List of Topics that are Off-Topic for the Off-Topic Tavern
-European Union
-Myths & Historical Events
-Joe Biden
-McCain
-Obama
-Monty Python
-Guns and Roses
-Abortion
-World Wars
-New Ages of properity
-Atheists
-Facism
-Voting
-Al Qaeda
-Ethics
-Bailout
-Nazis
-Talking about what is On-Topic in the Off-Topic Tavern
-Talking about what is Off-topic in the Off-Topic Tavern
-Censorship
There is a whole range of categories that fall under political or religion...and to be on the safe side we should be without philosophy as well.
Did I bump enough missed threads or should I keep going?
What topics are On-Topic for the Off-Topic Tavern?
As Lesley Gore said, "Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows..."
Any topic is good game so long as it doesn't go against the CoC (including the general unwritten rules...). Judging by the threads locked, they were enforcing the "no political discussion" rule. I'm surprised that they just started closing those threads since in the Rec Room they act way quicker.
Does the one about EU fall under this? It was very general, nothing seemed controversial there.
When it comes to the Chinese Democracy thread, the "No Politics" guy probably got carried away. This thread wasn't even active lately.
Does the one about EU fall under this? It was very general, nothing seemed controversial there.
When it comes to the Chinese Democracy thread, the "No Politics" guy probably got carried away. This thread wasn't even active lately.
As far as I know anything political is not allowed since WotC wants to remain a neutral site and want to prevent any flame wars, etc. before they start. I know people can have respectful discussions, but I'm guessing they just want to be on the safe side. It's not the ORC's fault either, their doing what was set as a standard and it's understandable.
It's not the ORC's fault either, their doing what was set as a standard and it's understandable.
And the SS was just following orders. Khmer Rouge? Roy Cohn?
No offense, but they maintain an entire forum devote to sex and we can't even discuss politics and religion? It sounds to me like someone torqued this Webster's nuts somewhere on one of the threads and now it's all got to go.
Go on, give me a "white list", tell me what's acceptable. Make me one of the mindless schmucks that Wotc apparently wants for a customer base. Webster is still a censor and that, dear friends, is the absolute most insulting thing I can call a person.
This is called a forum, yet the two of the biggest functions of a forum in ancient Rome are now verboten, kinjiru, forbidden. Those of us that try to maintain civility when discussing delicate matters are cast out onto the garbage heap with the worst of the offensive. Banning open discussion of any topic is likely to flavor my future opinion of WotC and it's little hatchet-man.
I think it's time we re-banned religious/political discussions from the boards. Nothing good ever comes from it, and we certainly wouldn't be the only board that bans it. Indeed many boards followed our lead by not allowing politics and religious discussions when they started up.
I think it started 08/28/08.
Actually, the VCLs have been discussing it for quite a while at this thread in the VCL Open Discussion forum:
I think it started 08/28/08.
I read that too. I noticed there weren't any dissenters. But then again, I also noticed that the discussion of the matter wasn't exactly open to the general public either.
Webster conferred with the party bigwigs and laid down the law. So now we get smacked if we step out of line.
Webster conferred with the party bigwigs and laid down the law. So now we get smacked if we step out of line.
Not much too worry about. Board traffic is a fraction of what it was 12 months ago. I guess they want to shrink the traffic even more?
Also, to be honest, I pushed them pretty hard on the election thread that was in the 4th ed general forum. If you ignored the angry back and forth swipes between pro-dem and pro-rep posts, the thread was still about 40% political flaming posts by those outside America throwing derisive comments about Americans with respect to who might get elected. There were 100+ posts in the first 2 or three hours and posts continuing to get placed every 1 or 2 minutes (there were roughly 50 active members and 350 'guests who could log in and out at the time...) with no end in sight. 100+ posts in less than three hours and 40% of them flaming, not to mention that it did not belong in that forum and it wasn't getting moderated or moved. Yes, I pushed them kind of hard on it. However, as I said previously, they had been pushing it for a while, even with a lull in the postings of the thread from my previous post.
Yes, but the 4e general forum is not the off-topic forum. Off-topic isn't meant to be a forum for the discussion of game material.
Not much too worry about. Board traffic is a fraction of what it was 12 months ago. I guess they want to shrink the traffic even more?
It's a shame too, isn't it? Discussing things in the manner they were being handled in the off-topic forum could've actually built a community from a large group of diverse gamers.
Actually, something I noticed is that there were several 'members' who participated in posting. I never posted one, but my memory is telling me that we can post in there if we choose to do so.
Not sure what you're saying...
Therefore, it is open to all. I haven't posted there, but my memory tells me I can since I remember trying once before.
Not sure what you're saying...
He's suggesting we jump into the VCL discussion. Since the discussion was done in a place that we wouldn't have looked for it, we got slapped with an outright ban on certain topics without our input. He's suggesting we go there and make ourselves heard.
I think the correct solution isn't the banning of political/religious dicussions (and let's face it, EVERYTHING can be turned into one - including the very topic of these forums in general) but rather the banning of users who are being disruptive.
Rather, the reason these threads are getting locked is not discussion of these topics, but rather the users themselves and the posts they're making.
Exactly. The VCLs are jumping to the conclusion that it's the topic causing the problem when, in reality, it's the handful of people that are oppsed to even an open discussion that are the problem.
Though, I think it was worse when they killed the modern boards. They used have lost of good stuff, but soon as it got dropped down to one page they are hardly posted in.
It all goes down to this: Hasbro has sucked the life out of the Wizards like ten shadows on a fighter.
Yea it realy surprised me that Devils Advocate: Fascism got locked, It was going really well after the first page.
Who is Webster? I've never seen Webster take part in any of the discussions being locked out. What community is he or she a volunteer leader of? Shouldn't a VCL be able to tell you without a doubt which threads have devolved into shouting matches? The Athiests? thread was rather sedate for a religious discussion, even though it didn't get started that way.
Webster comes along and the good gets flushed along with the bad.
And the SS was just following orders. Khmer Rouge? Roy Cohn?
No offense, but they maintain an entire forum devote to sex and we can't even discuss politics and religion? It sounds to me like someone torqued this Webster's nuts somewhere on one of the threads and now it's all got to go.
Go on, give me a "white list", tell me what's acceptable. Make me one of the mindless schmucks that Wotc apparently wants for a customer base. Webster is still a censor and that, dear friends, is the absolute most insulting thing I can call a person.
This is called a forum, yet the two of the biggest functions of a forum in ancient Rome are now verboten, kinjiru, forbidden. Those of us that try to maintain civility when discussing delicate matters are cast out onto the garbage heap with the worst of the offensive. Banning open discussion of any topic is likely to flavor my future opinion of WotC and it's little hatchet-man.
The mature forums are locked from the general postings, with posters wanting access having to verify info on their age iirc. People forget that we have minors viewing the forums. Unless you mean some other I haven't been in perhaps.
Also, if a poster(s) report a thread, ORCs must review it. If they also happen on various similar threads say on the main page within sight then they must close it too. That's how it's been as far as I can remember unless there has been a rule change; it's been a while.
It may just be certain posters who ruin the fun for everyone, but bannings have been ineffective as of late and honestly I've seen decent people just jump in when they lose their cool anyway. WotC just doesn't want to deal with even the start of a potential flame war or insults if they can help it.
Who is Webster? I've never seen Webster take part in any of the discussions being locked out. What community is he or she a volunteer leader of? Shouldn't a VCL be able to tell you without a doubt which threads have devolved into shouting matches? The Athiests? thread was rather sedate for a religious discussion, even though it didn't get started that way.
Webster comes along and the good gets flushed along with the bad.
Well...I've seen him a lot in 4th Ed Gen. His little subscript also says "Senior Volunteer Community Lead". That tells me he's kind of the VCL for VCLs. As I recall, isn't it VCLs who currently decide if something is "no go" on topics for a while? This is strictly a question of policy, not the right/wrong aspect of it.
As I recall, isn't it VCLs who currently decide if something is "no go" on topics for a while? This is strictly a question of policy, not the right/wrong aspect of it.
Perhaps if you didn't wholeheartedly agree with it, you might see why an outright ban is bad for building a community among gamers. Just because we disagree at times, doesn't mean that we should cease the discussions completely.
I don't know about the rest, but part of the reason the games I play are so good is because there's a great deal of real-world buried just under the surface of the fantastic. Without a rudimentary understanding of that real-world, the game suffers. These forums were a good source of the discussions that could spark the kind of thinking that seperates the so-so DM from the great DM. A blanket ban, just because you or someone else doesn't like the topic affects all of us, not just you.
Perhaps if you didn't wholeheartedly agree with it, you might see why an outright ban is bad for building a community among gamers. Just because we disagree at times, doesn't mean that we should cease the discussions completely.
I don't know about the rest, but part of the reason the games I play are so good is because there's a great deal of real-world buried just under the surface of the fantastic. Without a rudimentary understanding of that real-world, the game suffers. These forums were a good source of the discussions that could spark the kind of thinking that seperates the so-so DM from the great DM. A blanket ban, just because you or someone else doesn't like the topic affects all of us, not just you.
I don't necessarily agree with the ban. Did I ever say I agreed with it? I'm trying to a)provide a calm voice, b) try to fully understand the situation, and c) play a bit of devil's advocate.
My quote may not have been worded quite how I intended. I meant it in the sense of "I'm asking if this is the policy; the question of whether this is right or wrong is a completely different question from this one".
I'm simply trying to make sure I, and others, have the completest picture of the situation as possible. That's it.
What topics are On-Topic for the Off-Topic Tavern?
List of Topics that are Off-Topic for the Off-Topic Tavern
-European Union
-Myths & Historical Events
-Joe Biden
-McCain
-Obama
-Monty Python
-Guns and Roses
-Abortion
-World Wars
-New Ages of properity
-Atheists
-Facism
-Voting
-Al Qaeda
-Ethics
-Bailout
-Nazis
-Talking about what is Off-Topic or On-Topic for the Off-Topic Tavern
There is a whole range of categories that fall under political or religion...and to be on the safe side we should be without philosophy as well.
There.
All I can really say it was awesome to be able to see your perspectives on things. I may not have always agreed but it was nice anyhow.
Along with Politics and Religion they should also ban talk about 3e being superior to 4e...or the 4e = WoW or similar.
Having played WoW for a few years, though no longer...I do have to say that the forums here are a lot more pleasant.
There.
Got the list edited...ty
The Religion and Political ban is in greater depth than just religion and politics. If you can think of a topic that falls under the spectrum (like history that got banned along with religion or censorship for political) please feel free to add it and I will edit my list.
In this way we can help members, new and old, be good little sheep.
The main reason for banning topics, rather than banning users, in my estimation, was handily summed up by Xeptian in the thread quoted above from the VCL forum. He noted that folks get heated about politics and religion and that it would be rather unfair for a paying D&D Insider subscriber to get banned from their gaming subscription service over a post or two in a non-gaming discussion.
Monty Python? wtf? honestly?
Yes, one time the conversation drifting into the subject of the Ministry of Silly Walks. This was blatant politics so, all of Monty Python was banned.
Honestly, I feel the problem isn't the topics, but the users. There have been plenty of decent discussions. Then someone comes in and claims that Obama is a Christian Muslim terrorist black supremacist.
I think the correct solution isn't the banning of political/religious dicussions (and let's face it, EVERYTHING can be turned into one - including the very topic of these forums in general) but rather the banning of users who are being disruptive.
Say's the pot calling the kettle black. I think this is the correct solution for an all ages site. The only way to properly govern an all ages site is to cater to the lowest common denomenator, in this case children. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelavant because this site is privately owned and controlled. I would suggest finding or making a more suitable site for heated political debate.
Say's the pot calling the kettle black. I think this is the correct solution for an all ages site. The only way to properly govern an all ages site is to cater to the lowest common denomenator, in this case children. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelavant because this site is privately owned and controlled. I would suggest finding or making a more suitable site for heated political debate.
All ages? You do realize that it is unwise to have kids going onto message boards and other locales. Even stuff advertised on Nic and other kids channels tells parents to moderate there kids going to their stuff designed for kids.
All ages? You do realize that it is unwise to have kids going onto message boards and other locales. Even stuff advertised on Nic and other kids channels tells parents to moderate there kids going to their stuff designed for kids.
Which is why WoTWC are trying their best to make it as kid friendly as possible. They want those parents that are moderating their kids to want to go on this site and in the process sell products to them.
They want those parents that are moderating their kids to want to go on this site and in the process sell products to them.
Truth. 4.0 was designed to pull in the young children market segment. Thus, the clamp down since its release.
Seriously, people. The "Dogma" and "Sheep" talk is mildly ridiculous, and REALLY, REALLY petty. Can we all just grow up, please?
Kursk, can you take your lambasting ******** somewhere else, please? PLEASE?? You are SO biased. It's like there's two PsionXs posting on these Boards lately.
Kursk, can you take your lambasting ******** somewhere else, please? PLEASE?? You are SO biased.
I guess I could because you're unbiased.
I guess I could because you're unbiased.
At least I won't sink to ANY depths to try and bad-mouth you. I'm just gonna stick with the normal, blunt insults, instead of ATTEMPTING to use snide comments to try and appear intelligent.
"So were you born with a sneer on your face, or did that just appear the moment they took 3.5 away from you?"
Seriously, dude. Voice complaints instead of trying to use smartalec comments, like you have some kind of High Horse to sit on.
Kursk, can you take your lambasting ******** somewhere else, please? PLEASE?? You are SO biased.
Yes, he is, be he has a right to be. While Kursk and I are often at odds from our points of view, his is an opinion that I value.
And that, sir, is part of the point. The political and religious threads are hot-button topics, but we're capable of understanding that sometimes peoples' opinions can be discarded without concern instead of simply banning the topic outright.
Yes, he is, be he has a right to be.
Really?? Did WotC kick his dog?? I mean, I can understand some bias, sure, but answering any and all attempts at a discussion with petty jabs at a product most of us enjoy? That seems a bit much, and I don't think anyone has the right to act like that.
That seems a bit much, and I don't think anyone has the right to act like that.
On the contrary, the ban seems to stem from the complaints of the community. Kursk is complaining about the ban. And since Kursk is a member of said community, that leaves us in a bit of a pickle, doesn't it?
However, I was speaking of his right to act condescending to anyone who disagrees with him.
However, I was speaking of his right to act condescending to anyone who disagrees with him.
Somewhat like your response to him?
Ahh, no, you see, I'm irate and derogatory. At least I'm honest.
Well, that's settled then. Can we get back to hoisting the Censor-king by his petards now?
Well, that's settled then. Can we get back to hoisting the Censor-king by his petards now?
LOL.
"Bring out the gang-plank, Mr. Gobbo! This one needs to be taught a lesson! Arr!"
In my opinion, a return to the old policy of banning politics and religion as topics is a good thing. Political discussions are simply too volatile. Removing them makes the atmosphere more relaxed and laid-back.
Honestly, I am surprised that they ever relaxed that ban in the first place. The "no discussion of politics/religion" clause of the CoC was there for years. I remember when they announced that were going to experiment with slightly relaxing the enforcement of the policy on the D20 Modern forums. I am not aware of when they removed it, but recently I was pretty surprised to see such discussions so rampant in the Off-Topic Tavern. I didn't even get the notice those topics were un-banned.
In my opinion, a return to the old policy of banning politics and religion as topics is a good thing. Political discussions are simply too volatile. Removing them makes the atmosphere more relaxed and laid-back.
Sure removing political and religious topics does relax the atmosphere but what do you learn? Nothing, having an argument about a heated topic on political and social issues isn't a bad thing, because if you read most of the arguments people are making you can see different aspects of that topic and yeah some times the outer fringe arguments can rile you up but that’s life and you learn something. Not that that was the reason behind the ban it was mostly due to the less then kid friendly diatribes that attributed to the ban.
Dude, "Screw you, your 'beliefs' are idiotic," is not teaching anyone anything, and that is most definitely the type of heat that those discussions attract on an anonymous Forum.
Not to you obviously if that all you can get out of a discussion. The rest of us who are above those juvenile displays quite eloquently make our arguments, that do not result in such debase insults.
Not to you obviously if that all you can get out of a discussion. The rest of us who are above those juvenile displays quite eloquently make our arguments, that do not result in such debase insults.
Oh, take your "subtle" condescension somewhere else.
The POINT was that hot-topics like that either A) Bring out the worst in normal people, or B) Attract the worst sort of Trolls looking to cause trouble.Geeze.
At least I won't sink to ANY depths to try and bad-mouth you. I'm just gonna stick with the normal, blunt insults, instead of ATTEMPTING to use snide comments to try and appear intelligent.
"So were you born with a sneer on your face, or did that just appear the moment they took 3.5 away from you?"
Seriously, dude. Voice complaints instead of trying to use smartalec comments, like you have some kind of High Horse to sit on.
You see I would see these remarks as flaming. What you said here was uncalled for and juvenile. You could have easily made your point without in the process insulting Kursk. Now I’m not saying were all perfect, sometime even I blow a gasket when I feel someone blatantly insulted me, but that’s life, like I said. I doubt you were trying to flame Kursk, it happens. The best you can do is calm down and either try making friends or ignore that poster.
As for the Mature Forums, they were shut down quite a while ago.
Oh, take your "subtle" condescension somewhere else.
Geeze.
That wasn't an insult and A) can be said about any topic that anyone disagrees with and B) goes double for A. This has nothing to do with the topics it has everything to do with people discussing those topics. let's suppose I said I hate D&D and went and described every aspect I thought was bad about D&D. Guess what, now I have a hot topic and no politics or religion were involved.
You see I would see these remarks as flaming. What you said here was uncalled for and juvenile. You could have easily made your point without in the process insulting Kursk. Now I’m not saying were all perfect, sometime even I blow a gasket when I feel someone blatantly insulted me, but that’s life, like I said. I doubt you were trying to flame Kursk, it happens. The best you can do is calm down and either try making friends or ignore that poster.
No, THIS - "Truth. 4.0 was designed to pull in the young children market segment." - is juvenile and uncalled for. Kursk does not respect other posters when they disagree with him, and everything he has to say is said in a condescending manner that automatically implies the opposing poster is not only wrong, but also an imbecile! THAT is juvenile. If you can't even discuss something with another poster without automatically assuming they are wrong right off the bat, why argue at all?? I really can't say, myself, but his attitude does not lead to any kind of productive discussion.
I'm sorry to say I was flaming him, as I usually (as I hope you can see here) discuss things fairly calmly with anyone who treats me with the respect I believe everyone deserves. However, the minute they have decided they have no need to respect anyone else's opinion, they are no longer going to receive any respect from me. They are obviously only here to either feel better about themselves by belittling others (cyber-bullying), or they get their jollies from causing a disturbance (trolling). Neither should be tolerated if the Boards are going to be a positive place to discuss things. Some people I simply report and ignore, whilst others skirt the edges of the CoC, managing not to break the LETTER of the Law while still trampling the Spirit. I can only stand so much BS from these types of people before I am forced to call them on it, and hope they stop treating others condescendingly. It works here and there, but nobody is perfect, so I only expect so much. :$
No, THIS - "Truth. 4.0 was designed to pull in the young children market segment." - is juvenile and uncalled for. Kursk does not respect other posters when they disagree with him, and everything he has to say is said in a condescending manner that automatically implies the opposing poster is not only wrong, but also an imbecile! THAT is juvenile. If you can't even discuss something with another poster without automatically assuming they are wrong right off the bat, why argue at all?? I really can't say, myself, but his attitude does not lead to any kind of productive discussion.
I'm sorry to say I was flaming him, as I usually (as I hope you can see here) discuss things fairly calmly with anyone who treats me with the respect I believe everyone deserves. However, the minute they have decided they have no need to respect anyone else's opinion, they are no longer going to receive any respect from me. They are obviously only here to either feel better about themselves by belittling others (cyber-bullying), or they get their jollies from causing a disturbance (trolling). Neither should be tolerated if the Boards are going to be a positive place to discuss things. Some people I simply report and ignore, whilst others skirt the edges of the CoC, managing not to break the LETTER of the Law while still trampling the Spirit. I can only stand so much BS from these types of people before I am forced to call them on it, and hope they stop treating others condescendingly. It works here and there, but nobody is perfect, so I only expect so much. :$
So you are taking exception to what Kursk was saying that 4.0 was designed to pull in a younger market? If so I don't see the insult and actually I agree that 4.0 was made to create a wider audience.
That wasn't an insult and A) can be said about any topic that anyone disagrees with and B) goes double for A. This has nothing to do with the topics it has everything to do with people discussing those topics. let's suppose I said I hate D&D and went and described every aspect I thought was bad about D&D. Guess what, now I have a hot topic and no politics or religion were involved.
So when you said, "The rest of us who are above those juvenile displays quite eloquently make our arguments, that do not result in such debase insults," there was absolutely NO condescension? Really? Because if so, perhaps you might want to reread your posts before submitting them, just to make sure your phrasing comes off like you mean it to. I always reread my posts, and I usually have to change a few things.
Any topic can bring out the worst in normal people sometimes, yes, but some topics simply do so a MUCH larger percentage of the time. And if someone is getting their jollies by causing a disturbance, it's much easier to do so in a conversation that's already chock full of explosives just ready to go off. Your Hate Thread would be against the CoC, would be locked, and nothing would come of it. Now, the same goes for the other Hot Topics.
So you are taking exception to what Kursk was saying that 4.0 was designed to pull in a younger market? If so I don't see the insult and actually I agree that 4.0 was made to create a wider audience.
SIGH. No, see, I can always read what people actually SAY in their posts. It's why he can get away with it. On face value, nothing wrong at all, oh no! But in fact, he's not speaking of a "Wider Audience," he's belittling 4E as a game for small children, therefore inferring that anyone who plays it as such has the mentality of said children.
To me, his attempts at subtlety are paper-thin. We actually have a history of clashing here and there, and every time, his MO is the same thing - quiet, constant condescension, whereas I just get angry and throw Bricks at people's heads. I'm actually usually MORE insulted when people think I don't see what they really mean, than if they just called me an idiot and got it over with. So when you said, "The rest of us who are above those juvenile displays quite eloquently make our arguments, that do not result in such debase insults," there was absolutely NO condescension? Really? Because if so, perhaps you might want to reread your posts before submitting them, just to make sure your phrasing comes off like you mean it to. I always reread my posts, and I usually have to change a few things.
Any topic can bring out the worst in normal people sometimes, yes, but some topics simply do so a MUCH larger percentage of the time. And if someone is getting their jollies by causing a disturbance, it's much easier to do so in a conversation that's already chock full of explosives just ready to go off. Your Hate Thread would be against the CoC, would be locked, and nothing would come of it. Now, the same goes for the other Hot Topics.
Nope not condescending, you are trying to emote a meaning into my argument. In other words you feel like I have put you down. I have instead made my point in the best possible way to make my argument. It's not personal.
Nope not condescending, you are trying to emote a meaning into my argument. In other words you feel like I have put you down. I have instead made my point in the best possible way to make my argument. It's not personal.
Well, you were kind of addressing me, personally, in the previous sentence before that one, so you'll have to excuse me if I thought otherwise.
Well, you were kind of addressing me, personally, in the previous sentence before that one, so you'll have to excuse me if I thought otherwise.
Let me explain myself, arguments are a lot like boxing matches. When your in the ring your hitting the guy left and right and some times those punches sting, but when all is said and done the two opponents shake hands. I'm not trying to make you look like a bad person in fact how we conduct ourselves during and after an argument tells alot about a person.
I'm still trying to figure out why Monty Python and Guns N Roses are banned topics.
It's a mockery of CS because Guns 'N Roses' new album is called Chinese Democracy and the WizOs/CS are pop-culturally challenged.
It's a mockery of CS because Guns 'N Roses' new album is called Chinese Democracy and the WizOs/CS are pop-culturally challenged.
They seriously went overboard with THAT crap.
@SirPatric: Again, I have no real problem with people who just come out and SAY something. It simply irks me when people ride Invisible Horses around the Boards.
It's a mockery of CS because Guns 'N Roses' new album is called Chinese Democracy and the WizOs/CS are pop-culturally challenged.
Wait! Seriously? They locked the thread because the title of the new album kinda, sorta is political theme?
Wait! Seriously? They locked the thread because the title of the new album kinda, sorta is political theme?
Yep. They were a bit overzealous in their cleansing of all things political and religious.
Would a topic titled "The Politics of Religion" be ok. :P
Neither should be tolerated if the Boards are going to be a positive place to discuss things. Some people I simply report and ignore, whilst others skirt the edges of the CoC, managing not to break the LETTER of the Law while still trampling the Spirit. I can only stand so much BS from these types of people before I am forced to call them on it, and hope they stop treating others condescendingly. It works here and there, but nobody is perfect, so I only expect so much. :$
Isn't this twice in 3 pages that it's been pointed out that you're doing the very thing you're accusing another of?
Not that that was the reason behind the ban it was mostly due to the less then kid friendly diatribes that attributed to the ban.
And the threads in the Astrid's Parlor forum are kid friendly?
And why is there a political thread allowed in the Rec Room but not in the Off-topic forum?
And why is there a political thread allowed in the Rec Room but not in the Off-topic forum?
The Rec Room falls under a different VCL.
And the threads in the Astrid's Parlor forum are kid friendly?
And why is there a political thread allowed in the Rec Room but not in the Off-topic forum?
That is sooo true...
Arguments do get heated in politics and religion...but if I had to choose between letting my son read that stuff and the stuff in Astrids...I would choose Off-Topic...
Really when it comes down to it I cannot see too much in the politics or religion that is vulgar or NC17 compared to threads over in Astrids from guys looking for girls advice to help them get lucky or some of the other topics that spring up there.
So what?... there is a back and forth where people lay out their belief sets whether they are founded on religion, history, science...how is that inappropriate for children compared to topics like...
Sex, Violence, and RPG
It really just looks a bit...well...anyways....
Isn't this twice in 3 pages that it's been pointed out that you're doing the very thing you're accusing another of?
If it were, they'd be wrong. I take the CoC, break it over my knee, and smack some people around with it. I get Temp-banned sometimes, but other times, like now, for instance, I'm guessing nobody reports my posts for some reason.
Again, if people have problems with my posts, attacking my arguments is fine, but calling me names lowers them to a very juvenile level, and doesn't provide much of a counter-argument. I'm simply railing against the inherent condescension some people think they can get away with just because the Internet isn't face-to-face. I just try my best to get IN their face, and by doing so, make them back off and stop acting the high-and-mighty. Again, say what you mean, cut the crap, and if it doesn't break the CoC, then I really have no reason to be angry at you, and I end up being the juvenile one.If it were, they'd be wrong. I take the CoC, break it over my knee, and smack some people around with it. I get Temp-banned sometimes, but other times, like now, for instance, I'm guessing nobody reports my posts for some reason.
I'm gonna throw my two copper pennies in on this.
I'm going to buck the trend by saying I agree wholeheartedly with the above summation.
That's about all I have to say on this situation.
If it were, they'd be wrong. I take the CoC, break it over my knee, and smack some people around with it. I get Temp-banned sometimes, but other times, like now, for instance, I'm guessing nobody reports my posts for some reason.
I say cut the crap...blow some steam...it is the real reason for forums...
The main reason for banning topics, rather than banning users, in my estimation, was handily summed up by Xeptian in the thread quoted above from the VCL forum. He noted that folks get heated about politics and religion and that it would be rather unfair for a paying D&D Insider subscriber to get banned from their gaming subscription service over a post or two in a non-gaming discussion.
This is quite illogical.
Why on Earth would you have to ban someone from an insider subscription by banning them from forums?
There is no logical linkage between the two. It seems quite reasonable to ban someone from the forums without banning them from Insider. It doesn't make sense to me why the company would ban someone from both. Heck, if someone constantly trolls these boards, but wants a subscription to insider, I don't see why we'd stop them from doing so at the moment. Yes, obviously once they get the game table up and running someone spouting racial epithets might get banned from it, but it doesn't seem to me to be a logical business decision to link the two.
In short: this is an invalid argument because it is a bad way of doing business, and has nothing to do with the insider account. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, the two aren't even linked. Even if they were, it seems easy to remove posting priviledges without removing Insider access, as clearly the opposite is quite plausible.
Say's the pot calling the kettle black. I think this is the correct solution for an all ages site.
How is it for all ages if it excludes discussions by and for people with emotional maturity beyond the age of 8?
Seriously, people seem to have "all ages" and "children only" confused. Moreover, the world exists for "all ages", yet politics exists in it, and the idea that children don't have any exposure to politics, religion, ect. is plain old silly.
The only way to properly govern an all ages site is to cater to the lowest common denomenator, in this case children.
No. This is completely illogical, because, guess what?
If you cater only to one age group at the cost of all others, you aren't "all ages" anymore!
I know this is difficult for many people to grasp, but "all ages" does not mean "children only". You can watch The Lion King without feeling like an idiot. You cannot watch The Land Before Time 9 without feeling like an idiot.
The reason is that one is "all ages" and one is "children only".
Truth. 4.0 was designed to pull in the young children market segment. Thus, the clamp down since its release.
Okay, seriously?
No.
I know you guys have no idea what you're talking about, but seriously, spouting off stuff like this gets us nowhere.
D&D's target audience has not changed with 4th edition. And there hasn't been a "clamp down" since its release.
The idea of both is ridiculous beyond belief.
Its made to be more accessible, but this is not equivalent to "targeting a lower age group". It targets more people by making fewer rules for the sake of rules and streamlining the game, as well as simply making it more fun. The audience is basically the same, but they're trying to increase its size.
"A frank and friendly discussion on the subject of women and gaming, inspired by Shelly Mazzanoble’s book, Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress: A Girls Guide to D&D"
(Note: Emphasis added by me)
It isn't really all that "friendly"; usually, the threads seem to just degenerate into women's/gay rights shouting matches, and, quite frankly, it's caused me to largely ignore that section of the forum; don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with discussions about women's rights and/or gay rights, but aren't those "political" or "religious" enough? Or do they not count because they have to do with women? Or, at least, the first one does... Well, the second one does too, for lesbians, but does that mean anything involving MALE Gay Rights should be censored?
(Please Note: These are just my opinions; I don't want to start a big argument or anything, it's just my two cents. Peace.)
Other than that Astrid's is a very open and kind forum community.
The only time when it seems as if Astrid's is only about womens/gay rights is when someone posts within Astrid's something like "Astrid's is only about womens/gay issues". They also hate terms such as feminazi being used. So basically what I am trying to say is that when Astrid's seems to turn into a big women's rights or gay rights issue it is because some goes into the forum baiting by women/gay bashing (or at least this is what I have witnessed on many occasions). I have to admit that sometimes some people accidentally use the wrong words, words that tend to anger people (especially women), and it breaks down into argument. The argument is usually the Astrid's community telling the person that they used a applied a word incorrectly or used an sensitive word and that they should be a bit more careful with word usage. Then the person accuses the Astrid's community of being a bunch of feminists and being closed minded.
Other than that Astrid's is a very open and kind forum community.
Well all right, then. Perhaps it's changed from when I last saw it.
Well all right, then. Perhaps it's changed from when I last saw it.
Well I have been active in Astrid's since this last June (or was it July) and for the most part it has been friendly. Most of the arguments seem to be between the same two or three people anyways.
I've never once even set foot in the Parlor, but I need to get a copy of that book when I get a chance...
I'd wait for the 4e version. 3e "Confessions..." suffers from a serious lack of class balance- this sorcerer chick is a real spotlight hog.
I kid, I kid. I bought my copy, so I can have a laugh, yeah?
Since then, things have changed. Many of those who had been arguing for weeks came to an understanding of each other's positions. Personal accusations mostly stopped flying around. A few of the more problematic posters departed. Subject matter branched out and became a lot more interesting for it. It's a much calmer place to post these days, and the discussion is mostly productive.
That's not to say that the forum is kid-friendly. You can't have a discussion about gender issues without talking about sex, hormones, and all things related. It's not bad enough to warrant age-based locking like the old Mature forums (it's simply not that explicit), but it deals with difficult, mature issues that kids generally aren't ready for. That said, we have some teenagers posting in there (~15), and they appear to be learning a lot from it, so it's at least fine for that age group.
I don't think the banning of politics and religion from discussion had anything to do with kidifying the forums. It had everything to do with making the mods' lives easier. Perhaps they've been overworked and stressed beyond their paychecks lately, in which case it's a reasonable move. Probably ill-timed, since the US election is now over and most of that would have calmed down anyways, but what can you do?
Probably ill-timed, since the US election is now over and most of that would have calmed down anyways, but what can you do?
So true so true...
Seems like we can still discuss(debate) science...do not really know about history...maybe topics like "Do Ghosts exist..." lol eh
I'd like to ask folks to work with Webster. I've been around these forums for a long time, and I'm hard-pressed to think of somebody who's done more work around here, to be honest. Help him make the community a better place for all of us.
And the threads in the Astrid's Parlor forum are kid friendly?
You got me there. If you are going to ban political and religious topics then topics on sexuality should fit under that umbrella.
Could I do a "Bacon Blog"? Basically say what D&D projects I'm working on (monsters, classes, bump-age of my stuff :P, feats, ect.) and what is discrating me from doing them?
Nope. Bacon=pig, and the moment someone mentions lipstick...
I kid, but banning politics? Really? By Volunteer censors? You mean the guys who tell us what we can and can't talk about actually volunteer for this? Does anyone else find this disturbing? Are the volunteers vetted in any way? So no religion, no politics, well I guess science is out due to creationism vs evolution. Any major issue of the day takes about five minutes to get politicised, so are they out too? I still can't understand why the 2nd amendment thread got locked, there was no real partisanship there, and it was about why the document is there in the first place, nothing really about REP vs DEMS at all, and at the end it was about important historical documents, so is history out too? What if it actually is the users that get heated and they start getting heated about other topics? You going to ban them too?
By the way, if you restrict the subjects to what kids can see, how young are we talking here? will we have to talk about TMNT vs biker mice from mars so we don't offend the kiddies? Where are the parents here? How far does this go? I guess pie vs cake can be back on the agenda but that only goes so far...
Any discussion can become heated. It's silly to think banning a few types will solve anything. The fact that kids come here is being used as some sort of justification is also silly. I'm not your child's parent. You are. It's not up to me or the mods to make sure your child sees only things you're comfortable with - that's on you. ;)
It is my opinion that the some of the things that go on Astrids is a lot worse, yet in this decision to close down politics and religion they do not address other things that are also unsuitable for children.
agreed 100% zombie. By the way, if you're undead and the whole cleric vs undead thing, is your name now a CoC violation?
Hmm. I think it may just be discussion of my name involving some sort of religious problem with undead or some potential law for/against undead and the party that sponsored it. ;)
This is one of the problems with censorship. You've taken out religion and politics, but you've left topics that start conflict and others see as problem areas as well. So, you're either forced to ban, ban, ban the offensive/incendiary topics - as a whole - or you're stuck looking like a hypocrite who targeted the original areas due to some personal bias. Either way, it's all sorts of bad, IMO.
If you just take effort to look you can find the same in any section because people have different perspectives on things regardless if it falls into politics or religion.
How is it for all ages if it excludes discussions by and for people with emotional maturity beyond the age of 8?
Seriously, people seem to have "all ages" and "children only" confused. Moreover, the world exists for "all ages", yet politics exists in it, and the idea that children don't have any exposure to politics, religion, ect. is plain old silly.
No. This is completely illogical, because, guess what?
If you cater only to one age group at the cost of all others, you aren't "all ages" anymore!
I know this is difficult for many people to grasp, but "all ages" does not mean "children only". You can watch The Lion King without feeling like an idiot. You cannot watch The Land Before Time 9 without feeling like an idiot.
The reason is that one is "all ages" and one is "children only".
I think you are looking at this all wrong. So let's try an analogy: let's suppose you had a room full or foriegners from around the world all of which can speak some level of english, but english is not the primary language. You want to communicate to all of them by writing a sign. Now you could write "salutations" and maybe half the room get's what you are saying so instead you write "welcome" which is a more common greeting so everyone get's gist. It's the same with an all ages site if you want everyone included you have cater to the lowest because that who sets the bar.
Okay, seriously?
No.
I know you guys have no idea what you're talking about, but seriously, spouting off stuff like this gets us nowhere.
D&D's target audience has not changed with 4th edition. And there hasn't been a "clamp down" since its release.
The idea of both is ridiculous beyond belief.
Its made to be more accessible, but this is not equivalent to "targeting a lower age group". It targets more people by making fewer rules for the sake of rules and streamlining the game, as well as simply making it more fun. The audience is basically the same, but they're trying to increase its size.
That would be your opinion, so far as I can see (and no I have yet to make a complete analysis between all the editions) 2e seems more advanced then 4e. The rules even in 3e or 3.5e were sort of starting to reflect that.Again in my opinion I have no facts to back up my claim, it's what I believe from what I 've read. You can feel free to tell me or anyone else you don't agree with my opinion which is fine but that does not make my opinion wrong. So instead of telling us all how ridiculous beyond belief we are or that we have no idea what we are talking about try swaying our opinion instead.
In short, the "kid-friendly" notion is barking up the wrong tree.
And for the record, politics is also a banned topic in Astrid's -- there should be no threads about feminist / anti-feminist political groups or anything of the sort. Many of the very heated threads in Astrid's earlier days actually revolved around gender politics as opposed to D&D.
...and that wasn't even the primary argument made for this decision by Webster in previous threads...
It was an argument, though, so do not take it out of the equation. You are right as to whether a part of it was that the debates around religion and political posts were harder to moderate...
Regardless I do not think it was due to the nature of it being religious or political but due to the fact that it was a debate. People stand on their sides, some blurred and speak their voice. Sometimes they are cool and analytical about it and at other times the emotions run high...
You will be hard pressed to find a area in these forums that does not contain people expressing their opinions and people expressing their opinions about other peoples opinions.
I am sorry but it is not the nature of Politics or Religion that cases this but the debate itself. You can see it all around, whether it is people drawing conclusions over vague rules in 4e, people expressing their likes or dislikes for 4e, whether evil should be allowed in a group, etc, etc. You can keep going on with the list over what people debate on in these forums.
The debates get heated regardless of subject and it is the debates that happen that are harder to moderate then the actual subject matter. Will banning two broad spectrum topics stop people from getting heated? Not in the least...
Was the back and forth appropriate for children? Not always, yet it was better then some of the things that go on in Astrids...
Astrids is cool, do not get me wrong, there are some really interesting things happening there and some interesting ideas that get dicussed...yet at the end of the day the average topic over there is going to be a lot more mature then the average topic that happens in the Off-Topic...
That is what it comes down to...the debate is still going to be heated and harder to moderate...and there are still going to be areas within this forum that are a lot more inappropriate for children...
So what was accomplished?
I just think any commentary regarding "mature" content is an excuse, not a reason.
I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding whether or not political & religious threads should have been banned (after all, I posted in most of them).
My question is whether or not it hamstrings us as a community to disallow it. Webster has made a case that the Off-topic forum is intended for light-hearted topics only. But that beggars the question of where do more serious matters get their time in the sunshine?
D&D is a game that includes both religion and politics. No one can argue that fact, it's part of every game world. Some of us actually look at the real world when we're thinking about those in-game dynamics. Without a forum to discuss these things with like-minded fellow gamers, do we limit our enjoyment of the game?
The Off-topic forum without the ban was a place where anything could be discussed in a reasonable manner. It gave us a place where we could sit around bantering back and forth in an attempt to make our understanding of the real-world more complete and, in turn, make our fantasy worlds more complete, more real.
Additionally, without allowing the frank and open discussion of real life, do we as a community suffer? I understand that Webster's position is that we can go elsewhere for that sort of discussion, but doesn't that detract from the community? We are gamers, discussing things like religion and politics with fellow gamers isn't possible in other places.
Certainly religious and political discussions are minefields, but they're necessary minefields. How many of the posters that I am normally at odds with in those discussions are here arguing in opposition to the same ban that I am? Think about it. Those of us that enjoy the discourse on politics and religion have closed ranks and are arguing, as a community, against banning those same discussions. Isn't that the point of the Wizards Community Boards?
I think you are looking at this all wrong. So let's try an analogy: let's suppose you had a room full or foriegners from around the world all of which can speak some level of english, but english is not the primary language. You want to communicate to all of them by writing a sign. Now you could write "salutations" and maybe half the room get's what you are saying so instead you write "welcome" which is a more common greeting so everyone get's gist. It's the same with an all ages site if you want everyone included you have cater to the lowest because that who sets the bar.
No. This is not the same thing at all. It is an invalid comparision.
That would be your opinion, so far as I can see (and no I have yet to make a complete analysis between all the editions) 2e seems more advanced then 4e.
4th edition is a much more advanced edition than 2nd edition was. It is also considerably more user friendly.
I'll give you a simple example:
What can you do in 2nd edition in a round?
What can you do in 4th edition in a round?
How do you change what a class does in 2nd edition?
How do you change what a class does in 4th edition?
How equal are the power levels of the classes in 2nd edition?
How equal are the power levels of the classes in 4th edition?
Which edition is it easier to look stuff up in?
Which edition is more professional?
Which edition is more internally consistant?
Which edition has more rules in the core books?
Which edition has more options in the core books?
How much "stuff" is there to an average character?
In all of these regards, 4th edition is much more advanced than previous editions.
Additionally, without allowing the frank and open discussion of real life, do we as a community suffer? I understand that Webster's position is that we can go elsewhere for that sort of discussion, but doesn't that detract from the community? We are gamers, discussing things like religion and politics with fellow gamers isn't possible in other places.
Indeed. Not to mention the fact that you're more likely to see this spring up elsewhere when you ban it as a topic from the off-topic forum.
Though, to be fair, maybe that's not WotC's goals with the forums.
Though, to be fair, maybe that's not WotC's goals with the forums.
Then perhaps that should've been stated outright when the ban started and threads started closing, eh? If the point of the Wizards Community isn't to build community, then it would be wise to make that point early on, wouldn't it?
Then perhaps that should've been stated outright when the ban started and threads started closing, eh? If the point of the Wizards Community isn't to build community, then it would be wise to make that point early on, wouldn't it?
Goblin's right. As usual, their PR is Bottom-of-the-Barrel. :$
Ok i think it is time to collapse these forums because i have heard talk of actual "discussions" occuring and i find this rather disturbing! The jack boots are marching....
Sadly, that is what it appears to be, non?
Really? I mean it's not a NEW ban; just re-instating the ban we HAD. How ever did the boards survive with the ban before? ;)
Does anyone who does not work on the boards get a say on what's does or does not get banned?
No. This is not the same thing at all. It is an invalid comparision.
In the spirit of non-discussion I agree to disagree.
4th edition is a much more advanced edition than 2nd edition was. It is also considerably more user friendly.
I'll give you a simple example:
What can you do in 2nd edition in a round?
What can you do in 4th edition in a round?
How do you change what a class does in 2nd edition?
How do you change what a class does in 4th edition?
How equal are the power levels of the classes in 2nd edition?
How equal are the power levels of the classes in 4th edition?
Which edition is it easier to look stuff up in?
Which edition is more professional?
Which edition is more internally consistant?
Which edition has more rules in the core books?
Which edition has more options in the core books?
How much "stuff" is there to an average character?
In all of these regards, 4th edition is much more advanced than previous editions.
You answered a question with a question like I said I have not done a comparison so until I do all of your question for me will go un-answered. So until then you may be right.
Really? I mean it's not a NEW ban; just re-instating the ban we HAD. How ever did the boards survive with the ban before? ;)
Doesn't the outcry since it's reinstatement suggest that the community is against it?
On a side note of a more personal nature, your use of smilies when discussing this ban is at the very least condescending and rather insulting. It may be nothing, a mere attempt to lighten the mood a bit, but it suggests that you find humor in something the rest of us are rather annoyed by.
Does anyone who does not work on the boards get a say on what's does or does not get banned?
You could complain to his superiors, but somehow I think the complaint would land in his mailbox.
You could complain to his superiors, but somehow I think the complaint would land in his mailbox.
Well what I'm getting at is that if we don't have a say and I suspect we don't, what the point of discussing it in the first place? I've been on another site where this form of banning has been done. The Admin/Mod doesn't even bother with the argument because he/she knows that it's not a subject up for debate on privately owned site. I'm not saying I condone banning, I just want to know where we stand.
Does anyone who does not work on the boards get a say on what's does or does not get banned?
Should you wish to complain about the decisions of a VCL, there are a number of methods that you can use.
- Use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. If you have never submitted a ticket before, you may have to register again.
- Post a message in the Volunteer Community Lead Open Discussion forum.[1]
- Send a PM to Solice, who is Community Manager and thus in charge of the VCL program.
[1] I should point out that, in the VCL open discussion forum, there is currently an ongoing discussion about the Politics/religion ban. If you have something to say, say it in that thread.
You could complain to his superiors, but somehow I think the complaint would land in his mailbox.
You would be wrong.
You would be wrong.
So there's a rank above Senior VCL, eh? Interesting....
So there's a rank above Senior VCL, eh? Interesting....
Above Senior VCL is the Community Manager, Solice. All VCls, whether they be senior or not, answer to her.
Really? I mean it's not a NEW ban; just re-instating the ban we HAD. How ever did the boards survive with the ban before? ;)
Here's the problem. The ban was allowed to lapse - or at least it's enforcement was. So we participants o' the Tavern got used to having these discussions. And now they've been removed. For the wrong reasons. You can have a sore throat and treat it with Nice or Sucrets or your medicine of choice. But that doesn't correct the problem, does it? What's been done here is the same. The topic is not the problem. The topic itself can cause no harm. The people that take that topic too personally and launch into CoC breaking diatribes and personal attacks are the problem. Religion, politics, abortion, 3e, 4e, 2e, THAC0, SoDs, SoSs, cake vs pie, etc all lead to the same damned thing. This begs the question: What's the point of the ban? If it's to temper hostility and CoC infractions, why not ban discussion of the rest of the hot-buttons? When that question is satisfactorily answered, I think this debate will end. Since that's not going to happen, mayhap you should ban discussions about banned topics, too? ;)
umm, why did the bailout blues and the thread asking what we would do if we got a dictator threads get closed? One is about finance and the other is a hypothetical that included such things as astronomical disasters and invasion/coups. These are neither politics nor religion. Are we not allowed to have an adult discussion any more? Historically, roleplayers tend to be a fairly educated bunch, this stuff is our bread and butter. By the way you should probably ban sports too, people have full blown riots over soccer
I was wondering about the "Bailout Blues" thread also. Why the hell was that closed?!? You might as well close down the Off-Topic Tavern, or just call it the Kiddie Pool at this point, since every...single...topic...of any serious import, many of which have implications in roleplaying situations (i.e. how governments are set up, how economies work, how subterfuge, intrigue, warfare, and so on are conducted, etc, etc, etc) is now TOO off-topic for the Tavern.
Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, Astrid's Parlor is far more of a concern for parents who want their kids perusing this board.
So, I guess I'm just going to avoid the "Off-Topic" Tavern altogether, since 90% of the important off-topics are now taboo to discuss with other roleplayers. Apparently.
Sorry, this smacks of mod abuse, and mod laziness, as someone simply doesn't wish to do his or her job, and only enforce the abusers. There is no other legitimate reason to ban entire topics, no matter how civil the discourse, when not even covered by the very post saying what is off-topic for the Off-Topic Tavern. The "Bailout Blues"? Really? Give me a break. It's not like economic disaster and abuse is important or anything, including the WotC and its customers.
And yes, ban sports, too. I've never, EVER seen a subject with SO MUCH emotion and actual yelling at one another, or insulting one another's cities and states and countries. What, just because it's "trash talk" it doesn't count? Again, give me a break.
umm, why did the bailout blues and the thread asking what we would do if we got a dictator threads get closed?
A person that will point to the CoC and ignore the fact that his own name on the boards is a violation* of the first article has control of censorship. A censorship that is not supported by the CoC, by the way.
I worded the text on the "Bailout Blues" thread very carefully so that it didn't contain any reference to politics at all. However, as predicted, it was promptly closed. Apparently economics is too similar to religion or politics to be allowed.
I abhor censorship as much, if not more, than any of the other tyrannies. If moderation of a forum that includes political and religious discussions is too difficult, the solution would be for the moderator to step down, not clamp down. There is nothing in the CoC that prohibits the topics being discussed, the moderator has taken it upon himself to do so.
*Noah Webster is a notorious person, that is, he is a person widely known. The very first clause in the very first article of the CoC prohibits the use of the names of "notorious persons". I have very little faith in fair and even application of the rules by someone that flaunts a violation of those rules so openly.
*Noah Webster is a notorious person, that is, he is a person widely known. The very first clause in the very first article of the CoC prohibits the use of the names of "notorious persons". I have very little faith in fair and even application of the rules by someone that flaunts a violation of those rules so openly.
Man, I hope you're being sarcastic here. A "webster" is an archaic term for weaver. His handle isn't "Noah Webster". It's just "Webster."
Man, I hope you're being sarcastic here. A "webster" is an archaic term for weaver. His handle isn't "Noah Webster". It's just "Webster."
That may be, but his location of "Dictionary" and the "Word, man, word" in his sig suggests that my explanation is more likely.
That may be
Which means it isn't a violation. That it might also be a violation means it's in a fuzzy area and it's pretty disingenuous to attack Webster for bias based on your assumptions.
Noah Webster is a notorious person, that is, he is a person widely known. The very first clause in the very first article of the CoC prohibits the use of the names of "notorious persons". I have very little faith in fair and even application of the rules by someone that flaunts a violation of those rules so openly.
Of course you do realize that in this context, "notorious person" means someone referring to someone else who has been banned.
Frex:
Lets say that wrecan gets banned for using too many exclamation marks when posting.
If he, or someone else, were to use a screen name that refers to wrecan (for example wrecan2, wrecan_got_hosed, free_wrecan) then that would be against the CoC.
Of course you do realize that in this context, "notorious person" means someone referring to someone else who has been banned.
I believe that would be the offensive portion of "offensive or notorious person". Your point is that there is a connotation not readily apparent in the CoC. My point was a direct denotation, taking the primary definition of notorious over the second. The irony that I was using a Webster's dictionary didn't escape me, either.
If the CoC is going to be regarded as the law of the land, then it needs to be specific and explicit. The wording has to be exact, there can be no room whatsoever for creative interpretation. If there is a ban on any topic, it needs to be laid out specifically in the CoC. If "notorious" means "previously banned" then it should be worded as such. Holding the community to a set of standards not laid out in it's entirety is not only unfair, it's grounds for legal action for discrimination or breach of contract, should someone find themselves banned for an offense not in the CoC.
Now that we've covered the "words mean what the dictionary says they mean" argument, was my point not valid? And whether intentional or not, his name, as a violation of the CoC does cast aspersions on his character in regard to his moderation of the CoC.
Of course you do realize that in this context, "notorious person" means someone referring to someone else who has been banned.
Frex:
Lets say that wrecan gets banned for using too many exclamation marks when posting.
If he, or someone else, were to use a screen name that refers to wrecan (for example wrecan2, wrecan_got_hosed, free_wrecan) then that would be against the CoC.
That's not entirely true. For example, if I were to create a new account and made my handle Adolf_Hitler or Jack_Chick, I bet there'd be an issue. ;) As Gobbo stated, a huge flaw with the CoC is it's many vagaries and the fact these vagaries give the impression that enforcement and interpretation are limited only by the whims of those with the power to take direct action.
these vagaries give the impression that enforcement and interpretation are limited only by the whims of those with the power to take direct action.
Um... that's not the vagaries. That's actually expressly stated in the CoC: "Wizards of the Coast may deviate from this procedure at any time in any manner it deems appropriate without notice."
There's nothing wrong with a vague Code of Conduct. It's not a legally binding document. It's simply a general guideline of behavior, and most CoCs are drafted this way. People who try to nitpick the specific meanings of the words or delve into arcane talmudic commentary of them are missing the point.
If you treat it like a legal document then you're going to need a quasi-legal means of handling disputes, with appeals and so forth. That's not how Wizards musts to run its site and I can't blame them.
Um... that's not the vagaries. That's actually expressly stated in the CoC: "Wizards of the Coast may deviate from this procedure at any time in any manner it deems appropriate without notice."
There's nothing wrong with a vague Code of Conduct. It's not a legally binding document. It's simply a general guideline of behavior, and most CoCs are drafted this way. People who try to nitpick the specific meanings of the words or delve into arcane talmudic commentary of them are missing the point.
If you treat it like a legal document then you're going to need a quasi-legal means of handling disputes, with appeals and so forth. That's not how Wizards musts to run its site and I can't blame them.
Fair enough. Though use/abuse of said procedural deviations can lead to a stifling atmosphere.
That's actually expressly stated in the CoC: "Wizards of the Coast may deviate from this procedure at any time in any manner it deems appropriate without notice."
So Volunteer Community Lead is a representative of Wizards of the Coast? Doesn't that mean that any opinions openly posted by them can be taken as the opinion of the corporation?
You might want to remove "talmudic" from your post. Especially when it was preceded by the word "arcane". It could be perceived as belittling to the Jewish faith and a violation of the CoC.
Fair enough. Though use/abuse of said procedural deviations can lead to a stifling atmosphere.
I believe the core of the discussion here was the use and abuse of procedure. Or did I miss the topic entirely?
I believe the core of the discussion here was the use and abuse of procedure. Or did I miss the topic entirely?
Nope. I was merely tryin' to bring it back 'round. ;)
Nope. I was merely tryin' to bring it back 'round. ;)
Top man. Err, Zombie. Err...
I believe the core of the discussion here was the use and abuse of procedure. Or did I miss the topic entirely?
This.
The core issue for me is the blanket banning of entire topics, simply because the mods don't want to do the job of culling abusive POSTS and POSTERS.
Completely eliminating all discussion of religion, politics, economics, and I'm sure more the moment anything becomes remotely heated, or even healthily debated, is not moderation. It is using an axe when a scalpel is required. Those three topics (religion, politics, economics) are extremely important and profound concepts in both the real world, and in the fantasy worlds apropos to a gaming forum. We are talking about the off-topic forum. The forum for stuff not directly related to the game itself. Those three major subjects, which incidentally eliminates HISTORY, much of biology (*cough* evolution *cough*), geology (*cough* proof of billion of years of existence for Earth *cough*), sports (much more violent in tone than the above subjects), philosophy, perhaps psychology, and what else? Where does it stop? So we get to talk about pop culture (so long as it isn't offensive, of crosses over with one of the above subjects), and...not much else, I'm afraid. It seems remarkably silly, thus my suggestion that the Off-topic Tavern is simply removed entirely. If you cannot allow a huge % of the viable topics of discussion amongst adults (of which the above subjects constitute the MAJORITY of such subject matter), why bother at all?
I agree with goblin_pride, this is abuse of authority and procedure, and in my opinion sheer laziness of moderators not wishing to actually...moderate.
So Volunteer Community Lead is a representative of Wizards of the Coast?
The VCLs don't enforce the code of conduct. Webster's already explained that to you once today.
The VCLs handle editorial moderation, by requesting that the ORCs move posts when they deem it appropriate. They in turn are supervised by Solice, the Community Manager who is an employee of Wizards.
Doesn't that mean that any opinions openly posted by them can be taken as the opinion of the corporation?
No. Most employees of companies are allowed to have their own opinions and even express them on corporation-owned forums. Volunteer Community Leads aren't even employees. That's why the first word in their title is "Volunteer".
You might want to remove "talmudic" from your post. Especially when it was preceded by the word "arcane". It could be perceived as belittling to the Jewish faith and a violation of the CoC.
I am Jewish. And I have engaged in Talmudic commentary. My use of the word was not an inaccurate description of how Talmudic commentary works.
If you think I committed a CoC violation, the appropriate remedy is to press the "Report Post" button ("
") and ask an ORC to remove the speech you find offensive.Show
This is the real Webster
This is the real Webster
I still check, though, maybe there will be something interesting.
Really since the ban went into effect I have not posted much in Off-Topic. None of those current topics are really my flavor as I enjoy reading more intellectual stuff.
I still check, though, maybe there will be something interesting.
Then, due to the interest in discussing the subject, it will be summarily banned. :D
Does anyone who does not work on the boards get a say on what's does or does not get banned?
Why would anyone other than WotC, the OWNERS of the board, get to determine what is and is not acceptable?
We can ask for other topics to be allowed, but this is not a democracy.
Volunteer Community Leads aren't even employees.
Then therefore the clause in the CoC that you pointed out that says Wizards can alter the CoC without notice doesn't apply to the VCLs because they are not part of Wizards of the Coast. Would you characterize that as a true statement?
The VCLs handle editorial moderation, by requesting that the ORCs move posts when they deem it appropriate. They in turn are supervised by Solice, the Community Manager who is an employee of Wizards.
Let me get this straight. VCLs don't have the authority or ability to move, close or delete posts, but they have the authority to ban a topic outright?
We cannot discuss issues like economy, philosophy, religion, politics...etc etc. Eh who knows how long it will last...
Who said anything about philosophy?
Who said anything about philosophy?
Most Philosophy originates from religious or political roots. By banning religion and politics you effectively ban philosophy as a fruit of the poisonous tree. History is rather difficult as well.
Most Philosophy originates from religious or political roots. By banning religion and politics you effectively ban philosophy as a fruit of the poisonous tree. History is rather difficult as well.
We can still talk about nonreligious and nonpolitical philosophy (such as aesthetics, logic, metaphysics, etc.), and in a wondrous twist of fate, have any argument based on religion or politics culled so the discussion can stay on point and not go off on a tangent as proof is demanded.
I find this new pro-science approach much to my liking.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :heehee
Let me get this straight. VCLs don't have the authority or ability to move, close or delete posts, but they have the authority to ban a topic outright?
No, but they have a hotline to the people that can.
The VCL's cannot lock or edit a thread, so they cannot actually ban anything.
Isn't Webster also a Wizo?
Webster is most likely some sort of He-Man type of person.
Isn't Webster also a Wizo? So yeah they can ban and or lock threads at will. At least Webster could anyway.
That's ORC now.
The Online Response Crew is not supposed to interpret the code of conduct on their own therefor is it not their place to make policy. While they can lock threads they should get into trouble from their bosses if they do so without just cause.
Then therefore the clause in the CoC that you pointed out that says Wizards can alter the CoC without notice doesn't apply to the VCLs because they are not part of Wizards of the Coast. Would you characterize that as a true statement?
I would characterize it as an irrelevant statement.
To recap the pertinent parts of this conversation:
Post 125: You accuse Webster of 1) "appl[ying] the rules" and 2) having a handle that violates the Code of Conduct: "I have very little faith in fair and even application of the rules by someone that flaunts a violation of those rules so openly." (The rule you claim he violated is the ban on handles of "notorious people" and that Webster's handle is a reference to "Noah Webster" who you implicitly claim is "notorious")
Post 129: mudbunny claims that "notorious" wouldn't include Noah Webster, but would only include references to handles of other users previously banned.
Post 131: Zombie_Babies believes that "notorious" would also include infamous people like Hitler or Jack Chick. Then he asserts that "a huge flaw with the CoC is it's many vagaries and the fact these vagaries give the impression that enforcement and interpretation are limited only by the whims of those with the power to take direct action." (Even under ZB's broader definition of "notorious", mind you, Noah Webster wouldn't apply, and I don't know why we think "Webster" is a reference to Noah, Daniel, the 80's tv show or just an archaic term for weaver, such that we could definitely say that Webster's handle violates the CoC, even of Noah Webster could be described as "notorious".)
Post 132: I respond that the CoC's vagueness is not a flaw. It's intentional because the CoC is a guideline, not a legally binding document and Wizards reserves to itself the right to alter enforcement at any time.
Post 133: Zombie_Babies agrees with my clarification.
At no point did I claim the VCL enforces the Code of Conduct. So your question that a VCL, being not an employee of Wizards, cannot alter the Code of Conduct is irrelevant to the discussion.
VCLs don't have the authority or ability to move, close or delete posts, but they have the authority to ban a topic outright?
No. VCLs have the authority to request that ORCs move, close or delete posts because the Community Manager, Solice (an employee of Wizards) has delegated to these volunteers (not employees) the authority to make editorial decisions. If an editorial decision includes banning a topic (in the form of asking ORCs to shut lock threads about a topic), they an do that.
If you have a problem with a VCL's editorial decision, you can PM Solice or you can post about it in [forum=725]this forum[/forum].
In short, VCLs do not enforce the Code of Conduct. They make editorial decisions about what is appropriate content for a forum and then they ask the ORCs to modify, move, delete or lock posts in accordance with that editorial decision. VCLs are supervised by Solice, and complaints about their editorial decisions can and should be directed to her.
They are not employees of Wizards because they don't get paid. They are volunteers. But they have been delegated editorial responsibilities by Wizards. I do not know if they are a "part" of Wizards because that word has no clear meaning in context.
Webster may be an ORC, but when he is on-duty, he does not perform VCL duties. When he is off-duty, he cannot move, alter, lock or delete threads and must ask the on-duty ORCs to do it.
Then therefore the clause in the CoC that you pointed out that says Wizards can alter the CoC without notice doesn't apply to the VCLs because they are not part of Wizards of the Coast. Would you characterize that as a true statement?
No. While as VCLs we aren't employees of WotC, we still do work for them. And, as wrecan has noted, VCLs do not enforce the CoC. If something violates the CoC, we deal with it the same way that everyone else does, we report it using the report this button.
Solice (and the rest of the community management team) have entrusted the VCLs with the ability to make editorial decisions on behalf of WotC on the content in the forums for which the VCLs are responsible.
Check my signature, and you can see what VCLs can and can't do.
Let me get this straight. VCLs don't have the authority or ability to move, close or delete posts, but they have the authority to ban a topic outright?
Here you are slightly wrong.
VCLs have the authority to close threads if they are too far off-topic for the forum. We have the authority to move threads if they are in the wrong forum. We have the authority to merge threads if they are the same topic. We have the authority to determine what is on- or off-topic for the forum(s) for which we are given responsability.
We do not have the ability to do those things ourselves, but Solice (and the rest of the Community Management at WotC) trusts that we will not abuse the fcat that we have been given the right to ask that the ORCs do these things for us. We ask them in this forum here.
We *do not* have the authority to delete posts and/or threads.
If you look at the link in my sig (What is a VCL) it links to the VCL/FG FAq, and in that thread is a link to the VCL Handbook.
hey, mud. Does you posting monty python mean that monty python is unbanned now?
Monty Python was banned?
It was the fleshwound jokes, wasn't it?
Monty Python was banned?
It was the fleshwound jokes, wasn't it?
I think it was something about the ministry of silly walks, back when they went nuts on politics threads. Someone saw ministry and went BAM!
VCLs have the authority to close threads if they are too far off-topic for the forum. We have the authority to move threads if they are in the wrong forum. We have the authority to merge threads if they are the same topic. We have the authority to determine what is on- or off-topic for the forum(s) for which we are given responsability.
So what exactly is on-topic in an off-topic forum?
I think it was something about the ministry of silly walks, back when they went nuts on politics threads. Someone saw ministry and went BAM!
The thread about The Life of Brian was also closed.
So what exactly is on-topic in an off-topic forum?
Honestly, I think that it is easier to ask what is off-topic for an off-topic forum.
Currently, Webster has decided that in the Tavern, Politics and Religion are not acceptable topics for the Tavern.
Honestly, I think that it is easier to ask what is off-topic for an off-topic forum.
Currently, Webster has decided that in the Tavern, Politics and Religion are not acceptable topics for the Tavern.
So according to his decree, those of us that like discussing such things are unwelcome?
Because our tastes run deeper than pop-tarts* and video games, we're not part of the gaming community? As I recall the Off-topic forum was meant to be a place where we could discuss the things that aren't directly related to gaming. If that isn't the place, then where is?
*not the psuedo food, the perpetrators of all that bubblegum popular music of late.
Dude. Stop making this "personal," it's the Internet. Your accusations are very petulant, and they aren't going to help anyone if you voice them like that.
No offense intended, but it is personal.
I have yet to see anything in the CoC justifying a ban on any topic, Webster's prejudices on the subject were verified by other VCLs in this very thread and it has been pointed out that he is both an ORC and a VCL, so therefore he has the ability to make his views practice without regard to the opinion of the community.
Have I missed anything that could be taken as contrary to my view that he's abusing his position?
So according to his decree, those of us that like discussing such things are unwelcome?
You are welcome there. Those topics, however, are not.
Because our tastes run deeper than pop-tarts* and video games, we're not part of the gaming community? As I recall the Off-topic forum was meant to be a place where we could discuss the things that aren't directly related to gaming. If that isn't the place, then where is?
To a point. When a topic results in so much extra work for the forum moderators that it results in an impact on their enforcement of the CoC, then it is time to consider whether that topic should be permitted to be discussed. In this case, it appears that ermoving the blanket ban on Politics and Religion that had existed for a long time resulted in the addition of a significant amount of work for the ORCs. Not simply CoC violations, but people reporting posts simply due to a difference in opinion. This extra workload appears to have impacted the rest of the work of the ORCs in a significant manner, thus Webster made the decision to re-enact the ban on the topic.
It is the same as every other topic on the forums. If a thread starts getting a significant number of posts reported, the ORC will close it and ask the VCL in charge of the area if s/he wishes to clean it and re-open it or leave it closed.
As Zherog pointed out, the Rec Room (also an Off Topic forum) does currently allow Politics and Religion discussion. However, keep in mind that it is allowed because the regulars in that forum have been able to discuss it without the threads turning into flame-fests and getting multiple reported posts per thread. For whatever reason, the people who were discussing politics/religion in the Tavern were not able to do the same thing.
No offense intended, but it is personal.
No, it isn't. If Webster had decided that *you* couldn't talk about politics, it would be personal. However, Webster is instituting a blanket ban on discussion of politics in the D&D forums. *Everyone* in the D&D forums is affected the same way.
I have yet to see anything in the CoC justifying a ban on any topic,
As has been pointed out to you, the discussion on politics and religion was starting to cause disruptions in the enjoyment of the forums by other people. The politics/religion discussions were spilling over into other threads, ORCs were spending time dealing with multiple reports in threads.
Webster's prejudices on the subject were verified by other VCLs in this very thread and it has been pointed out that he is both an ORC and a VCL, so therefore he has the ability to make his views practice without regard to the opinion of the community.
There are VCLs who agree with him, there are VCLs that don't. I am of the opinion that if people can talk about politics and/r religion without it affecting or contaminating other threads, then it should be allowed. For whatever reason, this was not possible in the Tavern. I agree with Webster that the decision to ban politics/religion in the D&D forums is a good thing.
Have I missed anything that could be taken as contrary to my view that he's abusing his position?
If you think that he is abusing his position, I have said before how to complain and who to contact.
PM or email Solice, or contact Customer Service.
Edit to add - When I mention politics/religion, I am talking about real-world topics, not the discussion of in-game topics.
As Zherog pointed out, the Rec Room (also an Off Topic forum) does currently allow Politics and Religion discussion. However, keep in mind that it is allowed because the regulars in that forum have been able to discuss it without the threads turning into flame-fests and getting multiple reported posts per thread. For whatever reason, the people who were discussing politics/religion in the Tavern were not able to do the same thing.
Could you post a link to a Political Discussion in the Rec Room?
Could you post a link to a Political Discussion in the Rec Room?
Sure. Right on the first page of the forum, we have [thread=985862]VOTE: After - Super Tuesday for "Dummies"[/thread]
edit: here's another -- [thread=1110168]Sometimes, We Get It Right[/thread]
Rec Room FAQ
Q. What is the Rec Room?
A. The Rec Room is a forum to discuss things that aren’t about one of the many WOTC related products. If your topic would fit in another forum, post it there. A good example of something you would post here would be a thread about kittens, which is a legitimate topic but doesn’t fit in the other forums. (Note: Politics and religion are not allowed due to flames the topic causes.)
The last line is the important one.
... so which is it? Are they kosher topics or not?
I have yet to see anything in the CoC justifying a ban on any topic
The Code of Conduct is a limitation on the actions of forum members only. This has been explained to you several times.
Moreover, Webster, as a VCL, does not enforce the Code of Conduct. That is the exclusive domain of the ORCs and Webster can only do that when he is on-duty as an ORC. In such circumstance, all of his actions are logged so they can be reviewed by Customer Service to ensure he is acting appropriately.
Webster is responsible as a VCL for making editorial decisions. And in that he is not constrained by the Code of Conduct (because the CoC is not a constraint). As such, he is like any editor of any publication -- given broad discretion but responsible to his superiors (here, Solice).
Webster's prejudices on the subject were verified by other VCLs in this very thread
Provide a post number, please. I believe this statement to be both false and malicious. The only other VCL who has posted in this thread is mudbunny and, as far as I can tell, he never accused Webster of being "prejudiced".
he is both an ORC and a VCL, so therefore he has the ability to make his views practice without regard to the opinion of the community.
An editor always has the discretion to make editorial decisions without regard for the community's opinion. If you believe he has abused his discretion, you should complain to Solice. This has also already been explained to you.
Have I missed anything that could be taken as contrary to my view that he's abusing his position?
Yes. You have missed:
1. Complaints about a VCL should be directed to the VCL's superior, SOlice, and not here.
2. The CoC does not constrain the VCLs' editorial decision in any way.
3. The fact that Webster is also an ORC means his actions will be supervised by Solice and by Customer Service. Twice the supervision makes it less likely -- not more -- that Webster will overstep propriety.
The last line is the important one.
... so which is it? Are they kosher topics or not?
As has been said somewhere (I'll dig up the quote and edit my post with it), the Rec Room FAQ is out-of-date and in the process of being updated.
The last line is the important one.
... so which is it? Are they kosher topics or not?
Posts 74 and 75 of the thread here.
Sorry Z, didn't see that you were going to post it.
Forgive me for not being aware of this.
Sorry Z, didn't see that you were going to post it.
No sweat - you saved me the work of digging it up. :D
So if I'm not a rec-room regular I have to go deep into a thread, on a different topic, in a different forum, to see that one of the early lines in the stickied and easy-to-find FAQ is out-of-date?
Yes, you're correct. As I said, the FAQ is in the process of being updated to include correct information.
Forgive me for not being aware of this.
You're forgiven. :angelhide
The Rec Room FAQ is in the process of being re-authored.
There has been a lot of discussion around this matter; I have taken in the opinions and thoughts listed here under consideration. For the record, all discussion taken into consideration for policy changes happens publicly.
We will be banning all political and religious conversations on all our forums. The code of conduct and how it is enforced must be as consistent as possible to truly be effective.
We want a positive environment filled with respect and consideration. The amount of resources it takes to keep political and religious discussions on this track is simply too high. I appreciate the want for different areas choosing what works best for them, and for the most part I will continue to give that freedom as much as I am able. However for the sake of effective moderation and consistency a community wide ban is the direction we will take.
Also as I understand it, Webster did not put the rule in place. It existed before and he simply started enforcement of it again.
Wait, so the rec-room faq is right, and politics/religion is banned?
As far as I know, yes it is.
The Rec Room FAQ was created in 2006.
About 18 months ago, Gleemax Alpha was introduced, which was meant to be an online community for gamers, kind of a MySpace for Gamers.
With that, the CoC was revised and updated and the old politics and religion ban was lifted.
The Rec Room FAQ original author was unavailable to update it and thus was inaccurate for the span of time that the Pol/Rel was lifted.
Gleemax was taken down just a couple of months ago.
Today, the Pol/Rel ban was reinstated, thus revalidating that portion of the still mostly outdated Rec Room FAQ.
There has been a lot of discussion around this matter; I have taken in the opinions and thoughts listed here under consideration. For the record, all discussion taken into consideration for policy changes happens publicly.
We will be banning all political and religious conversations on all our forums. The code of conduct and how it is enforced must be as consistent as possible to truly be effective.
We want a positive environment filled with respect and consideration. The amount of resources it takes to keep political and religious discussions on this track is simply too high. I appreciate the want for different areas choosing what works best for them, and for the most part I will continue to give that freedom as much as I am able. However for the sake of effective moderation and consistency a community wide ban is the direction we will take.
Sure. Right on the first page of the forum, we have [thread=985862]VOTE: After - Super Tuesday for "Dummies"[/thread]
edit: here's another -- [thread=1110168]Sometimes, We Get It Right[/thread]
Today, the Pol/Rel ban was reinstated, thus revalidating that portion of the still mostly outdated Rec Room FAQ
Thanks for the update. I found this quote from another thread that is highly relavent to this thread.
You did see that C_monk posted that in post 178 of this thread, right??
:P
You did see that C_monk posted that in post 178 of this thread, right??
:P
Not until after I posted it.
So, now that the person that approved of Webster's ban is gone, shall we reopen the discussion?
You could e-mail Customer Service and present a good argument for unbanning.