I get that you don't want edition wars on the FR General Forum.
Really, I do.
What I want to know is why both you and the ORCs are aggressively closing threads that don’t have anything to do with edition wars?
For example, after only two posts on the So anyway, I like playing D&D in the 4E Realms thread, ORC_Piper came in and closed it “due to complaints received” about the thread.
Can you explain the logic behind locking a thread that talks about enjoying the 4E Forgotten Realms (we are on the official D&D/FR Forums, aren’t we?) because a tiny number of people falsely reported it as a “re-opening” of a previous thread?
If your position and that of Community Management is that it’s not OK to post anything positive about the 4E Realms on the forums set aside for the setting, then what is the point of those forums?
Please contact ORC_Piper and ask him/her to reopen the thread immediately.
Things get closed for a reason. Sometimes to let things cool off before re-opening if it's a good thread. (I'm all for positive threads.
)It has to do more with re-starting a thread that was closed.
Webster that's not what happened.
Re-read the threads please. There are clear differences.
If I wanted to thumb my nose at the ORCs, it would have been obvious.
Please ask ORC_Piper to re-open the thread immediately.
18DELTA
The real problem is posters with thin skins who apparently cannot deal with seeing an opposing opinion. If it is a "pro 4E" thread some of the posters will talk smack (smack being presented as fact, which is not grounded in logic), and when an opposing comment is made (which is often grounded in fact, or non confrontational), the thin skinned press the proverbial mute button. This button is pressed until posts are deleted or the thread is closed. I know I have struggled to keep most of my responses to these individuals civil in tone, however I have still managed to get posts deleted, whereas their posts receive the extended editing treatment. This is simply unacceptable. I like all of the FR editions, however I find myself wanting to discuss the current one since well it is the current one, and I happen to be running a game in it. The last thing I want to have to deal with is the constant snide remarks, which I am apparently not allowed to respond to.
My problem with Lord_Karsus is that when I talked to him about it he kind of brushed me off telling me that there wasnt anything he could do about those people. I dont know about that but since he is the forum leader I expected that he could and I figure he doesnt want to be bothered.
You expected wrong.
The Forum Lead is not a moderator (he has no power to personally delete posts/threads), and it's true that he can't "control people." If you are annoyed with someone, either PM that particular person who is annoying you and work things out with them, or alert the moderators/Customer Service. LK was just being honest with you.
I mean, honestly, why do we have to watch what we type when it is in favor of the new edition, yet we see haters spewing vitriol and no one seems to think that's wrong...
Chances are I would have reviewed the thread, found and removed the problem, and re-opened it. But, this whole thing is an issue of conduct, not content. (I.E. Cutting and pasting the same post over and over again can be considered spam.) Again, it's not the message, it's the presentation.
Seems to me like you’re reaching for a justification on the thread title because you know you have zero on the content of the new thread. This is because the new thread didn’t contain one word that could be perceived as argumentative or flame worthy like the old one.
In fact the only similarity between the two is the positive praise for the 4E Realms, based on my real life gaming experiences.
Now, explain to me exactly how posting comments to that effect on the FR Forums is against the CoC? Frankly, I never consider it wrong to post positive words about the product Wizards of the Coast produces. That’s why these forums exist.
From my point of view, you and/or the ORCs dropped the hammer a second time because it was me that posted the thread.
Anyone else and there wouldn’t have been a problem, just as we know thread titles are not always enough to close a thread.
If they were, MarkusTay’s “New 4e WTF? moment...” thread (started just like my thread on the same day after your first wave of closings) would have been axed right away.
Yet it wasn’t closed, even after it was reported by more than one person for masking and for promoting the edition war.
All you guys did (after multiple reportings) was give it a quick edit to “WTH” and leave it be.
Funny how a similar edit wasn’t applied to the “So Anyway” in my thread title.
So much for assuming good faith, eh?
Parenthetical perception? What?
Seems to me like you’re reaching for a justification on the thread title because you know you have zero on the content of the new thread. This is because the new thread didn’t contain one word that could be perceived as argumentative or flame worthy like the old one.
Threads can be reopened as well. Before I could even review the thread to see what's what is when the duplicate titled thread was posted.
The parenthetical perception was my observation of the title. If someone posted "Mr_Miscellany is a poop head" and that thread got closed, maybe even deleted, and then they posted "So anyway, Mr_Miscellany is really a poop head.", it doesn't matter if the content of the post is diffferent. If it's posted right after the first one was handled, what would you expect the result to be? What if the person just kept going at it?
And it doesn't matter who starts it. I've had my own posts removed before, but I don't let it boher me. Nor do I try to repost the content that was removed.
Did you read what the ORC posted? The thread will be reviewed to determine if it shoud remain closed, re-opened or re-started.
As has been stated, pro 4e you get canned, anti 4e and you get a lot of latitude. Pro 4e = delete. Anti 4e = edit. That is what the track record of the ORC's on that board seem to indicate.
Sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias to me (on your part, that is).
I know I am not the only one to think this, obviously.
That might be true, but it wouldn't mean you are correct.
Sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias to me (on your part, that is).
Nope. So sorry, so wrong. This has been under discussion privately for quite some time now. The latest little fracas has only made it public, because it has gotten too blatant.
That might be true, but it wouldn't mean you are correct.
It would not make me incorrect either.
) started a perceived flamebait thread in response to a perceived Flamebait Thread. (QUOTING LK AND THIS IS COMMUNITY BUSINESS FORUM. THE ORCS TOLD ME TO POST THIS STUFF HERE, IN CASE SOMEONE WANTS TO REPORT THIS. 
)-If someone posts something questionable report it. Not report who posted it, or because so and so posted it but because its a questionable post. Meaning it might violate the CoC. Usually when this Candlekeep poster comes around, all he/she does is post negative comments about the 4E Realms or The 4E Designers. I had to report one of his/her posts this afternoon. :embarrass (which promtly got deleted, Thank You Orc Chaos)
-So what I am trying to say is report, and let the WizO's/Orcs do their thing and maybe just maybe we can get this forum cleaned up.
18DELTA (SUPPORTING THE FORGOTTEN REALMS IN CYRICS NAME) :P
Nope. So sorry, so wrong.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The most parsimonious explanation for a post being deleted is that the post violated the CoC and/or added nothing to the discussion at hand. "The ORCs have it out for me and those who agree with me" is less likely.
And, if anyone should be "sorry", it should be you, since you are making public accusations and not offering any proof of your assertions.
This has been under discussion privately for quite some time now.
So? That doesn't even dispute what I said.
It would not make me incorrect either.
That doesn't mean anything. You are the one who needs to prove your assertions (that the ORCs are not impartial). Saying "other people agree with me" doesn't help your case--it could just mean (and in my opinion, likely does mean) a bunch of other people are wrong along with you.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. If anyone should be sorry, it should be you, since you are making accusations and not offering any proof for them.
Kind of hard to provide proof when the posts in question are deleted, and the original unedited posts in question are not available, and well the edited posts don't exactly show how heavily edited they were. It is kind of hard to provide proof when the evidence has been removed or doctored to the point where it is useless. I guess I should screen capture every post I make, or I could hope that at least a problem noticed by multiple posters might get some attention. The point of these comments was to at least make the ORC's think twice before they trailblaze through a thread deleting posts in whole rather than editing them, and to perhaps be more consistent in the way they handle these situations.
So?
Confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. This generally does not survive serious discourse. The point is that it has been discussed and survived careful analysis of the actions of the ORC's in the matter in question. Lastly if confirmation bias was something I indulged in I would have died many years ago. It is the surest way to get yourself killed in any military operation. Suggesting someone is indulging in it is like calling them deluded, thanks.
That doesn't mean anything. You are the one who needs to prove your assertions (that the ORCs are not impartial). Saying "other people agree with me" doesn't help your case--it could just mean (and in my opinion, likely does mean) a bunch of other people are wrong along with you.
Why do I have to prove a thing? In this instance I am a customer, utilizing a feature of a website that I pay, for a subscription, having a discourse with the moderators provided by said company for that purpose. I have a problem, others have the same problem. Saying other people agree with me, on a perceived bias (and proving bias is a massive undertaking, which quite honestly is not worth it in this situation), means that a bias was perceived. I am not going to sit idly by when I see something that is not fair, I will certainly say something about it. I did not call the ORC's baby killers, liars, or close minded sheep, I suggested that perhaps they are not handling things in a consistent and fair manner. If ORC 1 deletes posts, and ORC 2 edits posts instead there is a problem, because honestly the perceived bias could just as easily be different ORC's handling reports in different ways. This could easily create the appearance of bias. All I am calling for is consistent, logical, and fair moderation. What is the problem with that?
I have nothing wrong with people who are not keen on the new stuff but when every post they do is just a negative post, well too me they are obviously trolling. Some people dislike the new stuff and offer fun positive threads and if they do make comments are a bit classier than the folks Delta mentioned.
I understand the point you're getting at, but I do disagree with the way you worded your thought. I think it's quite possible for somebody to hold a negative opinion of something, regularly share that opinion, and not be a troll. It really comes down to the way you post your opinion.
If all I ever post is
4e sucks and you'd be a fool to convert your game from 3e to 4e!!!11!!1one!1!!
then yeah - I'd fall right into your description.
If, on the other hand, I post something along the lines of
I don't like 4e. While I think having some sort of 'at will' ability is good - especially for casters, who regularly run out of spells - I think the removal of Vancian spell casting hurts the game. I also don't like that almost all of the non-combat spells were turned into 'rituals' - especially because they're so expensive to cast. blah blah blah.
I don't think that's trolling - as long as I'm making those posts in places where it's on topic, of course.
*
Now, that said,
If someone posts something questionable report it. Not report who posted it, or because so and so posted it but because its a questionable post. Meaning it might violate the CoC.
This is something I whole-heartedly endorse.
Suggesting someone is indulging in it is like calling them deluded, thanks.
In this matter, you are probably right.
The point is that it has been discussed and survived careful analysis of the actions of the ORC's in the matter in question.
Again, this is a nothing statement. Discussed by whom? Survived careful analysis by whom? Without context, there's nothing compelling about it.
Why do I have to prove a thing?
Because it's your claim.
I suggested that perhaps they are not handling things in a consistent and fair manner.
No, you said this:
As has been stated, pro 4e you get canned, anti 4e and you get a lot of latitude. Pro 4e = delete.
That survived "serious discourse?" I rather doubt it. I would agree that such a statement does come off as delusional.
I have had to remove some material from this thread because it violated the Code of Conduct
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Eh, no it isn't. But, if you see it that way...
I do.
Again, this is a nothing statement. Discussed by whom? Survived careful analysis by whom? Without context, there's nothing compelling about about it.
Why? So their ability to form an opinion, can be subject to a microscope also, in a situation where a potential institutional bias is being brought into question. Why would I subject them to scrutiny they perhaps don't want. I am sure they will chime in if they feel the need to.
Because it's your claim.
As stated how do you prove something against individuals who control the information in question? Also how do you prove an opinion? If it was a fact clearly I could prove it, as stated it is a perceived bias. Hence an opinion. I am not prosecuting them in some sort of court. If you bothered to read the entire thread you might realize that we are asking for clarification.
As to the rest of your comments, I did clarify myself, so your use of something I commented on out of the context of the entirety of the conversation, or discourse on the matter is rather misleading. Also thank you for lifting just the part that seems to make a point for your argument.
I do.
Having thought about this for a bit, I edited my post agreeing with you.
Why? So their ability to form an opinion, can be subject to a microscope also, in a situation where a potential institutional bias is being brought into question.
I think the claims people like yourself are making should be subjected to scrutiny, and if the claims turn out to be substantial, that shouldn't be an issue anyway. And, if you didn't want "their" problems to be a public matter, then you shouldn't have brought "them" up here.
Why would I subject them to scrutiny they perhaps don't want. I am sure they will chime in if they feel the need to.
See above (both replies). For the moment,
Next time, vouch only for yourself when speaking with me--I don't care about arguments from popularity anyway.
18DELTA (CYRIC WAS WRONGLY IMPRISONED, FREE CYRIC!) ;)
18DELTA (FREE CYRIC NOW!) :P
-Yet, people believe a lot of things that are true. ;)
I'll stick with evidence over mere belief, though.
18DELTA (THE RIGHT HAND OF CYRIC) ;)
I think the claims people like yourself are making should be subjected to scrutiny, and if the claims turn out to be substantial, that shouldn't be an issue anyway.
A common method of silencing people is an attempt to demand information that the controlling party has, but won't necessarily divulge. In essence since the problem is directly related to the party which edits the information in question, the ability to provide proof is greatly hampered. Demanding it is in this instance an attempt to discredit the individuals with a problem, which cannot be defended, because the party that is the perceived source of the problem is in control of the information that could have proved it. Your continued demands for facts in this situation clearly assumes the authority in question is telling the truth, and anyone complaining is lying. I suggest that perhaps you might want to consider the opposite is true, or perhaps something in the middle.
And, if you didn't want "their" problems to be a public matter, then you shouldn't have brought "them" up here.
Once again an attempt to silence the opposition, by attempting to ridicule the minority, and assigning an aspect of infallibility to the authority. If you need it explained in detail why, I will gladly do so. I am unfortunately short on time at this moment.
Next time, vouch only for yourself when speaking with me--I don't care about arguments from popularity anyway.
I will speak however I please, and if you have a problem with it feel free to do whatever you might wish to do.
This isn't something that you have to investigate or dispel, so why are you trying to do so?
Pro 4E posters on a forum owned by the company that is making 4E and supported by volunteers that have to 'toe the company line' are secretly against 4E and are deleting Pro-4E posts?
Um... Y'know, if the ORCs and WizO's are against 4E as you assume that the equivalent of me (a Green party member) going to volunteer for the Republican party. Why would I try to sabotage another group when my group needs me more?
Okay, let me see if I get the gist of this argument.
Pro 4E posters on a forum owned by the company that is making 4E and supported by volunteers that have to 'toe the company line' are secretly against 4E and are deleting Pro-4E posts?
Um... Y'know, if the ORCs and WizO's are against 4E as you assume that the equivalent of me (a Green party member) going to volunteer for the Republican party. Why would I try to sabotage another group when my group needs me more?
Ummmm...no.
The question is whether the guidelines are being applied consistently, equally, fairly. Also just because you have to toe the line does not change a thing. The CoC is a complete sieve in its use of terminology which gives them the greatest latitude possible to moderate. Based on what occurred recently it was perceived that perhaps there was more than one guideline, or the guidelines in place are being applied inconsistently (which is where I am mostly leaning towards), or differently by different moderators. The difference between deleting and editing items is huge. The incidents in question did seem to lean completely one way, hence this discussion.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I haven't heard that posts are being edited for groundless reasons.
People may hate this idea, but I think it is a good one and I really do not give a damn what everyone thinks if anyone has not noticed by now.
So, everyone listen up.
Don't write posts that violate the CoC.
Period.
Report those that do.
If yours are not being edited then you won't have to worry about others being edited in a more lenient fashion.
If your reports are not answered appropriately, then you have the (incorrect) result to show as evidence.
It is like that throwing the first stone thing.
I have said things that I wish I had not said before. However, I know that I can always make my point within the CoC unless the specific point I wish to make is outside the CoC . (For example, really wanting to hit someone over the head with a club.
) If you reach that point, don't post.It is simple as that.
RUMPLESTIX
I understand the point you're getting at, but I do disagree with the way you worded your thought. I think it's quite possible for somebody to hold a negative opinion of something, regularly share that opinion, and not be a troll. It really comes down to the way you post your opinion.
I don't think that's trolling - as long as I'm making those posts in places where it's on topic, of course.
IMO if every post you make sounds the same and basically says the same nonsense it is spamming.
Don't write posts that violate the CoC.
Period.
Report those that do.
The CoC is part of the problem. Entirely too many terms are open to a wide variety of interpretation. In fact they rely on interpretation, which opens the door to latitude. For instance what you might consider baiting can easily be interpreted by someone else as not even worth comparing to baiting. The same goes for trolling, disruption, and even harassment. Someone with thin skin is going to "pull the trigger" long before someone with a thick skin. A more detailed description, with less room for vagueness is what is required to ensure fairness. As it stands you are left to guess whether someone will report you (for something you would never even consider any of the above), and whether a moderator agrees (which is like playing russian roulette). I don't even consider posting anything I would think is against the CoC, others would certainly disagree.
The incidents in question did seem to lean completely one way, hence this discussion.
Which explains why the "anti-4E Realms" retort thread got locked as well.
No disrespect meant, Rinonalyrna Fathomlin, but why would anyone have to prove anything to you? This is a matter between a select group of people (Pro 4e FR posters that feel wronged) and the powers that be (ORCs and WotC).
Then why are people ranting about it here, if it's such a private matter? If you make a claim in public, anyone (myself included) is allowed to dispute it. If people don't want that, they should try to handle the problem in a more private fashion.
The idea that the ORCs (much less WotC) are specifically trying to alienate people who like their latest product is in my opinion silly and probably delusional.
The CoC is part of the problem. Entirely too many terms are open to a wide variety of interpretation. In fact they rely on interpretation, which opens the door to latitude. For instance what you might consider baiting can easily be interpreted by someone else as not even worth comparing to baiting. The same goes for trolling, disruption, and even harassment. Someone with thin skin is going to "pull the trigger" long before someone with a thick skin. A more detailed description, with less room for vagueness is what is required to ensure fairness. As it stands you are left to guess whether someone will report you (for something you would never even consider any of the above), and whether a moderator agrees (which is like playing russian roulette). I don't even consider posting anything I would think is against the CoC, others would certainly disagree.
This is a different argument than I read earlier in the thread. Perhaps I just missed it. Earlier, it was complained that posts of one side were edited and that posts of the other side were deleted. That does not sound like a case of something not being a CoC violation being treated like a violation but rather of two same cases receiving different results. But...I don't know.
But, I think the best solution is to add length to your posts as tedious as it may sound. Take the time to add caveats and disclaimers. It may mean that all your posts will be done in word (or such...) instead of the post screen.
I thought of more to say, but I think I need to start a thread to find out.
The CoC is part of the problem. Entirely too many terms are open to a wide variety of interpretation. In fact they rely on interpretation, which opens the door to latitude. For instance what you might consider baiting can easily be interpreted by someone else as not even worth comparing to baiting. The same goes for trolling, disruption, and even harassment. Someone with thin skin is going to "pull the trigger" long before someone with a thick skin. A more detailed description, with less room for vagueness is what is required to ensure fairness. As it stands you are left to guess whether someone will report you (for something you would never even consider any of the above), and whether a moderator agrees (which is like playing russian roulette). I don't even consider posting anything I would think is against the CoC, others would certainly disagree.
That is true, however, the ORCs were given extensive training, and they also have precedent and prior decisions which help them determine where "the line" is and whether or not a particular phrase/post/thread crosses it or not.
IMO if every post you make sounds the same and basically says the same nonsense it is spamming.
Hmmm.... by this definition, the ORCs are spamming every time they post an in-thread message, since they all say pretty much the same thing. ;)
It is kind of hard to provide proof when the evidence has been removed or doctored to the point where it is useless. I guess I should screen capture every post I make, or I could hope that at least a problem noticed by multiple posters might get some attention.
Or you could copy/paste to notepad ...
Also does subscription still email other peoples posts? It would give you hard copies of others posts as well.
Which reminds me of something, my neighbors must never go to the bathroom. I notice I have to go a few times a day, but I can't recall any of my neighbors going within the past few years. What's up with that? They have to be aliens. I'm sure of it.
When ORCs get alerted to a reported post, we read the reason given in the report, then go to the post, read it and surrounding posts to see if there was really a CoC violation and if the flaming/baiting/disruption etc continued or was actually started earlier in the thread. Whether it's a pro 4e or anti 4e thread has never ever made a difference in moderation. I assure you we simply do not have time to sift through reports and only act on ones we personally agree with, we go in and take care of the offensive material as well as replies and quotes of it. If you feel there has been an error in moderation by an ORC, then PLEASE go to the Customer Service site and use the Email Us tab to voice your concerns. That is why it's there.
Thanks, that actually answered the question. Since each post is essentially going to be a different moderator, the interpretation, of what is required will be different. The incident in question was probably the end result of coincidence.
As to the customer service email tab, well I have tried three different browsers, and assorted security settings, and I still get a technical error screen. Is it down?
The idea that the ORCs (much less WotC) are specifically trying to alienate people who like their latest product is in my opinion silly and probably delusional.
Completely agree. It's just strange.
I assure you we simply do not have time to sift through reports and only act on ones we personally agree with,
You know, I was ready to turn the page and call it good, but then I got treated to yet another round of one-sided moderation.
Thank ORC_Sinister's moderation of my posts just a few threads over on the Solutions thread.
Plus, we have not one -but two- people on this thread calling other posters delusional.
It's been reported more than once and nothing's been done.
So, it was Sinister's watch and only half the work that needed to get done actually got done.
So don't tell me you guys "don't have the time." Sinister is making an art form out of one-sided moderation and playing favorites, and the rest of your crew is following in those footsteps.
EDIT: And the "email us" tab is still not working.
EDIT: And the "email us" tab is still not working.
I suspect that is a problem on your end, and not WotCs.
I have no problems accessing the email us tab using both firefox and IE7.
You know, I was ready to turn the page and call it good, but then I got treated to yet another round of one-sided moderation.
Thank ORC_Sinister's moderation of my posts just a few threads over on the Solutions thread.
Plus, we have not one -but two- people on this thread calling other posters delusional.
It's been reported more than once and nothing's been done.
So, it was Sinister's watch and only half the work that needed to get done actually got done.
So don't tell me you guys "don't have the time." Sinister is making an art form out of one-sided moderation and playing favorites, and the rest of your crew is following in those footsteps.
EDIT: And the "email us" tab is still not working.
About the email us tab, what isn't working? I just sent one to see.
1. Choose 'queues'.
2. enter title
3. enter question/complaint/wording.
4 hit submit
5 it goes to another page telling you that it has not been sent yet. Then there is a button at the bottom that says: send email. Hit it.
Edit Note: THis may almost sound 'talking down', but it is not intended that way. the first couple time I tried to use it, I stared at the second page saying my submission had not been sent without realizing the send email button was there.
From doing a lot of work training people to do things with their hands I have found that when you think someone knows 95% of what is being discussed but don't know which 5% needs to be explained, it is best to include all the boring information. Of course, maybe there is a browser problem. What do I know...I suspect that is a problem on your end, and not WotCs.
I have no problems accessing the email us tab using both firefox and IE7.
Works for me with Firefox 3.0.5, but I had issues with an earlier version of IE. With IE7, it also works for me.