Good way:
PC1:After looking thru the new edition, I dislike how such and such is done because blah blah
Pc2: Well,okay I can understand that and i respectfully disagree because blah blah
Bad way:
pc1: the new eidtion is evil,I hope it rots in hell
pc2: your evil DIE DIE DIE!
comprehend? so,lets all play nice and if you do not have something nice to say then don't say anything at all okay?
Constructive criticism is always much more appreciated than destructive where you tear down the topic being discussed... personally 4e has some interesting changes and changes that leave me questioning 'Nani Yo?' to a few things... anyways I and my group that I game with have decided to merely wait to see where 4e goes before commiting full force...
Okay from here on out,if any post or thread go towards an edition war,i'm going to report it myself.
(...)
comprehend? so,lets all play nice and if you do not have something nice to say then don't say anything at all okay?
Are you at least going to bother to type properly when going on your personal little crusade?
-DF
Trappslider is one of the best posters we have around here Dwarf. Be polite to him please.
Hey, don't you call me a dwarf! I'm sensitive about my height as well as other people's spelling. In fact, be careful what you say to me, because I might have neurosis you ain't even heard of before!
I COULD BE HURT BY ANYTHING!
Besides, if trappedslider is such a great poster, he can back that up with a great attitude instead of stomping around his ivory tower and threatening to shut down people expressing their opinions.
But that just my opinon. I'm sure 4e is great, by the way. People don't like? Don't play it.
-DF
the focus shouldnt be who sits in it
but on the masses that put him there.
I never before realized "lets all play nice"
was open to contention based on who says it.
wow, prior to the boards going thru the blender for 4e release,
we were fortunate enough to have the Kinder Gentler forums away from the crowds
Besides, if trappedslider is such a great poster, he can back that up with a great attitude instead of stomping around his ivory tower and threatening to shut down people expressing their opinions.
I can't stomp around anywhere I'm currently in a wheelchair
just kidding trapslider
Rolling around in your ivory tower LOLZ
just kidding trapslider
:heehee
wow, prior to the boards going thru the blender for 4e release, we were fortunate enough to have the Kinder Gentler forums away from the crowds
And we still would/still can, as long as others remember to be nice enough not to insult others personal tastes via empirical remarks used as colonizing statements.
Before, everyone who posted on these boards had the exact same tastes. Now we don't. Arguments arise because people make empirical statements about certain products, and these statements imply certain things about consumers who enjoy said products. Posters take offense, they reply to defend their tastes, and the would be colonizer is in turn stunned by a fervent arguments directly contrary to their own empirically stated position. Its an edition war.
The simple, and logical, response (for those who desire to keep this place free from such ideological conflict) is that we all agree to state opinions as opinions and avoid cloaking such opinions as empirical facts. We respect each others opinions, because we all realize that our own is just as subjective as our oppositions.
In short, as trappslider said with his first post, think about HOW you say something before you say it. The HOW is just as important as the what.
If there is such an ivory tower,
the focus shouldnt be who sits in it
but on the masses that put him there.
I never before realized "lets all play nice"
was open to contention based on who says it.
wow, prior to the boards going thru the blender for 4e release,
we were fortunate enough to have the Kinder Gentler forums away from the crowds
Welcome to the post 4e WotC forums.
And we still would/still can, as long as others remember to be nice enough not to insult others personal tastes via empirical remarks used as colonizing statements.
<...>
In short, as trappslider said with his first post, think about HOW you say something before you say it. The HOW is just as important as the what.
Compare these two statements:
Dear Poster, regarding a conversion your working on,
the way WoC did XXXX was horrible, they made a mockery of balance regarding YYYY, and the their ZZZZ system is garbage.... so we need to come up with fixes for that stuff. Lets start with fixing WoC's YYYY problems, heres a few ways we can fix that.
Dear Poster, regarding a conversion your working on,
> Your multiclass system is awful. You would have been much better served going
> with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system.
One is telling some guy here that a company did stuff wrong (in ones opinion),
while the other is telling some guy here he is wrong (in ones opinion), followed with everyones favorite: Mines better than yours.
Cyberdave
Compare these two statements:
Dear Poster, regarding a conversion your working on,
the way WoC did XXXX was horrible, they made a mockery of balance regarding YYYY, and the their ZZZZ system is garbage.... so we need to come up with fixes for that stuff. Lets start with fixing WoC's YYYY problems, heres a few ways we can fix that.
Dear Poster, regarding a conversion your working on,
> Your multiclass system is awful. You would have been much better served going
> with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system.
One is telling some guy here that a company did stuff wrong (in ones opinion),
while the other is telling some guy here he is wrong (in ones opinion), followed with everyones favorite: Mines better than yours.
We are going to play the comparison game? Ok, lets lay out a few ground rules. For example, ground rule one, context. I agree, in retrospect, I probably could have used a better phrase than your multiclass system is awful. But, in my defense, the title of the thread contains the acronym [PEACH]. Please examine and critique honestly. He wanted honest opinions so he could make his system better. I provided him with an honest opinion, in that area of the rules his rules were broken. I provided him with an alternate idea (use the bard multiclass system). Its also not an example of "mines better than yours" because I have no mine. I have not built a 4e version of d20 Modern. I use SAGA for d20 Modern. I am waiting for Dias Ex Machine to release their Modern 4e products. All I did was provide an alternate option in order to try and keep my criticism constructive.
Now lets examine the other example.
the way WoC did XXXX was horrible,
Empirical statement, exactly the sort of thing trappslider asked people not to do right here:
Bad Way: the new edition is evil
And then, in your example,
they made a mockery of balance regarding YYYY
Empirical again.
and the their ZZZZ system is garbage....
And again.
Never a statement to indicate opinion (until your post here). And what is the context? The "quote" is a paraphrased version of someone, in an earlier thread on these boards, telling a poster that his groups stated system of preference, a system which he and his group like enough that they want to convert d20 Modern to it, is horrible, a mockery of balance, and garbage. Not only are the statements contentious in themselves (they are very easy to disagree with in all cases), but there seems to be nothing constructive about them as they seem to be trying to do little more than tell the poster that he should give up in his efforts and stick to 3e system of doing things (at least, that is what it sounded like the text was saying in the thread in question). I mean, what was their proposed "fix"? "Drop the entire scale" of 4e method of doing things. I mean, why not just throw in a statement like this: a game using the 4e Powers [is little more than a] precursor to D&D 5e Trading Card Only Game system. Why not just insinuate that everyone who likes 4e is pushing the game further and further away from RPGs, and in thus is in fact not an RPG player or fan? Wait... I vaguely remember seeing something like that somewhere else.
Or hell, if we really ant to play the comparison game, lets compare post number 12 to post number 14 in this thread. In post number 12 I say we can still have the nice forums on the WotC block, in the future we just need to remember to think about how we say things so that we don't insult other peoples tastes. No reference to who. No reference to anyone. No finger pointing. A blanket statement encompassing ALL of us (including me). Indeed, it even covers me needing to be a little more careful before I use a phrase like "your multiclassing system is awful." In post number 14 you start pointing fingers at specific posters (with quotes from earlier threads that turned into arguments) and laying the ground work for a FRESH argument (after all, when you point fingers at someone in an accusatory fashion that is generally what happens) in a thread dedicated to keeping the peace. Honestly backstabbist? For real? Come on.
You insist on maintaining some sort of misplaced and ill concieved antagonism between me and you. Fine, so be it. Its a little sad. I was excited when I first saw you post here again after your long hiatus. I looked forward to the Iowa battleship references. But if its not to be, its not to be. But please, try and stay civil. Especially in a thread dedicated to all of us doing just that.
really, is that what you told him?
"Your multiclass system is awful. You would have been much better served going with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system."
"I probably could have used a better phrase than your multiclass system is awful. But, in my defense, the title of the thread contains the acronym [PEACH]. Please examine and critique honestly."
I dont see any "I" in PEACH, so I dont think he wanted his work Insulted with terms like Awful. Awful is like Constructive Criticism, but not Constructive. What makes it awful, how can it be improved... Who knows, the constructive part was skipped.
> Your multiclass system is awful. You would have been much better served going
> with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system.
Never a statement to indicate opinion (until your post here). And what is the context? The "quote" is a paraphrased version of someone, in an earlier thread on these boards, telling a poster that his groups stated system of preference, a system which he and his group like enough that they want to convert d20 Modern to it, is horrible, a mockery of balance, and garbage.
When you say 'paraphrased', you mean 'quoted verbatim' right?
I still don't think that the fast hero should get backstab or sneak attack or any such power. I think it should be a striker in much the same way a barbarian is a striker: high damage gun powers.
Your multiclass system is awful. You would have been much better served going with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system.
I have never liked the idea of guns which attack Reflex Defense instead of AC.
And when you say SWD20 guns, do you mean the 3d weapons from star wars Saga? Do you have any idea how
<....snip off rest, no further mention of the Awful multiclassing plan>
I may have put the verbatim text in context as to who it was addressing over what topic,
but that dont change the fact that the text with the term Awful is verbatim and in context to the original post... the rest of that post didnt undo the multiclass plan insult 'Awful'.
"Paraphrased" or "Out of Context" are swell defenses, but only when thats what happened.
You are still missing the point of my post:
Folks shouldn't take negatives toward a company's product personally and get riled up over it,
(unless they work for that company)
but it is hard to not take 'Your work is awful' as anything but personal and get riled up over it.
Also, there is indeed difference between
'The new edition is evil'
and
'The way WoC did XXXX is horrible.'
The way WoC did the 5.7 in Modern is horrible. They have an existing rule that AP ammo gets a better tohit, yet break that concept by giving that gun better damage dice due to the AP ammo performance. Rather than say it is a 2d6 caliber that uses AP ammo for standard AP benefits, or that it is 2d6 that gets an extra +1 to AP ammo effect due to advertised penetration numbers, they instead break other AP precedent and increase the damage die.
vs
D20Modern is teh sux.
How so?
Cause it is bad
Why?
It is evil.
What makes it so bad?
Only a fulz would play it.
What would make it better?
Modern just need to be thrown out
Because of what?
The way Modern handled the 5.7 is horrible
Oh, we have fixes for that. Anything else
uh... uhhhh.... oh. Ok, then I guess it wouldnt be so bad. Lets grab a beer and hug for a KarateKid ending
One is presenting unfixable overall qualification of the entire product,
the other is not saying the product is bad, but identifies a fixable flaw with the product without invalidating the whole product. In context, this being the d20Modern, the Modern conversion topic discussion contextually continues to address applying a Modern Conversion Fix to the identified problems.
On the other side,
the emotional response to hearing about a perceived flaw in a product and defending that non-forum product's way of doing things is not topical to the Modern Conversion thread nor Modern forum. The on topic way would be to forward work on the Modern Conversion to include those features unchanged, rather than defend some non-forum product to the ends of defending the non-forum product because you like it.
<"Arguments arise because people make empirical statements about certain products, and these statements imply certain things about consumers who enjoy said products. Posters take offense, they reply to defend their tastes">
That is exactly the problem. Folks are getting emotionally involved and spam defense over non-forum product, rather than staying on the topic of d20Modern.
When confronted with hearing work you had nothing to do with is bad,
how does one react? Emotionally 'take offense' over non-Modern product or stay focused on Modern?
The way WoC did XXXX in the conversion target is horrid, our Modern conversion should fix that
a) How did you want it done?
b) It works alright in the other game, heres how it can work ok in this Modern conversion
c) Well, we can take care of that with ACB PDQ and YaddaYadda in our modern project
d) Let me show you 200 ways the conversion target is great without regard to Modern
e) Is not ( Is too/ Is not / is too / is not / is too )
[i]"...really, is that what you told him?...
My idea, not my system. Even if he was to use my idea, he would have to flesh it out into a system himself. My idea is also not the only way in which he could achieve the goal of "the feeling of free form multiclassing" without trying to use a 3e system of multiclassing (which doesn't doesn't work with other 4e mechanics, unfortunatly. I actually liked 3e system of multiclassing when used in d20 Modern and Saga). Your proposed "cross class power lists" idea would work just as well. I was not presenting him with "my work is better than yours" (because I had not done any work, I had only came up with an idea he could use), but "your multiclassing system does not work with your proposed rule system." I provided the idea as an alternative so that my comment was constructive. I'm sorry you misunderstood that backstabbist.
Awful is like Constructive Criticism, but not Constructive. What makes it awful, how can it be improved... Who knows, the constructive part was skipped.
I provided him with an alternative idea. If one accepts my opinion that his original multiclass system is heavily flawed (because it does not mesh with the 4e mechanics) then providing an alternative is constructive. You are right though, perhaps I should have elaborated on why the 3e system of multiclassing does not mesh well with the 4e system of class construction rules.
When you say 'paraphrased', you mean 'quoted verbatim' right?
No. Because in the sentence where I said paraphrased, I was referring to your quote about how YOU say things about the 4e product, and assumed that you were trying to get across how you responded to the poster in the same thread from which you took my quote. However, you never used those exact words anywhere in that thread (at least that I could find). You did, however, say things very much along those lines.
"Paraphrased" or "Out of Context" are swell defenses, but only when thats what happened.
You mean like now? You mean like how you continue to attempt to twist things out of context? The poster asked for a PEACH. I liked some of what he did and told him so. I didn't like other things that he did and told him so. His multiclassing system didn't work with the 4e rules, and I told him so. I suggested that he look for multiclassing ideas in other areas than 3e multiclassing mechanics, such as the mechanics WotC wrote for the bard. I was PEACHing his work. I suppose I could have used a word other than awful, I've already said that. But he asked for a PEACH, and his multiclassing system was, in my honest opinion, awful. I would think that he would understand why on his own. 3e and 4e mechanics don't always mesh well. If he needed more of a description as to why, he could of asked. Alternatively, I suppose I could have just told him. Interestingly enough, however, he didn't post anything to the effect of taking offense. He seemed to have simply taken all feedback in stride. Indeed, only you seem to have taken offense, despite the fact that you put down even his base desire to use (many areas of) the 4e system in that thread, and I would hazard to guess that it is simply because I did not agree with you that his desire to use (many areas of) the 4e system was a bad idea in the least. I think the 4e mechanics work great, and would work great for Modern. My defense of his original stated desire seems to have been what really ruffled your feathers...
You are still missing the point of my post:
Folks shouldn't take negatives toward a company's product personally and get riled up over it,
(unless they work for that company)
but it is hard to not take 'Your work is awful' as anything but personal and get riled up over it.
If you don't want a PEACH, one should not ask for it. When you take your work and put it up over the internet, you are sticking it into a public space. In that public space your work will get critiqued. That is what happens. I agree, the word awful was perhaps not the best choice in retrospect. However, that poster seems to have understood my intent and taken it in stride. On the other hand, when other people repeatedly insult your tastes it often gets a little infuriating, especially when their insults are logically baseless.
Also, there is indeed difference between
'The new edition is evil'
and
'The way WoC did XXXX is horrible.'
[FONT="Times New Roman"]The way WoC did the 5.7 in Modern is horrible. They have an existing rule that AP ammo gets a better tohit, yet break that concept by giving that gun better damage dice due to the AP ammo performance. Rather than say it is a 2d6 caliber that uses AP ammo for standard AP benefits, or that it is 2d6 that gets an extra +1 to AP ammo effect due to advertised penetration numbers, they instead break other AP precedent and increase the damage die.
I see your point, but the difference is that in one use you are discussing an area of the rules where the community pretty much agreed that the stat should not have been used, and in the other area you are using the statement on a highly contended topic. Everybody here pretty much agreed that the 5.7 stats were pretty silly. Saying that they are horrible offends nobody, because nobody has a vested interest in those stats. Most of us felt those stats were inadequate. Saying that areas, such as the hit point mechanics, of the 4e rules are empirically horrible is a highly contended topic. I don't think anything about 4e hit points are horrible. Now, that being said, it doesn't personally offend me when you say that. I will, however, respond to such statements by listing why I don't feel said mechanic are horrible. Problem is, me listing why I don't feel said mechanics are horrible seems to end up with you getting upset and offended (as has been the case in a few threads). If you can't handle people disagreeing with your highly loaded and contentious statement, don't make the contentious statement. That will avoid future discussion on the issue. All you have to do is say that you personally don't like those mechanics instead of saying that those mechanics are empirically horrible.
One is presenting unfixable overall qualification of the entire product,
the other is not saying the product is bad, but identifies a fixable flaw with the product without invalidating the whole product. In context, this being the d20Modern, the Modern conversion topic discussion contextually continues to address applying a Modern Conversion Fix to the identified problems.
And please note, I didn't tell the poster that his entire rule system was awful. I noted one specific area that was problematic, his multiclassing rules. Those needed a fix.
On the other side,
the emotional response to hearing about a perceived flaw in a product and defending that non-forum product's way of doing things is not topical to the Modern Conversion thread nor Modern forum. The on topic way would be to forward work on the Modern Conversion to include those features unchanged, rather than defend some non-forum product to the ends of defending the non-forum product because you like it.
<"Arguments arise because people make empirical statements about certain products, and these statements imply certain things about consumers who enjoy said products. Posters take offense, they reply to defend their tastes">
That is exactly the problem. Folks are getting emotionally involved and spam defense over non-forum product, rather than staying on the topic of d20Modern.
The poster said he wanted to perform a conversion of d20 Modern into 4e rules. You claimed that 4e rules were empirically broken and did not work. I argued your point, and claimed that they would work well for d20 Modern. I was on topic. You took offense. Moreover, I did provide the sort of rules that 4e needs to become realistic and gritty, without changing 4e system of hit points or powers, in that thread. I was on topic.
But speaking of being off topic, here you are still trying to point fingers and lay blame in a thread dedicated to keeping the peace. Perhaps you want to stop that? If you want to discuss the specifics of how one should or should not react to various situations in the Modern boards, do it without specific reference to specific posters. That in and off itself is likely to reduce THIS thread to little more than an argument. There was no place for finger pointing and blame laying in this thread.
However, you never used those exact words anywhere in that thread (at least that I could find). You did, however, say things very much along those lines
I never made any indication that all choices were direct contextual quotes.
I did however tag something that was a verbatim quote with > marks.
Compare these two statements:
Dear Poster, regarding a conversion your working on,
the way WoC did XXXX was horrible, they made a mockery of balance regarding YYYY, and the their ZZZZ system is garbage.... so we need to come up with fixes for that stuff. Lets start with fixing WoC's YYYY problems, heres a few ways we can fix that.
Dear Poster, regarding a conversion your working on,
> Your multiclass system is awful. You would have been much better served going
> with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system.
One is telling some guy here that a company did stuff wrong (in ones opinion),
while the other is telling some guy here he is wrong (in ones opinion), followed with everyones favorite: Mines better than yours.
In the topical discussion in this thread,
it is the difference in faulting a commercial product compared to attacking a posters personal work that is relevant. I didnt cite where or who was the source of what made a nice example of my point, cause no undo consternation over it should be derived. I wasnt pointing fingers, someone might feel guilt, but I posted to not blame anyone by name.
Yet there was consternation over semantics anyway.
Semantics:
One was a quote, and one wasnt, and citation marks were in the correct places.
I didnt name anyone to blame, it was an anonymous verbatim quote in context.
The phrase ' with my "every class can multiclass like the bard" system' does indeed imply 'my' way, since it even uses the word 'my'.
Again,
this thread should be discussing the right way & wrong way to post,
rather than bickering over I said You said.
As such
Insulting folks personal works will likely draw personal offense,
but faulting or lauding some commercial product shouldnt get folks so emotional that they post poorly.
Ok, so, keeping only to what is relevant (so that we avoid discussion of he said/she said and semantics):
Insulting folks personal works will likely draw personal offense, but faulting or lauding some commercial product shouldn't get folks so emotional that they post poorly.
When a poster requests a PEACH, or states that they are beginning a communal project, informing them that you do not like elements of their work or think certain elements should be done differently is not insulting their work, nor should it be taken out of context as such. Posters are only responding to the original posters request or mission statement. A request for a PEACH indicates that you would like an honest response and critique, and a mission statement that initiates a communal project indicates that the project is communal, and you desire the opinions of others on the specifics of the direction the project will take.
Likewise, empirically lauding the quality of a commercial product created by the company that these boards belongs to is likely to form an argument. Tastes towards certain products are not empirical, and thus empirical statements are likely to generate debate or argument. You don't have the right to tell people what they should or shouldn't do in response to such empirical statements (or rather you don't have the ability to enforce their response to your desired tastes), nor do you have the ability to define what is a poor or unpoor post. Only the code of conduct and the boards moderators have that ability or right. Everyone must stick to the code of conduct. Responding to empirical statements without insulting the poster that made them is not against the code of conduct. Informing a poster that you believe their opinion or statement to be wrong is not against the code of conduct. But I think everyone here wants to avoid a slew of threads that deteriorate into discussion or argumentation on the quality of 4e. As a result, as it is not against the code of conduct to respond to empirical statements lauding the quality of said contested product, it is probably in the best interest of everyone on these boards to avoid making empirical statements about the quality of said product. Certainly stating an opinion is fine. I doubt anyone will take offense to someone not sharing the same opinion as them. But stating that something is empirically horrible, a mockery of balance, or garbage, has and does insult peoples tastes and thus generates debate over the validity and quality of said remarks. I don't think it is so much to ask that in order to avoid said debate people avoid making empirical remarks that insult others tastes. If posters refuse to avoid making such remarks, in all honesty, their threads deserve to deteriorate into debate of the quality of such remarks. Those posters always had the option to respect others tastes by noting that they simply don't like a said product without using loaded empirical commentary, or really loaded commentary period. Its enough to say you don't like something. There is no reason to call it a mockery or garbage.
And now for something completely different...
Me dancing like a monkey
*watches*
Okay from here on out,if any post or thread go towards an edition war,i'm going to report it myself.
new edition of what?
But that just my opinon. I'm sure 4e is great, by the way. People don't like? Don't play it.
i think the BIG issue with the DND 4e - if thats what we're talking about - is you cant stop by your local store and pick up 3e anymore, you have to buy them off some chronic masturbater on the internet like me
(i previously asked what new edition because i heard something about a new d20 modern coming out, not that it was from a reputable source.)
i think the BIG issue with the DND 4e - if thats what we're talking about - is you cant stop by your local store and pick up 3e anymore, you have to buy them off some chronic masturbater on the internet like me
(i previously asked what new edition because i heard something about a new d20 modern coming out, not that it was from a reputable source.)
Nothing is coming out from WotC as of yet, but Dias Ex Machina is releasing a game called Amethyst and a game called NeuroSpasta. Both are 4e products. Amethyst is pretty much an Urban Arcana setting (well, Urban Arcana meets post apocalypse). NeuroSpasta is a cyberpunk science fiction (no magic) setting.
Me dancing like a monkey
woo-hooo! Dance, Monkey! Dance!
well, I made a copy to the Brilliant board: StreetSweepers>
