I might as well make a thread for this- If anyone has any questions as to some of my actions, feel free to ask here.
You did the right thing locking the thread.
At first I was the only one halfway agreeing with Hellmute by saying that missed deadlines are bad. Then he was the only one disagreeing with one of my points. Sounds like baiting to me.
We would all do well to take a page from your book of posting habits.
The same concept could be brought up again, without the obvious baiting, and perhaps be a constructive conversation.
PS: Don't lock threads just because they say bad things about 4e. One of the mods said that it was okay to do that as long as you don't insult the players of the game.
I think that about covers it.
Of course, you did the right thing because people are too stupid to read the subject of the discussion. (notice the actions taken and the creation of this thread due to them is eliciting a negative response as was known by this very threads creator, ergo this thread's purpose is baiting.)
What do all the delays mean to you? <- discuss.
Instead of course you would prefer to make personal attacks on the thread creator, and then have some VCL enforce those attacks as correct, by locking a thread with valid content rather than remove the troll posts from many of the people.
And the title isn't "Delays a serious problem for WotC", it's "4th edition the downfall of WotC/D&D?" clearly taking a swipe at 4e- especially since the first post doesn't even mention 4e D&D game system.
Why would you need to mention the game system, when the subject is the delays?
Have you never seen anything delayed to the extent it was canceled due to delays?
You read into the thread what you wanted, rahter than the actual discussion content, and so did others.
My prediction was clear in the title.
4th edition is showing something about the future of both WotC and D&D. It is not my fault anyone is too blind to see that posibility.
But yeah, each person in this thread and that one however that likes 4th is within rights to cann any other person directly a troll and not violate the CoC.
The thread HAD discussion value until some people came in and destroyed it.
I will be more than happy to identify them, but that would violate the CoC.
So enjoy the incompetence in moderation. I would PM Solice about it, but even though she says too, I doubt it would resolve anything, and no need to clog her PM box.
1- Did the title of the thread have a catchy title to draw attention to it?
Yes.
2- Did the subject have a valid discussion point?
Yes.
3- Did the thread contain information on that point to provide specifics to discuss as well as the overall premise?
Yes.
4- Was the thread creator the only one on the entire forums that feels that the delays are a sign of something hidden that want to know reasons for?
No.
Why? Because I created it AFTER reading a thread about Martial Power book being delayed, and then researched where other things were/have been delayed.
If you cannot understand the point of a thread, then ask and give time to actual get an answer from the one who started it.
Since the first post indicates a knowledge that the thread is baiting (going for negative responses,) I'm having it closed.
No, that is the intention you misread into it where it was to head the crap off at the pass because of your personal bias.
Anything said could elicit a negative response from at least one other person, therefore ANY post made on the forums is baiting.
4- Was the thread creator the only one on the entire forums that feels that the delays are a sign of something hidden that want to know reasons for?
Yes.
So... you've polled all 21,641 active members* and asked them their opinion on the matter, and the 21,640 that aren't you all answered the same way? Very interesting...
I'll be kind and use the "active member" number rather than the total member number of 371,087.
So... you've polled all 21,641 active members* and asked them their opinion on the matter, and the 21,640 that aren't you all answered the same way? Very interesting...
I'll be kind and use the "active member" number rather than the total member number of 371,087.
I made all the "Yes" prior to putting the questions in, and changed it after reading it on the full screen to "No" that I was not the only one that had a problem with the delays.
The purpose of the thread itself was to see what others thought about all the delays in one centralized location, and to see how it affects them (active members as you note) in regards to playing 4th, and their opinions of WotC and D&D, and their futures.
Polls are a violation of the CoC, even though the software for the forums allow them in some places to be created by anyone. So the thread was for discussion, not just something like:
Q: Do the dealys bother you?
User_Bob: No
User_Fred: Yes
User_Steve: No
That would be a poll and not a discussion as the thread started out as.
Armisael started discussing, until the slander edit added.
Novacat also started discussing.
Leichenreiter started the war in the thread ,and was followed after by quite a few others, as noted by the post (#8) itself.
Last edited by WizO_Chaos : Yesterday at 09:36 PM. Reason: Flaming and baiting are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Until that point there was civil discussion, with the exception of the first comment edit mention above by Armisael.
So was the thread itself a problem, or those other posts that come in attacking the author of the thread?
After post #23 and the tone of the thread being changed by Nyarlathotep again, the entire thread went downhill.
Does that mean EVERY poster previously in the thread was at fault, or those posts that come in trying to start something outside of the discussion were the problem?
EDIT:
Also note Webster's own baiting and misunderstanding of the purpose of the thread after people had come back on topic for the purpose TO derail the thread to personal attacks and start a flamewar.
It's doubtful. Like it or not, 4e is here. WotC is still here.
Show anywhere in the first post, where I made an opinion. In the post, not the title, as that was for drawing attention to the post itself.
Of course, you did the right thing because people are too stupid to read the subject of the discussion.
Note: Emphasis added.
This type of tone is unnecessary, and should not be tolerated on these forums.
The thread HAD discussion value until some people came in and destroyed it.
The thread was inflammatory from the title alone. If the thread were to have been written with a different tone - including the title itself - it would have been a different matter.
Discussing X is fine.
Discussing X in a manner commonly accepted as baiting, is not.
So enjoy the incompetence in moderation. I would PM Solice about it, but even though she says too, I doubt it would resolve anything, and no need to clog her PM box because of people unable to read and comprehend a thread.
If you are unwilling to go through proper channels for complaints, then please, accept that without action things will remain the same.
For those that could NOT find the sibject to discuss even though it was pointed out, and the flamewars type crap asked up front to be left out, and did so anyway, I would suggest taking the time to learn to actuall read something, and how to respond to it.
I would like to note: Baiting, and then saying "but don't flame me," is still baiting.
Additionally: Baiting, and then saying "but I'm not Baiting," is still baiting.
1- Did the title of the thread have a catchy title to draw attention to it?
Yes.
2- Did the subject have a valid discussion point?
Yes.
The thread title alone was enough to characterize the thread as baiting. The same subject matter could be discussed in a far more reasonable manner within a thread that was more reasonably titled.
Anything said could elicit a negative response from at least one other person, therefore ANY post made on the forums is baiting.
But some comments are intended to draw such responses - or are so inflammatory that they will be reasonably foreseen to draw such responses. We should not be allowing either type of comment to be bandied about.
Show anywhere in the first post, where I made an opinion. In the post, not the title, as that was for drawing attention to the post itself.
Note: Emphasis added.
As discussed in my prior post, "Shock Value" titles should not somehow be considered outside of the CoC. The title is very much a part of the OP, and is part of what guides the whole of the discussion.
Edit: What Vaal said, actually. "Sensationalism" was the term I was looking for.
1- Did the title of the thread have a catchy title to draw attention to it?
Yes.
Have you put your *itchforks away yet?
Shall I start then? You in the back put down the torch! NOW!
So you posted a thread title that you knew would upset people in order to draw attention to the thread?
How is that different from an inflammatory statement designed to elicit a negative response?
The CoC doesn't say it's okay to post inflammatory statements as long you are doing for a reason other than getting people mad.
Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example:
* Use hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
* Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
* Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
Find the thread on residuum specific gravity and volumes I titled "Money Money Money"
I would be the person ending up with a son named Sue, because I suck at naming things.
Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members
Back at you.
I accept I suck at naming things, you have to as well!
You want good names, go talk to Tolkien!
EDIT: And yes the games I run have a lot of Bob's, Fred's and Steve's in them and there is little complaint about it.
You just end up with many of them like:
Fighter Bob
Cleric Bob
Town Drunk Bob
Silent Bob
Mayor Bob
etc.
Why would you need to mention the game system, when the subject is the delays?
The title of the thread did not indicate nor match the subject of the post. The first post contained no support to the idea that 4e is the end of WotC/D&D.
It didn't even mention 4e at all. If the subject was delays, then there's no need to take a swipe at 4e by claiming it's going to end D&D.
It's like saying "Anyone who likes vanilla ice cream is boring" in the title, but the subject of the thread is the best way to make an apple pie. The subject of the title had nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
The title itself was baiting, and this is supported by the first couple of lines admitting that it was KNOWN to be a baiting statement.
I mentioned the game system because the title did, and in a rather hostile manner. I'm going to be working to clean up the hostility of the boards.
I accept I suck at naming things, you have to as well!
No, we don't. Not when your poor thread-naming skills stray into baiting. Thus sayeth the CoC.
Agreed. Thread was unnecessary, and obviously baiting as it was laid out.
The same concept could be brought up again, without the obvious baiting, and perhaps be a constructive conversation.
This is how I see it as well.
After post #23 and the tone of the thread being changed by Nyarlathotep again, the entire thread went downhill.
Do you deny that you wish 4e to fail?
If you do not deny it, then their post was an accurate portrayal of your mindset, that you wishfully think that the delays mentioned in the OP are the start of the downfall of D&D and WotC, and as such are not a "change" in tone, since they are simply a statement of what you think.
No, we don't. Not when your poor thread-naming skills stray into baiting. Thus sayeth the CoC.
So you are allowed to be and act in a prejudice manner and that does not violate the CoC?
Do you deny that you wish 4e to fail?
If you do not deny it, then their post was an accurate portrayal of your mindset, that you wishfully think that the delays mentioned in the OP are the start of the downfall of D&D and WotC, and as such are not a "change" in tone, since they are simply a statement of what you think.
I hope WotC will fail, but that was not mentioned in the thread itself. What was mentioned was exact points where there were delays, and then asking what those delays mean to people.
Some people decided to come into that thread and turn it into some kind of war, and because those people did so the thread was locked, and people accusing me of baiting, while others in the thread carried on the proper discussion, even comparing the delays to other software outlets.
A gimmick title is no different that the constant use of "it is cool" for over 6 months when WotC was talking about 4th, or the 3dventure webpage. Those were also gimmicks. Were they in some form baiting the internet or just using a marketing tool to sell something to people?
You people (those who started some war) turned the thread into something that it was not for your own reasons while the thread had actual valid discussion value.
The actions of those people are NOT my fault. Note I did not even get back to the thread to respond after that first replier noted he had missed point 6 to address his reply to the thread prior to its locking. So I cannot be at fault for any of it.
Want to start some fight with me here bring it, but think you will gang up on me as other users and as WotC itself you have another think coming.
I am not one to be walked over. Got it!
I hope WotC will fail, but that was not mentioned in the thread itself.
Then, Webs & CS were correct in their assessment. Without a way to prove intent, every moderation decision relies on arbitrary judgement of a person's intent, or on the effect caused by the questionable post regardless of intent. There is no other way to do it. They were reasonably certain you were being disruptive, and wouldn't you know, what followed and what you just said reinforced their position.
What was mentioned was exact points where there were delays, and then asking what those delays mean to people.
Your exact points were not facts. Half of them were false statements.
Some people decided to come into that thread and turn it into some kind of war, and because those people did so the thread was locked, and people accusing me of baiting, while others in the thread carried on the proper discussion, even comparing the delays to other software outlets.
A gimmick title is no different that the constant use of "it is cool" for over 6 months when WotC was talking about 4th, or the 3dventure webpage. Those were also gimmicks. Were they in some form baiting the internet or just using a marketing tool to sell something to people?
You use provocative titles at your own risk. "it's cool", while annoying, is not on the same level as yet another 4e bashing and WotC bashing title in the current volatile context of these boards.
You people (those who started some war) turned the thread into something that it was not for your own reasons while the thread had actual valid discussion value.
This is not the issue. The thread may have had some merit, but the way you introduced it practically ensured it would degenerate into another mud-slinging fight.
It's high time you started asking yourself: "Do I want to keep cancelling out my own efforts at contributing real debates by my perpetually angry and abrasive style?"
Because the way you're doing it right now is the definition of being counter-productive. You're shooting your own feet off.
The actions of those people are NOT my fault. Note I did not even get back to the thread to respond after that first replier noted he had missed point 6 to address his reply to the thread prior to its locking. So I cannot be at fault for any of it.
No surprise then that your thread was seen as baiting. By not coming back to the thread again, you unwittingly made it fit the pattern of the typical bait thread: Post an inflammatory statement and run.
Want to start some fight with me here bring it, but think you will gang up on me as other users and as WotC itself you have another think coming.
I am not one to be walked over. Got it!
Now this, this is just over the top. Who the hell shat in your cereals this morning?
Damn it man! You were not always like that. I do remember some of your earliest posts, and they were interresting and not as vitriolic as that, even if you favored a certain robustness in your style. I even remember someone proposing (in jest, not in a mean way) that you be nominated "our favourite grognard", because you were one of those who acted reasonable.
I'd sure like to see that Hellmute back.
Try doing some research next time, and welcome to the wasteland.
You don't get to say "Not my fault the place ain't fireproof! I just like to play with fire, deal with it" after tossing molotov cocktails into a barn full of dry hay.
I hope for your sake that it's just the cloak of anonymity of the web that makes you act like that, because otherwise, you got some painful realizations coming down the road my friend.
Some people decided to come into that thread and turn it into some kind of war, and because those people did so the thread was locked, and people accusing me of baiting, while others in the thread carried on the proper discussion, even comparing the delays to other software outlets.
*snip*
You people (those who started some war) turned the thread into something that it was not for your own reasons while the thread had actual valid discussion value.
The actions of those people are NOT my fault. Note I did not even get back to the thread to respond after that first replier noted he had missed point 6 to address his reply to the thread prior to its locking. So I cannot be at fault for any of it.
Wait... isn't the entire crux of this discussion... the one we're haivng right now in this thread... about the fact that you disagree with Webster's stated reason for locking the thread? Namely, that he considered the title to be baiting?
So... uh... those other people have ntohing to do with it being locked. Webster says he had it locked specifically because of the title and tone, not because of the rest of the thread's content.
Double standards?
Again jsut shows how a thread that could have potential should be cleaned up rather than locked because some people come in and try to destroy it.
The title meant little until those people came in with the sole purpose of addressing the title rather than the post tiself.
It seems many people on these forums understand little about them, including but not limited to the ones managing them. Again which IS not WotC, but another company that runs the WotC forums, which is very sad and pitiful.
This thread was created for the purpose of baiting, yet it still exists due to the double standards.
Pretty sad when the VCLs can bait users and it is not considered a violation of the CoC.
Two sets of rules or more around here, and the ones making the rules can make up new ones at anytime...again those being another company and not WotC.....very sad.
Further, it's really easy to send an email to CS itself instead of complaining in an open forum about bias and conspiracies and stalking. Failing to complain to people who have the power to fix your problem makes a poster look like a drama queen. Since a sizable chunk of the posts on the CB forum are dedicated to babysitting one user, this theory looks pretty good.
Search the forum for Right Now Technologies if you have problems finding the posts about it.
See the other thread where I detailed some 3rd company has no need for ANY of my personal information where WotC is incapable of running their own customer service department before you continue stupidity trying to tell me to use customer service.
Search the forum for Right Now Technologies if you have problems finding the posts about it.
I read it, but who cares? WotC is apparently your enemy. You don't buy their stuff and you try to drive off their customers. You claim WizOs are stalking you and CS is biased. If WotC isn't abusing your account info, why would their affiliate?
Why do you consider WotC worthy of your email address? And really, let's be honest: Right Now Technologies has your information. If they do the customer service for WotC, that means they have access to your account already. They likely ask people to create a second account for some logistical reason. Perhaps it's so that banned users can still communicate with them. Regardless, there is no way that Right Now could perform their moderation duties without your email and such. How else would they ban people or notify them of bans?
You are choosing not to solve a problem. To be honest, this makes it look like you want the problem to persist.
This thread was created for the purpose of baiting, yet it still exists due to the double standards.
Pretty sad when the VCLs can bait users and it is not considered a violation of the CoC.
Two sets of rules or more around here, and the ones making the rules can make up new ones at anytime...again those being another company and not WotC.....very sad.
This thread was created so other, multiple threads wouldn't need to be created. Plus, I won't have to derail a thread to another discussion as to why something gets closed/removed.
This post isn't baiting. You'd be amazed at how many people want to label disagreements as baiting.
As for another company being used for CS, that's the way businesses operate. I'll bet WotC doesn't generate their own electricity. And it's a known fact they use other companies for printing and distributing their material as well. ;)
I mention this because I'll be closing discussions on CS policies and procedures. If anyone has a question, they can use the customer service link at the bottom of every page. That is the system that is in place, that's the system people have to use.
Trying to intentionally derail a thread to get it closed is disruptive, and should be reported as a CoC violation. Either that or I suppose I could just have them removed. LOL, I've seen that trick tried before.)My point was more to threads started to talk about CS actions. ;)
I mention this because I'll be closing discussions on CS policies and procedures. If anyone has a question, they can use the customer service link at the bottom of every page. That is the system that is in place, that's the system people have to use.
Whoa, this is a bad, bad idea. One of the main problems with CS's policies is that that system doesn't work. Especially when the question I want answered is 'why is CS using such poor administrative techniques'?
I mention this because I'll be closing discussions on CS policies and procedures. If anyone has a question, they can use the customer service link at the bottom of every page. That is the system that is in place, that's the system people have to use.
So we're banning discussion of the moderation system now? That seems unwise.
I can understand (and fully support) locking and deleting threads that are basically axe grinding about perceived moderation inequalities or which are basically attempts to bait CS or any other authority figure around here into fights on the forums, but banning discussion of the actual policies of moderation? That's a horrible idea.
It's quite obvious, if only from the number of threads getting warnings and locked in CB alone that something needs done about the way CoC enforcement is handled. Banning discussion of that just means that the community will have no input, which pretty much puts us back at square one with the substandard system and intra-forum conflicts we have now; it provides no solutions and no opportunity to pursue ideas for them.
World-Class bad idea, that.
I have to say, I agree with Vaal and Batty. I think discussion of CS policies is healthy. Note that I did say discussion, and not incessant whining and complaining.
Yes, that was my thought. CS aren't posting on the forums so it's unfair to target them. Just as people aren't allowed to beat up on each other.
If people have issues with CS, they need to contact CS. That's the system that's in place. That's how to get changes. Ignoring it isn't going to get any issues resolved.
"Why did I get a warning" will NOT get answered on the boards.
"Why did I get a warning" will NOT get answered on the boards.
I completely agree that it won't get an official answer. And that's been true for as long as I've been here (as you well know of course ;) ).
However, I do think (as means of example) that the current thread discussing some of CS's perceived short-comings has had some very healthy and useful discussion in it. That's good stuff. That sort of thing should be permitted to continue as long as it doesn't devolve into incessant whining, constant nagging, and/or CS bashing.
First, we have to know what the policies are in order to suggest changes.
Second, if we get a bunch of people on the same page we can all email CS with the same suggestions and maybe the suggestions will actually be thought about. If 50 people all email different suggestions it would be unlikely that any of them will be considered that seriously.
Does your decision mean that the original thread will not be reopened? (I have no idea how long it takes them to look at a thread and make a decision like that)
EDIT: Even if they said those things a month ago, I still agree with them:embarrass
For what it's worth, I agree with Webster's decision to close the threads. (You can see his reasoning in the newly stickied post here)
The second and third were getting to be a bit much. But I feel there was a lot of value in the first thread.
You don't see the value in people getting together and discussing different options so that they can all email the same suggestions? And have them be better suggestions since they have been bounced off of a bunch of people?
-I agree as well. In the second thread, I stipulated that I'd only talk about ideas so long as the thread stays constructive, and doesn't get into "This is your fault!", "The moderation here sucks!", and so on territory. And, lo and behold, the next couple of posts...I'd like to be able to talk about ways that we, the community, would like to see done, but at the same time, such discussion invariably devolves to finger pointing and points with no constructive value, other than "moderation sucks".
The second thread (started by Knight Disciple) devolved for the same reason they all seem to; posters who don't want to see open discussion of the state of the forum showed up, baited those who were there to talk and succeeded in getting enough of a reaction to get the thread closed. It's not a good situation, but every time that happens it just reinforces the idea that the people who actually want to use this place for it's stated purpose (discussion of the game) are behind the eightball when it comes to, well, everything.
I get the reason for the ban of discussion, and I'll abide by it. I don't like it though; smacks of totalitarianism. Not that that isn't the state of things (it's your forum, after all, we just hang out here), but the in-your-face reminder raises my hackles and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
You don't see the value in people getting together and discussing different options so that they can all email the same suggestions? And have them be better suggestions since they have been bounced off of a bunch of people?
I see the value in it. However, any thread started for the purpose of doing that rapidly descends into a flamewar, completely ruining the purpose of the thread in the first place. At the current time, they do more harm (by stirring up the community and get everyone worked up) than good (potential solutions to the perceived CS/moderation problem).
To Batshido and LK:
Please do not drag this thread into a discussion of CS policies. This thread is for the discussion of Websters VCL decisions, not the decisions and policies of CS.
-Batshido, you just reinforced my point.
How is any of what I just posted "finger pointing?" The course of events is pretty obvious from anyone who was reading that thread.
Please do not drag this thread into a discussion of CS policies. This thread is for the discussion of Websters VCL decisions, not the decisions and policies of CS.
Sorry, that wasn't my intent.
LK just seems to have a much different take on the events than I did.
**I really smiled
I'd also like to present a complaint: Too many people use vulgarity on these forums. I'd rather not have to report it because I don't want to get people into trouble or cause a fuss. Just putting it out there that kids visit this site. Do we really want them to see stuff like that? Or see people being hurtful and disruptive?
*I really smiled
If you see vulgarity, the proper procedure to take is to report the post and mention in the report what vulgarity is there.
Again, that is a CS decision, not a CM decision. This thread is for discussing CM decisions that have been made by Webster. Please confine the discussion to that topic.
Thanks!!
I see the value in it. However, any thread started for the purpose of doing that rapidly descends into a flamewar, completely ruining the purpose of the thread in the first place. At the current time, they do more harm (by stirring up the community and get everyone worked up) than good (potential solutions to the perceived CS/moderation problem).
It doesn't seem to me that those threads are working people up. The first one calmed a lot of people down and got them talking about rational possibilities to suggest to CS rather than just complaining.
It seems to me that people are already ticked off and are merely expressing their already present feelings in those threads in response to certain types of posts.
For what it's worth, I agree with Webster's decision to close the threads. (You can see his reasoning in the newly stickied post here)
Ditto. The threads were attracting a lot of negative attention. At least a few people were unable to refrain from taking the bait. I see no reason to let someone (regardless of which edition he plays) help disrupt a thread by bickering with an obvious troll.
Again, if someone posts lies that may harm others, a reply that reveals the truth is possibly a good thing. If someone posts nonsense that can't effect anyone else ("I hate 4e and I caught mummy rot just from looking at the books!") ignore or report it. Here's a nice test: if no one could reasonably be misinformed or persuaded into a bad course of action by a troll post, then absolutely do not reply to it.
We might need this or that from CS, but some people are getting out of hand. As WotC customers and D&D players we do have a reasonable expectation that this forum will be a nice place to visit. But it isn't reasonable for us to have petty fights with trolls or ignore rules just because we're "the good guys." We still have a responsibility to behave, and if we don't, threads should be shut down, no matter who "started it."
Please guys and gals, stop responding to worthless posts. It will show CS and CM that we aren't here just to fight.
Please do not drag this thread into a discussion of CS policies. This thread is for the discussion of Websters VCL decisions, not the decisions and policies of CS.
Well apparently we're not allowed to discuss CS policy anymore because no one's willing to not bow to intentional derails. So what's left?
It's Webster's VCL decision to keep those threads locked instead of cleaning the obvious, obvious baiting, so the following is on topic:
If CS wants to hide behind 'lol we aren't transparent', fine. But there is no reason to choke us down from complaining about complaining about their bad policies, the cloak and dagger crap they do included.
And when someone purposefully tries to derail those threads to get them locked, you shouldn't let them have their way and lock the thread. Clean it and move on. It's going to get wrecked again because of CS's bad policies, but the extra work you get from it is their fault not ours.
Honestly, can you not see the problem with registering your complaint about the complaint department with the complaint department?
CS is supposed to stand for customer service and like it or no, we're the customers. If they don't want to come and respond to our complaints on the forums, fine. But don't take away our right to complain by locking it down all the time.
IF you really thought editorial moderation worked, why not demonstrate it by cleaning and reopening the thread?
The title of a thread should be the compressed essence of the thread. If you can't compress the basic purpose of your thread into a short one-liner, rethink your post.
You don't seem to like 4e at all, infact you seem to have an actual hatred of it. Perhaps you should try to refrain from talking about it.
Honestly, can you not see the problem with registering your complaint about the complaint department with the complaint department?
There are different tiers of CS. The forum mods are only the first tier, so the best way to have your complaint about the policies that the first tier follows heard is to register your complaint with CS through the system they have. It was posted long ago that complaints about a WizO or the forum moderation that comes in through that system get sent to the managers and tier leads.
Found the quote:
Misconduct is passed up to the managing lead and then if need be, passed up to the T1 Lead. It's all handled through submissions via http://www.wizards.com/customerservice (same link as the ones posted before, just a redirect). E-mails sent through there can not be deleted by reps and are reviewed regularly. If you have a complaint, that's the place for it.
So yes, if you have a complaint about the forum moderation the best place to voice it is the CS system.
As for the decision to close CS policy discussions, I fully agree and support Webster in this decision.
I'll therefore be brief.
Some of my recent comments have been put forth on this thread. First off, I don't go around harassing everyone who posts a negative opinion of 4E. I also don't advocate silencing these people. I do believe we have a few disruptive people who are here for no other reason than to cause trouble. As for vigilantism, I have stated before that I don't have a lot of faith in the moderation here. I would be the first person to applaud this place becoming more civil, but I don't really see that happening anytime soon, and I don't think anything discussed here is going to change any of that.
One of the major problems IS the lack of transparency and frankly getting linked to that is rubbing salt in the wound.
Yeah, it can get a little disorienting with all the acronyms that get thrown around. Sometimes it looks like the CharOp forum in here. ;)
Heh, I agree, it feels like people are using some foreign language.
Concerns were brought up and I sent it on up to CM and CS. (Though, that's outside procedure. Folks really need to use the CS link. That's what it's there for.)
Thanks Webster. I was thinking of consolidating the concerns and suggestions and e-mailing them myself. As it is the thread helped iron out the concerns and improve suggestions.
Let's just go with one example in the meantimg: The very first post of Part III:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16897842&postcount=1
Money line:
"I am of the opinion that in the absence of effective moderation, posting no response is unacceptable"
Emphasis mine.
That's not healthy stuff, but it also doesn't mean that anyone (or everyone!) wants to silence anyone with a different opinion.
As for the guy bragging about bans, he has bragged plenty via PM and these PMs have been reported. He also hints at it all the time in regular messages. Two of his accounts seem to have recently disappeared (Thanks, CS!) but he has a new one that comes equipped with behavior identical to the old ones. Learning isn't happening. As for The Big Ban, well, we can hope.
That's not healthy stuff, but it also doesn't mean that anyone (or everyone!) wants to silence anyone with a different opinion.
As for the guy bragging about bans, he has bragged plenty via PM and these PMs have been reported. He also hints at it all the time in regular messages. Two of his accounts seem to have recently disappeared (Thanks, CS!) but he has a new one that comes equipped with behavior identical to the old ones. Learning isn't happening. As for The Big Ban, well, we can hope.
I was the one who said that. I never said it was healthy, or even polite. I just said it in light of not having any real faith in moderation dealing with things the right way, and my own inclination to say what I'm going to say and not to hold anything back.
As for that guy, I would argue that showing up on the forums with the same avatar and behavior and a new name is baiting in and of itself. Its saying "ha ha, I got banned but I'm still here" without having to say it. Its difficult to report as well, as a particular post might not have anything overtly against the CoC, but the new identity by itself is designed to draw fire. Its not something you can see in a single reported post. Its the ongoing behavior when you look at it in its entirety that is the issue.
As for that guy, I would argue that showing up on the forums with the same avatar and behavior and a new name is baiting in and of itself. Its saying "ha ha, I got banned but I'm still here" without having to say it. Its difficult to report as well, as a particular post might not have anything overtly against the CoC, but the new identity by itself is designed to draw fire. Its not something you can see in a single reported post. Its the ongoing behavior when you look at it in its entirety that is the issue.
Note: Emphasis added.
Hey, that's the way to think of it. I hope you don't mind me borrowing that train-of-thought for future reporting purposes.
Note: Emphasis added.
Hey, that's the way to think of it. I hope you don't mind me borrowing that train-of-thought for future reporting purposes.
No charge. I'm here to help.
As for that guy, I would argue that showing up on the forums with the same avatar and behavior and a new name is baiting in and of itself. Its saying "ha ha, I got banned but I'm still here" without having to say it.
It's also incredibly flimsy evidence. "That user posts in the same style and has the same avatar, so he MUST be the same person!"
Unless you can have more concrete proof (explicit statements, IP tracking, etc), then CS is completely correct in dismissing this.
It's also incredibly flimsy evidence. "That user posts in the same style and has the same avatar, so he MUST be the same person!"
Unless you can have more concrete proof (explicit statements, IP tracking, etc), then CS is completely correct in dismissing this.
I think we both need to drop this before it truly derails this thread. You seem to be wanting to pick a fight with me. I haven't had any disciplinary action from CS anything I've done with this guy other than the exchanges being deleted. I am not the problem here. I'll answer you in detail by PM.
It's also incredibly flimsy evidence. "That user posts in the same style and has the same avatar, so he MUST be the same person!"
Unless you can have more concrete proof (explicit statements, IP tracking, etc), then CS is completely correct in dismissing this.
Explicit statements have been reported... then deleted by the moderation with no action taken. PMs where the poster is very, very specific as to who he is and what his agenda here is have been sent to CS, with no action taken.
Looks like a policy problem to me. Something the community should know about and be able to discuss... OR, at the very least, we should be honest and let everyone know that there's no penalty for breaking the CoC besides the 'hassle' of picking a new name.
Explicit statements have been reported... then deleted by the moderation with no action taken. PMs where the poster is very, very specific as to who he is and what his agenda here is have been sent to CS, with no action taken.
Looks like a policy problem to me. Something the community should know about and be able to discuss... OR, at the very least, we should be honest and let everyone know that there's no penalty for breaking the CoC besides the 'hassle' of picking a new name.
Actually, I believe he was moderated. I reported him for baiting in this thread, it was deleted, and it seems he is currently banned.
Today, moderation gets a
. We'll see about tomorrow.Still, until we get a revision of the CoC, there's actually nothing against the rules for him to keep coming back again and again and again and doing the same thing.
And until we get some transparency, we can't actually *know* if the problem has been dealt with. Persistent Trolls are the symptom, not the disease.
Some threads are active, but very old, and very, very long. Past experience has shown us extremely long threads cause problems. It's either the software or hardware, I'm not sure where the source of the issues comes from. There comes a point where a thread needs to just be closed, and allowed to be archived/pruned.
The other thing that came to mind was these were NEW boards. They're not re-creating the old ones. They shouldn't be treated as being the old ones. Plus, if threads are to be archived/pruned, it becomes unnecessary to move them.
As a matter of fact, I think my first hit of thread move requests gave the system a heart attack. I've been seeing errors pop up and the last time I saw indexing errors was during the last time there was a massive amount of moved threads.
First unpopular decision today: Rather than moving massive amounts of threads in the other worlds boards to those boards, I put the requests as a sticky threads so folks can still find them. Beyond that, they shouldn't be moved. I don't think the system could take it. They're new boards, a fresh start and the opportunity to have them as a clean board should be embraced.
First, excuse me for my complete lack of sympathy. You may not have been responsible for the problem in the first place, but mixing up all the old worlds boards was a decision made by the management of this site. And now it seems you are the one left with a bucket of eggs to unscramble.
But here's the thing: all of these threads were moved from their old forums just a few short months ago. If they can be moved once, please explain why they can't be moved again. They don't all have to be moved at once - most us in the old worlds communities are quite patient people.
All of your other arguments for not moving the threads are really quite irrelevant when you consider the content of the threads, and the fact that they are referred back to and searched through - and yes, added to - years later. They are not just discussions which begin, run their course, and then die, never to be looked at again; they are, to a very real extent, the living part of our settings.
Having all the posts in one big mess in the Other Published Worlds forum is highly undesirable. It makes browsing through them a very unfriendly option, since there is often no way to know which setting a thread is about without opening it and checking.
To sum up: I would really like to see the other worlds posts restored to their original boards (they are not new boards, they are the originals which were never deleted, just emptied and locked). I said before that if Wizards of the Coast wants to make the old worlds forums active they're going to have to fight for it. This is not a good start.
To sum up: I would really like to see the other worlds posts restored to their original boards (they are not new boards, they are the originals which were never deleted, just emptied and locked). I said before that if Wizards of the Coast wants to make the old worlds forums active they're going to have to fight for it. This is not a good start.
Seconded! I am very happy that the old forums have been restored, but it would be so useful to have all the old threads organized the way they used to be.
I understand that this is quite an undertaking, but as fans are already doing alot of the ground work, sorting out which threads are to be moved, I think it should be possible to do so. I don't expect it to be done overnight ofcourse, but it would be nice if you could reconsider this decision.
Thanks for listening.
Havard
Seconded! I am very happy that the old forums have been restored, but it would be so useful to have all the old threads organized the way they used to be.
I understand that this is quite an undertaking, but as fans are already doing alot of the ground work, sorting out which threads are to be moved, I think it should be possible to do so. I don't expect it to be done overnight ofcourse, but it would be nice if you could reconsider this decision.
Thanks for listening.
Havard
Please add my request for this as well. Might it be of some help if we were to prioritize the threads so that a 'first wave' might involve only the five most fundamental threads to the setting? If this were done for each setting over the course of a week, there would be time to see what impact the process has on the forum system. If there aren't any serious issues, then the next five prioritized threads from each setting could be moved over.
I work in an industry that is basically the transfer and manipulation of massive databases, so I can understand the potential for system issues when large-scale changes are made to a database system. That's why an incremental approach seems less painful.
Thank you for your consideration.
To sum up: I would really like to see the other worlds posts restored to their original boards (they are not new boards, they are the originals which were never deleted, just emptied and locked). I said before that if Wizards of the Coast wants to make the old worlds forums active they're going to have to fight for it. This is not a good start.
It is nice to see the locations of the Old Worlds forums reopened, but in truth, as Thorf has said so well, those forums have not returned until key threads have been put back in their proper places. The fans have done the leg work of identifying the threads and now all we ask is that they are moved; over time and eventually.
We didn't make the mess but we are helping to clean it up. Please help us put things away where they belong.
I work in an industry that is basically the transfer and manipulation of massive databases, so I can understand the potential for system issues when large-scale changes are made to a database system. That's why an incremental approach seems less painful.
Thank you for your consideration.
That was the biggest reason. You'll notice I DID start having threads moved over, but saw the system was having major issues with such a massive hit. Things seemed to have been fixed, and I haven't received any of those errors since. (The same thing happened a while ago when lots of thread move requests were made by the VCLs.)
But here's the thing: all of these threads were moved from their old forums just a few short months ago. If they can be moved once, please explain why they can't be moved again.
There's a huge difference between "Put all threads from all these forums into this one place" and separating a mixed forum into 10 different ones. There is no "undo" button.
All of your other arguments for not moving the threads are really quite irrelevant when you consider the content of the threads, and the fact that they are referred back to and searched through - and yes, added to - years later. They are not just discussions which begin, run their course, and then die, never to be looked at again; they are, to a very real extent, the living part of our settings.
Not really. Let me pull a random example:
This one from 2003: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=110957
Title: What do I need to role-play?
First post- 10-06-03
Last post- 10-07-03
Is someone going to search for that, or make a new thread?
There are lots of threads like that where someone could and WILL just as easily create a new post rather than search out the old one.
Not every single thread needs to be moved.
Which is why I like the idea of doing just the priority threads and in "waves".
So, having said all that and getting to this point, after the downtime I'll start a separate thread somewhere to let you guys let me know which top 5 (And then we'll do a couple more waves and see where we stand.) threads from the other worlds should be moved.
Just as long as you guys are patient.
That was the biggest reason. You'll notice I DID start having threads moved over, but saw the system was having major issues with such a massive hit. Things seemed to have been fixed, and I haven't received any of those errors since. (The same thing happened a while ago when lots of thread move requests were made by the VCLs.)
You should probably be aware that each setting in the Other Worlds forum is essentially its own community. There is overlap, but they are mainly separate entities. Consequently, you are really dealing with 10 (or however many) different groups of people with this issue. Moving threads for one group is of no interest to the 9 other groups, I'm afraid.
There's a huge difference between "Put all threads from all these forums into this one place" and separating a mixed forum into 10 different ones. There is no "undo" button.
We're all fully aware of this, but it doesn't change anything. The mistake has already been made, and not by any of us (including yourself). But we are nevertheless left to clean up the mess.
Not really. Let me pull a random example:
This one from 2003: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=110957
Title: What do I need to role-play?
First post- 10-06-03
Last post- 10-07-03
Is someone going to search for that, or make a new thread?
It's not a Mystara thread so I really can't comment. But I agree that sort of thread is not a high priority for moving. It's also not the kind of thread that usually gets read again.
There are lots of threads like that where someone could and WILL just as easily create a new post rather than search out the old one.
Yes. But there are also lots of threads unlike that which we would like you to move back for us.
Not every single thread needs to be moved.
Which is why I like the idea of doing just the priority threads and in "waves".
Great! Thank you. :D
So, having said all that and getting to this point, after the downtime I'll start a separate thread somewhere to let you guys let me know which top 5 (And then we'll do a couple more waves and see where we stand.) threads from the other worlds should be moved.
You might want to make that "up to 5 threads for each world".
Just as long as you guys are patient.
We spend our free time discussing worlds that have been out of print for 10, 15, 20 years, slowly but surely adding to the development of our favourite settings. We are the very definition of patience.
Havard
So, having said all that and getting to this point, after the downtime I'll start a separate thread somewhere to let you guys let me know which top 5 (And then we'll do a couple more waves and see where we stand.) threads from the other worlds should be moved.
Just as long as you guys are patient.
Excellent! Thank you for understanding and being willing to work with us. You are appreciated.
anyway nice to see things getting fixed back ;)
Not every single thread needs to be moved.
Well, I tried to post a reply on three Spelljammer related threads that were in the "pool" and got told by the forum software that I had the right to edit my existing posts, but not make new ones. So unless someone upstairs has monkeyed about with my posting settings (or it was an intermittent fault) I "need" those threads to be put back where they came from, so that I can continue the discussion. (Of course, by the time you are able to do it I will be struggling to think of exactly what I wanted to say the other day.
)As others have said, these communities were separate before the merger (although I think they are closer together since people have been hanging around on The Piazza). So a "top 5" process would not really be easy to implement in a fashion that was "fair" to all campaign settings. If you listen to the most requested threads, you are just going to be moving 5 Mystara threads every day and some of the other settings will not get a look in.
As I understand it, you wish to get all the original communities back up and running. Giving the Mystara community a bit of an initial boost, might be a good idea because they are a highly active community (more active than the Spelljammer communty I spent most of my time hanging around with). But if you look at old stats, you will see that some of the other communities were also highly active (but do not seem to be taking so much part in the "restoration process"). I'm not sure how you are going to get all of them back. I think that some level of pre-moving threads might help give driveby posters something interesting to read (while these communities are getting themselves off of the floor and dusting themselves off).
I realise there are some less useful threads around (and wouldn't mind it if useless threads got locked after a while), but every dormant thread that is not useless is a potential hook to bring in fans of the campaign setting that was associated with it. Every restored thread is going to increase that campaign setting's "footprint" in a Google search. Every restored thread is going to help hook in grognoid fans that can help 4e D&D fans get any fan conversions off of the ground.
In the long term, I would say it would be good for WotC to get over 70 percent of the threads back where they came from.
But as others have said, I am paitient. You guys have shown that you are willing to reverse the damage caused by previous people. I've moderated a vBulletin forum myself and realise that (even without any database problems) you are looking at a fairly boring and mundane process that is going to potentially take months or even years to get done.
But I do think it is worth the effort. I like your first wave concept. I think that doing some of the work and then stepping back to see how much it has helped the various communities could allow you to adust things if one campaign setting is doing better or worse than another campaign setting.
I think that it might also be worth going through forums via the date of the last posting and getting the last two or three months put into where they should be. This should help people interested in the most recently active conversations to find them and reply*. (That would also be a good time for you to post a "we agree" style of post on any threads asking for the forum to be demerged and then lock those threads and let them sink.)
* = Assuming I am not the only person unable to reply to unmoved posts.
Anyway, thanks for listening. I'm optimistic about the future of this section of the forums, but think it is going to take a while for you to fix things that were done with a few clicks.
It's also incredibly flimsy evidence. "That user posts in the same style and has the same avatar, so he MUST be the same person!"
Unless you can have more concrete proof (explicit statements, IP tracking, etc), then CS is completely correct in dismissing this.
Thank you for the support.
Explicit statements have been reported... then deleted by the moderation with no action taken.
What do you mean by reports being deleted? The public has no access to reports to CS, so we have no idea if they are being deleted. Are you reporting behavior by creating messageboard threads? If so, then it isn't really that surprising that they are being deleted. The proper channel to report CoC violations to CS is by using the "Report this post" button, which sends an e-mail directly to CS.
What do you mean by reports being deleted? The public has no access to reports to CS, so we have no idea if they are being deleted. Are you reporting behavior by creating messageboard threads? If so, then it isn't really that surprising that they are being deleted. The proper channel to report CoC violations to CS is by using the "Report this post" button, which sends an e-mail directly to CS.
Like Webster said, it's the statements, not the reports.
At this point, screenshots are the only way to maintain a proper paper trial.
I agree it at the no-political/religious debates on the off topic tavern.
I agree it at the no-political/religious debates on the off topic tavern.
I have to disagree. Political and religious discussions help us to build a more unified community. Wasn't that the point behind the off-topic tavern?
I have to disagree. Political and religious discussions help us to build a more unified community. Wasn't that the point behind the off-topic tavern?
Political and religious discussions are much akin to a room fulled with gun power. If one person launches a flame the whole thing could explode.
Political and religious discussions are much akin to a room fulled with gun power. If one person launches a flame the whole thing could explode.
Seconded. If you want to talk Religion, go talk to your nearest Religious Leader, or an opposing Religious Leader. Politics is a more open subject, but both are more opinion than anything else, and both are very volatile.
Agree or disagree with this decision, I would ask that it be implemented in totality.
Notice how some missed posts suddenly casts a suggestion that there's some bias of sorts? That's part of the problem and why they're all getting closed.
Political and religious discussions are much akin to a room fulled with gun power. If one person launches a flame the whole thing could explode.
Fully agree. While I would like to have an open and peaceful discussion with other gamers about politics and religion I realize that it is almost impossible to achieve such a result.