads can go on for soem time without getting closed down.
Odd. Once again, you and wrecan seem to be telling us two different things.
Let me attempt to clear this up (and the confusion regarding my earlier posts). Politics are not mentioned in the CoC. Politics are, somehow, still a violation of the CoC, and action is taken to prevent political flamewars, because they always happen*. EdWars are not mentioned in the CoC. According to you and your statement of WotC's official stance, EdWars are a CoC violation, and action is taken to prevent Editional flamewars. Am I reading that correctly?
Wrecan is saying that EdWars only have action taken once the CoC is violated in other, more naughty ways. Who is correct, and why can't anyone give us a clear answer?
*According to Trevor, who I have no reason not to believe, and The Monkey, who... yeah, I'll just leave that alone.
Normally, the turnaround time for Webster taking care of the requests that are put in the VCL request thread is a couple of days. It is only since about the beginning of December that the turnaround time has been longer.
Then there was misunderstanding ony part, and I apologize.
Now this is a silly question, but did any of the posters that are unhappy with the longer delay in the threads being moved bother to ask Webster why there has been a delay? Did you post in the thread saying that you would like the processing times to be a bit shorter?
I haven't even looked at the thread since a week after the one time I posted in it. I found a 4E thread in one of the PE forums and requested that it be moved. A week later, it was still there. If I'm going to be ignored, I'd like to have some control over it, thank you.
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
You've been told what the official WotC policy is, and have information other than just what is written in the forum header. According to just what is written in the forum header, 5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Can you point out to me what the official position of WotC is? I really, really hope that you are not going to base your determination of what the official position of WotC is based on a 1 sentence description of a forum. The VCL team was formed by WotC so that they would have people who are intimately familiar with a given set of forums who would assume responsibility for the editorial moderation of those forums. Editorial moderation includes the determination of what is and isn't on topic for a given forum. It appears to me that Webster has made the decision that discussion of 5E is off topic for the Future Releases forum. Webster, due to his role as Senior VCL for the D&D forums, the final say on the matter, barring any direction from Trevor Kidd (the only person on the VCL team senior to Webster).
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. You only know what the policy is because you're a VCL. Anyone else reading that is going to think that... how did I put it earlier? Oh, yeah
5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Can you honestly tell me differently? That someone with no knowledge of Boards policy isn't going to assume that 5E threads go in a forum that says
Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out.
That was.. what, four years ago? You guys haven't learned anything new in that time? How's this: decide on a timeframe for thread moves, announce what that timeframe is, and stick to it. There, you just learned something new.thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
So are most of us; we're not happy with what seems to be an arbitrary, clunky, user-unfriendly system for doing so.
This discussion has been going on for 3 days, including Christmas. This is very much mountain-molehill territory right now.
[Edited]
This discussion has lasted a few days, you're making something out of nothing. Move along.
By point of clarification, when I wrote that the threads get moved on a weekly basis, I was referring to the current rate of removal, not some median rate of removal. I didn't want to overstate the amount of time it takes to get threads moved so I used the current rate, knowing it was one of the slower periods.
I would also like to extend my apologies to you, sir. I misunderstood what you were saying to mean that a week was normal.
In your rambling and contradictions, I don't know what you want.
Wrecan is saying that EdWars only have action taken once the CoC is violated in other, more naughty ways. Who is correct, and why can't anyone give us a clear answer?
When in doubt, go with what the VCLs say over what I say. I am a Forum Guide, not a VCL. I have no editorial powers. I can only make recommendations, which may or may not be heeded.
In my opinion, the difference between the statements, is that I have a much broader definition of "edition war" than the VCLs do. So, from my persepective, I see conversations that I would define as edition warring, and Webster and others would not call them edition warring.
So from my very subjective perspective, things that I would shut down as edition wars, had I that power (which I do not), do not get shut down until they become actively hostile. From the VCLs' perspective, they only shut down actual edition wars.
Since the moment that a comparison of editions transforms into an "edition war" is a matter of editorial subjectivity, there is no right answer.
I apologize for any confusion I contributed to the thread on this score.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars?
Their excuse reasoning for this is "because politics always starts flamewars". If they have the same excuse knowledge about EdWars, why can't they just lock and/or delete threads/posts that have them?
Do you want Edition Wars or not? You seem to be saying that you don't want Edition Wars, but at the same time you don't want VCLs/ORCs to supress them. 3E/PF vs. 4E threads and 5E threads are invariably Edition Wars threads. Time and experience have proven that these topics cannot exist without igniting an Edition War, on this or any other forum.
In your rambling and contradictions, I don't know what you want.
You're not a native English speaker, are you? I've never said anything other than "lock EdWar threads".
Wrecan is saying that EdWars only have action taken once the CoC is violated in other, more naughty ways. Who is correct, and why can't anyone give us a clear answer?
When in doubt, go with what the VCLs say over what I say. I am a Forum Guide, not a VCL. I have no editorial powers. I can only make recommendations, which may or may not be heeded.
I don't know why I keep forgetting that.
I apologize for any confusion I contributed to the thread on this score.
My apologies for being confused.
On the topic of edition war/previos edition threads: We move all previos edition, future of D&D/5th ed speculation threads, and comparing 4E to other RPGs to the out of 4E general and into RPGs General forum when we catch them. If something borders on these topics we try to leave them in general most of the time. It can be a grey area, but I prefer to leave them lie if it's not obvious and if the conversation isn't causing problems.
We spend more time/attention on 4E because it gets more traffic than the other D&D forums at this point.
We close down those threads that continue to focus on the edition warring. Those have consistently been bad for constructive conversation and tend to lead to passionate yelling and conduct violations.
Now onto the bigger topic of moving threads and having a better process for it - I agree. I think the VCLs and others do a great job of reporting threads that need moving, and the ORCs do a great job of moving those threads. What I want to have is more of an editorial take on it so we're looking at which threads are being requested, why, and then making a decision. I'd like to address this if possible and have some plans to talk over with some others on the back end in the next couple of weeks. I'll keep you updated on how this develops.
I know we've been busy and then a bit absent because of the holidays, but I wanted to pop in.
On the topic of edition war/previos edition threads: We move all previos edition, future of D&D/5th ed speculation threads, and comparing 4E to other RPGs to the out of 4E general and into RPGs General forum when we catch them. If something borders on these topics we try to leave them in general most of the time. It can be a grey area, but I prefer to leave them lie if it's not obvious and if the conversation isn't causing problems.
We spend more time/attention on 4E because it gets more traffic than the other D&D forums at this point.
We close down those threads that continue to focus on the edition warring. Those have consistently been bad for constructive conversation and tend to lead to passionate yelling and conduct violations.
When the forum re-org happens, can we get re-written summations of the forums, as well? That would probably do a good bit to reduce confusion.
Now onto the bigger topic of moving threads and having a better process for it - I agree. I think the VCLs and others do a great job of reporting threads that need moving, and the ORCs do a great job of moving those threads. What I want to have is more of an editorial take on it so we're looking at which threads are being requested, why, and then making a decision. I'd like to address this if possible and have some plans to talk over with some others on the back end in the next couple of weeks. I'll keep you updated on how this develops.
I'd like to reiterate something I said several posts back. At the current time, ORCs will ONLY move threads when requested by VCLs or wrecan. Can you guys talk about this, and see if maybe more user input might be possible?
When the forum re-org happens, can we get re-written summations of the forums, as well? That would probably do a good bit to reduce confusion.
AFAIK, yes, that's included in the re-org.
At the current time, ORCs will ONLY move threads when requested by VCLs or wrecan.
Anybody can request thread moves by posting them to the VCL Request thread. I'm simply the most active requester. The VCL (usually Webster) will then review the requests and if he agrees, will ask the ORCs to take care of it, which they then do. If you look at the last page of the current VCL Request thread, you can see that I'm not the only one making requests.
At the current time, ORCs will ONLY move threads when requested by VCLs or wrecan.
Anybody can request thread moves by posting them to the VCL Request thread. I'm simply the most active requester. The VCL (usually Webster) will then review the requests and if he agrees, will ask the ORCs to take care of it, which they then do. If you look at the last page of the current VCL Request thread, you can see that I'm not the only one making requests.
Which, again, makes me feel like I'm just being ignored. The thread I requested was obviously in the wrong place, and nothing happened for at least a week, at which point I stopped bothering to look. And this was in September or so, not the holidays.
The thread I requested was obviously in the wrong place, and nothing happened for at least a week, at which point I stopped bothering to look. And this was in September or so, not the holidays.
I went back and looked at the request to which you refer. (LINK) I don't think I would have moved the thread. The thread in Previous Editions: Classes and Class Features asks for "recomendations for other feats and a prestiege calss". The bulk of the post is discussing feats; the request for a prestige class seems to be an afterthought. The thread in Previous Editions: Prestige Classes asks for " a good prestiege class for a lawful evil human fighter" and makes no mention of his dilemma with respect to feats. The threads are, as you stated in your request, similar, but not identical. They'r enot even all that similar, except both ask for a prestige class recommendation for his character.
Seems to me that each thread is in the proper forum.
When the VCLs don't accept my recommendations (not an infrequent occurrence) I just shrug and keep making recommendations (though, obviously, not the ones that already got turned down). They never tell me why they didn't accept my recommendations. They don't even tell me that they didn't accept my recommendations. It's not a big deal. People can reasonably disagree on editorial decisions. Don't let it get you down.
By point of clarification, when I wrote that the threads get moved on a weekly basis, I was referring to the current rate of removal, not some median rate of removal. I didn't want to overstate the amount of time it takes to get threads moved so I used the current rate, knowing it was one of the slower periods.
Of which I'll try to get better at. ;)
When the VCLs don't accept my recommendations (not an infrequent occurrence) I just shrug and keep making recommendations (though, obviously, not the ones that already got turned down). They never tell me why they didn't accept my recommendations. They don't even tell me that they didn't accept my recommendations. It's not a big deal. People can reasonably disagree on editorial decisions. Don't let it get you down.
99.99% of the time it's spot on. Then there are other things that happen behind the scenes. One thread was moved, and then moved back by the Community team for some reason. (Thus, I didn't re-request it when a similar thread got a move request.
I do think we have way too many foums. (Thus my suggeston on the forum reorganization thread.) But, do we want to boil everything down to just two forums? One for players and one for DMs. That's all you really "need" in terms of forums. But those would make the forums unweildly. Almost as much as too many.
I do think we have way too many foums. (Thus my suggeston on the forum reorganization thread.) But, do we want to boil everything down to just two forums? One for players and one for DMs. That's all you really "need" in terms of forums. But those would make the forums unweildly. Almost as much as too many.
We already have a forum reorg in progress, but we have no way of knowing when that will happen. Until it does actually happen and the html changes, why not pretend it's already happened, from the perspective of the VCLs? I mean we even have a draft set of changes to go on. Let the forums that are going away anyway die off, and focus threads in places where people will actually read things.
Until it does actually happen and the html changes, why not pretend it's already happened, from the perspective of the VCLs?
We'd still move threads out of General Discussion (or whatever it's called). And almost all the destinations for threads moved out of GD will still be forums after the reorg (if it follows the proposal). Other RPG General, 4e Rules Q&A, Future Releases, What's a DM to Do? and What's a Player to Do? are the most common destinations for moved threads and they will all exist post re-org (though some will get renamed). So I'm not sure "pretending" the reorg has happened would alter anything.
So we have VCLs who ask ORCs to mve threads, Wrecan who ask VCLs to move threads and CM who move them.
Close. Any user can ask a VCL to have a thread moved. I am merely the user who makes most of the requests. The VCLs (Webster, mudbunny, Crazy Monkey, et al.) then re-view the requests and make the editorial decision whether the thread should be moved. They ask the ORCs to move it, which the ORCs do, unless Community Management (i.e., Trevor and his team) overrules them.
In the D&D forums, Webster is the VCL making the editorial decision for moving threads in the D&D section. That preserves consistency in the editorial process. Community Management is simply overseeing Webster (and the other VCLs).
So, yes, it's pretty consistent. OTT has its own separate issues which don't seem to have anything to do with the VCLs. As you can see from the VCL Request thread, almost no threads have ever been requested to be moved out of the Off-Topic Tavern forum. (I'm not familiar with those issues, so I can't speak to them, except to say they have nothing to do with the VCLs.)
In this thread it was said that Web didn't have time to review all your submissions, but trusted your judgement.
mudbunny said that because Webster trusts my judgment, he might "skim my requests quickly". I don't know if that's true. You'd have to ask Webster that. But nobody said Webster approves my requests without reviewing them.
You have more power than you think.
I have earned Webster's trust. It's different than power.
more then one person has a fingure on the move thread button.
Of course. Webster has the primary button, but his supervisors in Community Management have it too... because they oversee him. The VCLs (including Webster) are part of Community Management. You seem to think they are two separate groups.
The VCLs (Webster, mudbunny, Crazy Monkey, et al.)
Just as a point of clarification, I am no longer a VCL. I am a member of the Community Management team under Trevor and a paid employee of Wizards of the Coast.
I realize my old VCL oriented custom title may cause some confusion but we don't currently have the ability to remove those, so I'm stuck with it.
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
The VCLs are very happy with the current ppolicy, as we feel it does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. Currently, your argument that it should be changed can be boiled down to "I don't like it." You have given us no solid argument on the advantages to the forums. In addition, you seem to be arguing that discussion of a topic may be best suited to happening in a forum other than the forum dedicated to it.
How dare you suggest that the VCLs do extra work! Like you said , the VCLs like being lazy the current weekly system. If they can't be bothered to do it daily, why would they bother to do it twice a week? Plus, that doesn't address the fact that there will likely be moves necessitated within that 24-hour period, which means waiting another week to move it, or just upsetting people in that thread because they didn't get the 24-hour notice. One way to do it would be to kepp a stickied thread (like we do in the OTTers group) for "Moderator actions". If you can't find a thread, look there, and there SHOULD be a notice by an ORC letting you know that it's been deleted or moved. And if the latter, where it was moved to.
First note. As I have mentioned before, the current system is not "weekly". Usually, it is every day or other day that Webster puts in the requests. It has been that way for the past coupld of years. It is only the last couple of weeks that there have been delays longer than that. Now, chances are *very* good that these delays are due to the holiday season. I can almost guarantee it.
I have never recieved any emails about a thread being moved. I have had one thread of mine moved from 4E general that I remember about 2 months ago and did not receive any notification. I have posted in other threads that were later moved and did not receive notification when those are moved. I don't delete emails from that account and I checked going back a couple months.
I get notification when my subscribed threads are updated, when people leave me messages, and when I get friends requests and similar things.
I will poke WotC to see if a setting got changed in one of the latest updates.
I do agree that the main problem is that forum needs to reorganized. Way too many subforums that no one uses or which go out of date after a few months of use. I think reducing it to about 15 subforums or fewer would be good.
As mentioned in the stickynote up higher in the forum, the forums *are* going to be re-organized in the coming months.
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
Note that if you want to change the editorial policy, there are a number of ways to go about it:
1 - Make a good, well-reasoned argument as to why the new way is better.
2 - Become a VCL and have a more direct input.
3 - Convince Trevor that there should be a new way.
As for whether this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, this is cyclical. About 6 months or so ago, with there having been no change in editorial policy in the intervening time, there were numerous calls that there were too many off-topic threads in GD.
*shrug*
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out. thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
Looking at the VCL request thread, you are pretty much the only person who is asking for so many threads to be moved. Maybe misplaced forums do not bother posters that much.
It's what he does as a Forum Guide,he goes thru and finds threads that are out of place and he then request them be put in the right place.
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
and in some folks eyes WotC's community management irates people more than anything else......
Well, if the shoe fits...
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
I'm not sure that's true. I see out of place threads sometimes that I might otherwise mention in the VCL thread, but usually Wrecan is already on top of it so it's unnecessary. I don't agree with every single thread move, but I do agree that forum organization is important and if you don't enforce that organization then it might as well not exist.
But is he the solution to a problem no one cares about? It seems to irate people more than anything else.
As mudbunny said, six months ago, people complained that there were too many off-topic threads in the GD forum. Now people complain about stuff getting moved to more appropriate forums. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Personally, I prefer that people post in the forums for that subject. Otherwise, we should have just one forum and let people who want communities of like-minded posters create groups.
Again, the main problem isn't that threads get moved. The main problem is too many subforums (I counted earlier and its 128 subforums, with 46 for errata alone) so people either can't figure out where to put a thread or put it in general since they want a response and know people will see it there.
I agree. I would like to add the addendum that the problem I have isn't that threads are moved, it's that the system for doing so seems to be arbitrary, clunky, and user-unfriendly.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
"The game" was suposed to mean 4e. The problem was that text was written at the beginning of 4e. The reorg should have beeter description of the forum.
I hope VCLs and WotC staff understand why some people feel frustrated and make mistakes when posting. It is not necessarely laziness, since a lot of stuff isn't clear or up dated.
A valid point which I also address below...
What are WotC's goals when it comes to its forums? Create an environment where fans can discuss DnD products with a certain freedom or restrict conversations to very specific areas without any flexibility?
Haven't we learned the answer to this question in the last 9 months or so?
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
So it's just the unofficial position. Gotcha.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
The VCLs are very happy with the current ppolicy, as we feel it does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. Currently, your argument that it should be changed can be boiled down to "I don't like it." You have given us no solid argument on the advantages to the forums. In addition, you seem to be arguing that discussion of a topic may be best suited to happening in a forum other than the forum dedicated to it.
How dare you suggest that the VCLs do extra work! Like you said , the VCLs like being lazy the current weekly system. If they can't be bothered to do it daily, why would they bother to do it twice a week? Plus, that doesn't address the fact that there will likely be moves necessitated within that 24-hour period, which means waiting another week to move it, or just upsetting people in that thread because they didn't get the 24-hour notice. One way to do it would be to kepp a stickied thread (like we do in the OTTers group) for "Moderator actions". If you can't find a thread, look there, and there SHOULD be a notice by an ORC letting you know that it's been deleted or moved. And if the latter, where it was moved to.
First note. As I have mentioned before, the current system is not "weekly". Usually, it is every day or other day that Webster puts in the requests. It has been that way for the past coupld of years. It is only the last couple of weeks that there have been delays longer than that. Now, chances are *very* good that these delays are due to the holiday season. I can almost guarantee it.
Yet wrecan says that is "weekly". Maybe you guys should bring that up in the VCL-only thread so that you can get your stories straight. This goes back to the OP's entire point of the thread-move "policy" feeling arbitrary. Because from here, it sounds like it is completely arbitrary as to how often it happens.
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
You've been told what the official WotC policy is, and have information other than just what is written in the forum header. According to just what is written in the forum header, 5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out.
That was.. what, four years ago? You guys haven't learned anything new in that time? How's this: decide on a timeframe for thread moves, announce what that timeframe is, and stick to it. There, you just learned something new.
thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
So are most of us; we're not happy with what seems to be an arbitrary, clunky, user-unfriendly system for doing so.
Threads about 4E and Pathfinder and threads about 5E that weren't massive flamewars did not exist. 4E General Discussion does not need to be the home of the Edition Wars.Half of 4e General threads were edition wars...Somehow, when the ediitorial decision was made to move threads about 3e and 5e to Other RPGs, that sort of behavior lessened considerably and the 4e General forum was better for it.
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
Am I the only one noticing that the commonality running through these comments is that the Edition Wars are the 4E lovers' fault? According to this last post, Edition Wars are ok, as long as they take place somewhere OTHER than in the forum for the edition that WotC screwed up supports. Is that WotC's official position, or is it just the "un"official position held and perpetuated by its VCLs?
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
So it's just the unofficial position. Gotcha.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
I can't for the life of me figure out the point you're trying to make here.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
I can't for the life of me figure out the point you're trying to make here.
In the Off-Topic Tavern (OTT), they lock and delete threads that (for example) might become political in nature. They also call it a CoC violation, even though politics aren't mentioned anywhere in the CoC. Their excuse reasoning for this is "because politics always starts flamewars". If they have the same excuse knowledge about EdWars, why can't they just lock and/or delete threads/posts that have them? I'd be willing to bet that The Monkey knew exactly what I was talking about, and I'd be very surprised if wrecan and bunny didn't. Is that clearer?
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars? People might learn. And if they don't, they deserve to be warned and banned. Even if they do have the "Favored of the ORCs" template.
I can't for the life of me figure out the point you're trying to make here.
In the Off-Topic Tavern (OTT), they lock and delete threads that (for example) might become political in nature. They also call it a CoC violation, even though politics aren't mentioned anywhere in the CoC. Their excuse reasoning for this is "because politics always starts flamewars". If they have the same excuse knowledge about EdWars, why can't they just lock and/or delete threads/posts that have them? I'd be willing to bet that The Monkey knew exactly what I was talking about, and I'd be very surprised if wrecan and bunny didn't. Is that clearer?
I did not understand what you were writing. I'm still not sure I understand your point. Can you restate it without snark or sarcasm? Because right now I cannot be certain which of the sentences you wrote are meant to be taken ironically and which are meant earnestly. I'm assuming some of your comments make reference to moderator decisions taken in the Off-Topic Tavern, and I really have very little knowledge of the Off-Topic Tavern as I don't frequent it.
Keep in mind I am not an ORC. I am not a VCL. I have no moderation powers. In fact, I have no powers at all, beyond any trust and/or respect I have earned through my actions as a member of the forums. I'm just an active community volunteer. Also keep in mind that the VCL and ORC programs are separate. They don't coordinate editorial policy. I don't coordinate forum policy with either VCLs or ORCs. I am just aware of the design of the forums because I was a member of the forums when they were set up. I make recommendations on the VCL Request Thread. Webster reviews them and he either accepts the recommendations or not. Sometimes he or Crazy Monkey or mudbunny explains -- in public threads -- why certain threads will or will not be moved, and I incorporate those editorial decisions into my own future recommendations.
It seems to me that your use of the word "they" in the above-quote is supposed to signify your belief that the VCLs, ORCs, and me (as forum guide) are all some sort of amorphous interchangeable anonymous corporate entity, and that actions of which you disapprove by the ORCs can be used to impugn the motivatins of the VCLs or of myself. But I could be wrong. As I said, I'm still not entirely certain which or your statements are meant sarcastically, which are meant merely ironically, and which sincerely.
The official position on Edition Wars is that having them on the forums, in any shape or form, is damaging to the D&D community as a whole. Furthermore, they perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and gross exaggerations of whatever edition is being talked about, be it BECMI, 3.X or 4E. Edition war threads do nothing but increase the hostility in the forums and make it an undesireable place for people to come and post.
It is very possible to dicsuss and compare 4E without it turning into a flamewar. Well, it is possible on other forums at least. On these forums, it seems to be much more difficult.
So it's just the unofficial position. Gotcha.
I am not sure how you can look at me saying that the official position of WotC is that Edition Wars are not tolerated anywhere on the forums and then turn around and say that it is the unofficial position of WotC. I thought I was being pretty clear, but just in case I wasn't, let me state it clearly:
The official position of WotC, as has been communicated to the VCL team, is that Edition Wars are not to be tolerated on the forums. When they are found, they are to be closed and/or deleted immediately.
... why not use mod action for EdWars?
Ermmm, they are. When ORCs are made aware of an edition war thread by it being reported, they will close it. If there is doubt in the mind of the ORC as to whether it is an Edition war or not, they will close it and let the VCL know that there is a thread that needs reviewing in order to determine whether it should stay closed or be re-opened.
First note. As I have mentioned before, the current system is not "weekly". Usually, it is every day or other day that Webster puts in the requests. It has been that way for the past coupld of years. It is only the last couple of weeks that there have been delays longer than that. Now, chances are *very* good that these delays are due to the holiday season. I can almost guarantee it.
Yet wrecan says that is "weekly". Maybe you guys should bring that up in the VCL-only thread so that you can get your stories straight.
Apparantly tonight is the night where I have to say everything more than once. Been doing it with my daughters all night...
Normally, the turnaround time for Webster taking care of the requests that are put in the VCL request thread is a couple of days. It is only since about the beginning of December that the turnaround time has been longer.
Now this is a silly question, but did any of the posters that are unhappy with the longer delay in the threads being moved bother to ask Webster why there has been a delay? Did you post in the thread saying that you would like the processing times to be a bit shorter?
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
You've been told what the official WotC policy is, and have information other than just what is written in the forum header. According to just what is written in the forum header, 5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Can you point out to me what the official position of WotC is? I really, really hope that you are not going to base your determination of what the official position of WotC is based on a 1 sentence description of a forum. The VCL team was formed by WotC so that they would have people who are intimately familiar with a given set of forums who would assume responsibility for the editorial moderation of those forums. Editorial moderation includes the determination of what is and isn't on topic for a given forum. It appears to me that Webster has made the decision that discussion of 5E is off topic for the Future Releases forum. Webster, due to his role as Senior VCL for the D&D forums, the final say on the matter, barring any direction from Trevor Kidd (the only person on the VCL team senior to Webster).
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out.
That was.. what, four years ago? You guys haven't learned anything new in that time? How's this: decide on a timeframe for thread moves, announce what that timeframe is, and stick to it. There, you just learned something new.thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
So are most of us; we're not happy with what seems to be an arbitrary, clunky, user-unfriendly system for doing so.
This discussion has been going on for 3 days, including Christmas. This is very much mountain-molehill territory right now.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
"The game" was suposed to mean 4e. The problem was that text was written at the beginning of 4e. The reorg should have beeter description of the forum.
I hope VCLs and WotC staff understand why some people feel frustrated and make mistakes when posting. It is not necessarely laziness, since a lot of stuff isn't clear or up dated.... why not use mod action for EdWars?
Ermmm, they are. When ORCs are made aware of an edition war thread by it being reported, they will close it. If there is doubt in the mind of the ORC as to whether it is an Edition war or not, they will close it and let the VCL know that there is a thread that needs reviewing in order to determine whether it should stay closed or be re-opened.Edition war threads aren't productive in any forum. They could get locked without much reasonable objection.
Only when they violate the CoC. Some editin war threads can go on for soem time without getting closed down.
Odd. Once again, you and wrecan seem to be telling us two different things.
Let me attempt to clear this up (and the confusion regarding my earlier posts). Politics are not mentioned in the CoC. Politics are, somehow, still a violation of the CoC, and action is taken to prevent political flamewars, because they always happen*. EdWars are not mentioned in the CoC. According to you and your statement of WotC's official stance, EdWars are a CoC violation, and action is taken to prevent Editional flamewars. Am I reading that correctly?
Wrecan is saying that EdWars only have action taken once the CoC is violated in other, more naughty ways. Who is correct, and why can't anyone give us a clear answer?
*According to Trevor, who I have no reason not to believe, and The Monkey, who... yeah, I'll just leave that alone.
Normally, the turnaround time for Webster taking care of the requests that are put in the VCL request thread is a couple of days. It is only since about the beginning of December that the turnaround time has been longer.
Then there was misunderstanding ony part, and I apologize.
Now this is a silly question, but did any of the posters that are unhappy with the longer delay in the threads being moved bother to ask Webster why there has been a delay? Did you post in the thread saying that you would like the processing times to be a bit shorter?
I haven't even looked at the thread since a week after the one time I posted in it. I found a 4E thread in one of the PE forums and requested that it be moved. A week later, it was still there. If I'm going to be ignored, I'd like to have some control over it, thank you.
Correct me if I am wrong, but under Future Releases it is written this:Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Sounds like it is the perfect place to discuss announced products, wish list products and speculate about DnD, like 5e.
*My* reading of it (and again. Webster is the one in charge of that section, not me, so do not take what I am saying to be gospel) is that the Future Releases forum is for announced and teased releases for 4E products. Speculation on other things should not be there. However, I can also see the argument that it could also be expanded to hoped-for releases for 4E. The next edition of D&D would still not fall in there and would go elsewhere.
You've been told what the official WotC policy is, and have information other than just what is written in the forum header. According to just what is written in the forum header, 5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Can you point out to me what the official position of WotC is? I really, really hope that you are not going to base your determination of what the official position of WotC is based on a 1 sentence description of a forum. The VCL team was formed by WotC so that they would have people who are intimately familiar with a given set of forums who would assume responsibility for the editorial moderation of those forums. Editorial moderation includes the determination of what is and isn't on topic for a given forum. It appears to me that Webster has made the decision that discussion of 5E is off topic for the Future Releases forum. Webster, due to his role as Senior VCL for the D&D forums, the final say on the matter, barring any direction from Trevor Kidd (the only person on the VCL team senior to Webster).
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. You only know what the policy is because you're a VCL. Anyone else reading that is going to think that... how did I put it earlier? Oh, yeah
5E conversation is not only allowed, but encouraged, in the "Future Releases" forum.
Can you honestly tell me differently? That someone with no knowledge of Boards policy isn't going to assume that 5E threads go in a forum that says
Want to speculate about what's next in Dungeons & Dragons? Here's the place to discuss teasers and preview and your hopes for the future of the game.
Note that we are not dismissing your concerns. It is just that we have gone through this discussion internally amongst the VCLs when the VCL program came out.
That was.. what, four years ago? You guys haven't learned anything new in that time? How's this: decide on a timeframe for thread moves, announce what that timeframe is, and stick to it. There, you just learned something new.thus most of the arguments that people are putting forward now for the change have been already argued and brought forward previously. For the current set of forums, *I* am happy with the editorial policy of moving threads to the proper forum.
So are most of us; we're not happy with what seems to be an arbitrary, clunky, user-unfriendly system for doing so.
This discussion has been going on for 3 days, including Christmas. This is very much mountain-molehill territory right now.
[Edited]
This discussion has lasted a few days, you're making something out of nothing. Move along.
By point of clarification, when I wrote that the threads get moved on a weekly basis, I was referring to the current rate of removal, not some median rate of removal. I didn't want to overstate the amount of time it takes to get threads moved so I used the current rate, knowing it was one of the slower periods.
I would also like to extend my apologies to you, sir. I misunderstood what you were saying to mean that a week was normal.
In your rambling and contradictions, I don't know what you want.
Wrecan is saying that EdWars only have action taken once the CoC is violated in other, more naughty ways. Who is correct, and why can't anyone give us a clear answer?
When in doubt, go with what the VCLs say over what I say. I am a Forum Guide, not a VCL. I have no editorial powers. I can only make recommendations, which may or may not be heeded.
In my opinion, the difference between the statements, is that I have a much broader definition of "edition war" than the VCLs do. So, from my persepective, I see conversations that I would define as edition warring, and Webster and others would not call them edition warring.
So from my very subjective perspective, things that I would shut down as edition wars, had I that power (which I do not), do not get shut down until they become actively hostile. From the VCLs' perspective, they only shut down actual edition wars.
Since the moment that a comparison of editions transforms into an "edition war" is a matter of editorial subjectivity, there is no right answer.
I apologize for any confusion I contributed to the thread on this score.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
If it's ok to delete and/or lock threads in the OTT for no good reason, why not use mod action for EdWars?
Their excuse reasoning for this is "because politics always starts flamewars". If they have the same excuse knowledge about EdWars, why can't they just lock and/or delete threads/posts that have them?
Do you want Edition Wars or not? You seem to be saying that you don't want Edition Wars, but at the same time you don't want VCLs/ORCs to supress them. 3E/PF vs. 4E threads and 5E threads are invariably Edition Wars threads. Time and experience have proven that these topics cannot exist without igniting an Edition War, on this or any other forum.
In your rambling and contradictions, I don't know what you want.
You're not a native English speaker, are you? I've never said anything other than "lock EdWar threads".
Wrecan is saying that EdWars only have action taken once the CoC is violated in other, more naughty ways. Who is correct, and why can't anyone give us a clear answer?
When in doubt, go with what the VCLs say over what I say. I am a Forum Guide, not a VCL. I have no editorial powers. I can only make recommendations, which may or may not be heeded.
I don't know why I keep forgetting that.
I apologize for any confusion I contributed to the thread on this score.
My apologies for being confused.
On the topic of edition war/previos edition threads: We move all previos edition, future of D&D/5th ed speculation threads, and comparing 4E to other RPGs to the out of 4E general and into RPGs General forum when we catch them. If something borders on these topics we try to leave them in general most of the time. It can be a grey area, but I prefer to leave them lie if it's not obvious and if the conversation isn't causing problems.
We spend more time/attention on 4E because it gets more traffic than the other D&D forums at this point.
We close down those threads that continue to focus on the edition warring. Those have consistently been bad for constructive conversation and tend to lead to passionate yelling and conduct violations.
Now onto the bigger topic of moving threads and having a better process for it - I agree. I think the VCLs and others do a great job of reporting threads that need moving, and the ORCs do a great job of moving those threads. What I want to have is more of an editorial take on it so we're looking at which threads are being requested, why, and then making a decision. I'd like to address this if possible and have some plans to talk over with some others on the back end in the next couple of weeks. I'll keep you updated on how this develops.
I know we've been busy and then a bit absent because of the holidays, but I wanted to pop in.
On the topic of edition war/previos edition threads: We move all previos edition, future of D&D/5th ed speculation threads, and comparing 4E to other RPGs to the out of 4E general and into RPGs General forum when we catch them. If something borders on these topics we try to leave them in general most of the time. It can be a grey area, but I prefer to leave them lie if it's not obvious and if the conversation isn't causing problems.
We spend more time/attention on 4E because it gets more traffic than the other D&D forums at this point.
We close down those threads that continue to focus on the edition warring. Those have consistently been bad for constructive conversation and tend to lead to passionate yelling and conduct violations.
When the forum re-org happens, can we get re-written summations of the forums, as well? That would probably do a good bit to reduce confusion.
Now onto the bigger topic of moving threads and having a better process for it - I agree. I think the VCLs and others do a great job of reporting threads that need moving, and the ORCs do a great job of moving those threads. What I want to have is more of an editorial take on it so we're looking at which threads are being requested, why, and then making a decision. I'd like to address this if possible and have some plans to talk over with some others on the back end in the next couple of weeks. I'll keep you updated on how this develops.
I'd like to reiterate something I said several posts back. At the current time, ORCs will ONLY move threads when requested by VCLs or wrecan. Can you guys talk about this, and see if maybe more user input might be possible?
When the forum re-org happens, can we get re-written summations of the forums, as well? That would probably do a good bit to reduce confusion.
AFAIK, yes, that's included in the re-org.
At the current time, ORCs will ONLY move threads when requested by VCLs or wrecan.
Anybody can request thread moves by posting them to the VCL Request thread. I'm simply the most active requester. The VCL (usually Webster) will then review the requests and if he agrees, will ask the ORCs to take care of it, which they then do. If you look at the last page of the current VCL Request thread, you can see that I'm not the only one making requests.
At the current time, ORCs will ONLY move threads when requested by VCLs or wrecan.
Anybody can request thread moves by posting them to the VCL Request thread. I'm simply the most active requester. The VCL (usually Webster) will then review the requests and if he agrees, will ask the ORCs to take care of it, which they then do. If you look at the last page of the current VCL Request thread, you can see that I'm not the only one making requests.
Which, again, makes me feel like I'm just being ignored. The thread I requested was obviously in the wrong place, and nothing happened for at least a week, at which point I stopped bothering to look. And this was in September or so, not the holidays.
The thread I requested was obviously in the wrong place, and nothing happened for at least a week, at which point I stopped bothering to look. And this was in September or so, not the holidays.
I went back and looked at the request to which you refer. (LINK) I don't think I would have moved the thread. The thread in Previous Editions: Classes and Class Features asks for "recomendations for other feats and a prestiege calss". The bulk of the post is discussing feats; the request for a prestige class seems to be an afterthought. The thread in Previous Editions: Prestige Classes asks for " a good prestiege class for a lawful evil human fighter" and makes no mention of his dilemma with respect to feats. The threads are, as you stated in your request, similar, but not identical. They'r enot even all that similar, except both ask for a prestige class recommendation for his character.
Seems to me that each thread is in the proper forum.
When the VCLs don't accept my recommendations (not an infrequent occurrence) I just shrug and keep making recommendations (though, obviously, not the ones that already got turned down). They never tell me why they didn't accept my recommendations. They don't even tell me that they didn't accept my recommendations. It's not a big deal. People can reasonably disagree on editorial decisions. Don't let it get you down.
By point of clarification, when I wrote that the threads get moved on a weekly basis, I was referring to the current rate of removal, not some median rate of removal. I didn't want to overstate the amount of time it takes to get threads moved so I used the current rate, knowing it was one of the slower periods.
Of which I'll try to get better at. ;)
When the VCLs don't accept my recommendations (not an infrequent occurrence) I just shrug and keep making recommendations (though, obviously, not the ones that already got turned down). They never tell me why they didn't accept my recommendations. They don't even tell me that they didn't accept my recommendations. It's not a big deal. People can reasonably disagree on editorial decisions. Don't let it get you down.
99.99% of the time it's spot on. Then there are other things that happen behind the scenes. One thread was moved, and then moved back by the Community team for some reason. (Thus, I didn't re-request it when a similar thread got a move request.
I do think we have way too many foums. (Thus my suggeston on the forum reorganization thread.) But, do we want to boil everything down to just two forums? One for players and one for DMs. That's all you really "need" in terms of forums. But those would make the forums unweildly. Almost as much as too many.
I do think we have way too many foums. (Thus my suggeston on the forum reorganization thread.) But, do we want to boil everything down to just two forums? One for players and one for DMs. That's all you really "need" in terms of forums. But those would make the forums unweildly. Almost as much as too many.
We already have a forum reorg in progress, but we have no way of knowing when that will happen. Until it does actually happen and the html changes, why not pretend it's already happened, from the perspective of the VCLs? I mean we even have a draft set of changes to go on. Let the forums that are going away anyway die off, and focus threads in places where people will actually read things.
Until it does actually happen and the html changes, why not pretend it's already happened, from the perspective of the VCLs?
We'd still move threads out of General Discussion (or whatever it's called). And almost all the destinations for threads moved out of GD will still be forums after the reorg (if it follows the proposal). Other RPG General, 4e Rules Q&A, Future Releases, What's a DM to Do? and What's a Player to Do? are the most common destinations for moved threads and they will all exist post re-org (though some will get renamed). So I'm not sure "pretending" the reorg has happened would alter anything.
So we have VCLs who ask ORCs to mve threads, Wrecan who ask VCLs to move threads and CM who move them.
Close. Any user can ask a VCL to have a thread moved. I am merely the user who makes most of the requests. The VCLs (Webster, mudbunny, Crazy Monkey, et al.) then re-view the requests and make the editorial decision whether the thread should be moved. They ask the ORCs to move it, which the ORCs do, unless Community Management (i.e., Trevor and his team) overrules them.
In the D&D forums, Webster is the VCL making the editorial decision for moving threads in the D&D section. That preserves consistency in the editorial process. Community Management is simply overseeing Webster (and the other VCLs).
So, yes, it's pretty consistent. OTT has its own separate issues which don't seem to have anything to do with the VCLs. As you can see from the VCL Request thread, almost no threads have ever been requested to be moved out of the Off-Topic Tavern forum. (I'm not familiar with those issues, so I can't speak to them, except to say they have nothing to do with the VCLs.)
In this thread it was said that Web didn't have time to review all your submissions, but trusted your judgement.
mudbunny said that because Webster trusts my judgment, he might "skim my requests quickly". I don't know if that's true. You'd have to ask Webster that. But nobody said Webster approves my requests without reviewing them.
You have more power than you think.
I have earned Webster's trust. It's different than power.
more then one person has a fingure on the move thread button.
Of course. Webster has the primary button, but his supervisors in Community Management have it too... because they oversee him. The VCLs (including Webster) are part of Community Management. You seem to think they are two separate groups.
The VCLs (Webster, mudbunny, Crazy Monkey, et al.)
Just as a point of clarification, I am no longer a VCL. I am a member of the Community Management team under Trevor and a paid employee of Wizards of the Coast.
I realize my old VCL oriented custom title may cause some confusion but we don't currently have the ability to remove those, so I'm stuck with it.