MetaPost comments and questions about the messageboards and other parts of EN World. If you have a problem, this is where to go. Moderator email addresses are posted here.
I suppose there's also the risk of some people ascribing slants in moderation due to the financial support of WotC's advertising dollars.
Well, other than tell people they're wrong, not much I can do about unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty. There will always be a percentage people who attribute their being moderated to any motive other than the likely real cause - that, at the time, they were being an ass.
Sure, nobody's perfect, and we might slip up from time to time, but accusations of systemic and organized dishonesty are completely false.
Well, other than tell people they're wrong, not much I can do about unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty. There will always be a percentage people who attribute their being moderated to any motive other than the likely real cause - that, at the time, they were being an ass.
Sure, nobody's perfect, and we might slip up from time to time, but accusations of systemic and organized dishonesty are completely false.
Just as you wish your slip ups to be charitably framed, you might want to consider that people are less likely to believe in "systemic and organized dishonesty" as they are that the same results can come from a subconcious bias to remain relevant to the largest segment of a downwardly trending demographic. It's only natural that those with a vested interest in the success of the site would lean toward a pro-WotC bias without ever having to do so purposefully. Also, people should be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that most critical opinion is negative by nature when in fact it is more often meant to bring about positive change. Beware the extremists on both sides but be sure not to ignore that pseudo-positive extremists damage the dialogue by stifling the critical discussion that can otherwise improve all manner of things worthy of close imspection and analysis. Just some cautionary thoughts.
I've noticed the resurgence of the Edition War as well. Or maybe I've slipped into more problematic threads of late.
I've always found ENWorld pro-4E. It seems every thread has an anti-3E backhanded comment such as "Before 4E came along and saved me from 3E,..." This used to really bother me, but now I laugh. Still, it gets tiring to see the same names making the same references. I generally stay to threads I feel aren't going to go that direction, but sometimes curiosity gets the better me.
As a result, I spend much more time at Paizo. Yes, there is an edition war there too but it leans more my direction.
There are differences between Fourth Edition and earlier editions.
Why must every comment that mentions a difference be labeled WAR?
There are differences between every edition published. If that were not the case then there would only be one edition.
There are people who take the "game remains the same" advertising way too literally. The various editions all have different flavors and are written with separate sets of assumptions about playing style. Everyone will gravitate to the game or games that provide what they are looking for.
There is nothing inherently bad or ill meaning in recognizing these differences and embracing the ones that we find most appealing. Ignoring that major changes in style and theme have taken place through the editions is sometimes as annoying as climbing on a soapbox about it.
Such opinions do not need to be accompanied by comments that all alternate styles suck and shouldn't exist.
I'm sure someone, somewhere will see this as an attack.
I don't frequent the non-PbP parts as often, and then its mostly General and a little bit of 4E. But, just to counter "biases", the PbP-side is still heavily 3.5 with some healthy 4E interest. Not as much Pathfinder, but (1) its not out officially and (2) they tend to stay over an paizo it seems.
The Playing the Game board had in the last day:
- 30 3.5E games updated
- 10 4E games updated
- 3 Pathfinder games updated
- 2 Star Wars games updated
- And one each of World of Darkness, BCMI, Dark*Matter, Call of Cthulu, and Babylon 5
I'm excluding the 3 living forums as they are editions specific (one 3, one 4, and one transition to 4).
Just an FYI.
__________________ stonegod -- LEB judge and spawn of Khyber since 2005 (Blog)
I've noticed the resurgence of the Edition War as well. Or maybe I've slipped into more problematic threads of late.
I've always found ENWorld pro-4E. It seems every thread has an anti-3E backhanded comment such as "Before 4E came along and saved me from 3E,..." This used to really bother me, but now I laugh. Still, it gets tiring to see the same names making the same references. I generally stay to threads I feel aren't going to go that direction, but sometimes curiosity gets the better me.
As a result, I spend much more time at Paizo. Yes, there is an edition war there too but it leans more my direction.
I gotta disagree there, man. While many of the posters here love 4e, that doesn't mean the forums themselves are skewed a different way. Yeah, those names - and I bet I could guess a few ;p - get rather tiresome, but it's just people making noise. And keep in mind, I'm willing to bet those same people glare at their own list of names or people who always talk about ho much better 3.5 is over 4e. I'm probably on one or two...er...or several...lists.
What makes a board skew in one direction over the other is in cases like RPG.net, where the moderators enforce an edition war by openly backing one of the editions, or when a website is closely tied with one of the editions and has an actual stake in it. I don't think EN World has a stake in any of the editions - it's a D&D website first, specific edtion website second.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Just as you wish your slip ups to be charitably framed, you might want to consider that people are less likely to believe in "systemic and organized dishonesty" as they are that the same results can come from a subconcious bias to remain relevant to the largest segment of a downwardly trending demographic. It's only natural that those with a vested interest in the success of the site would lean toward a pro-WotC bias without ever having to do so purposefully.
I don't believe that. It's very cleverly worded, but it's just not plausible to me. Morrus is talking about people accusing the mods of being in bad faith, and you're basically saying "well, maybe they're not intentionally acting in bad faith, they're just subconsciously influenced", and I don't buy it. No offense intended, but no, the mods really are getting attacked just for doing their jobs.
The mods probably have a lot less emotionally invested in this than some of the posters. IMO the mods are the healthy ones, emotionally, for this. That's my only dog in this fight, speaking up for the mods since I think they've had to handle a Gordian knot.
It's especially strange to see the comparison with Paizo -- I like those guys, but, hey, there is clearly a financial interest in one edition over another, so it kind of squicks me when they actively support anti-4e posters. But I guess it's only fair, a company isn't bound to encourage people who use competitor's products to post on their forums.
I think it's fair to say that delivery is more important than the message with this issue. Nobody should hold it against you for having an opinion or a preference; and they're welcome to have a contrary opinion or preference. It's how those are presented where problems arise.
Morrus is talking about people accusing the mods of being in bad faith, and you're basically saying "well, maybe they're not intentionally acting in bad faith, they're just subconsciously influenced", and I don't buy it.
There's nothing to buy. No one can act completely without bias. Those behind the scenes are the only ones with all of the information, so they will have to take a hard look at things on their own and make whatever adjustments they need to make based on their info. If this were some crackpot acting as a lone voice in the wilderness, certainly it could be easily dismissed but obviously there are enough members speaking up that this could use a closer look. Part of the secret of success for EN World has always been to listen to its members and make adjustments based on feedback. We can trust them to do the right thing.
I gotta disagree there, man. While many of the posters here love 4e, that doesn't mean the forums themselves are skewed a different way.
I think it does. If there are more pro-4E/anti-3E posters on the boards, the boards skew pro-4E. When it seems that the 4e posters get away with more bashing while the 3E posters are hushed more quickly, the boards skew even more that direction.
When it seems that the 4e posters get away with more bashing while the 3E posters are hushed more quickly, the boards skew even more that direction.
4E posters are NOT treated differently to 3E posters, or anyone else. As we've repeated many times now, we really do not care what game you like; and, indeed, more mods play 3E than 4E. In fact, most of the time we don't know what game you prefer before we look at a particular reported post, since there are 80,000 members.
Rude people are treated differently to polite people, however. And 4E gets "bashed" more than 3E due to it being the new kid on the block; and "bashing" is an acivity which has a higher probability of rudeness.
IF you believe you've seen 4E posters acting in a way they shouldn't, just report the post. We'll look at it.
IF you believe you've seen 4E posters acting in a way they shouldn't, just report the post. We'll look at it.
It may just be that so much happens behind the scenes that it is not as obvious when certain situations are handled. Is there a way to address some of the current concerns through increased transparency?
It may just be that so much happens behind the scenes that it is not as obvious when certain situations are handled.
I don't think that's it. What I think is that folks notice things relevant to themselves, and not other stuff going on. A person who gets a warning, for example, is focused on that warning, and not on the half-dozen others that may have been given out that day.
Combined with - as I've illustrated a couple of times in this thread - the nature of threads (new game gets criticised a lot, old game doesn't; perfectly natural - same with movies or anything else, but we're talking about games here) and the fact that a critical thread is by its nature more provocative and negative than a complimentary thread. The stats simply play out exactly as you would expect them to based on basic laws of probability.
So, quite naturally, more people get into trouble criticising 4E than those who get into trouble criticising 3E, because more people criticise 4E. it's simple maths. If a given percentage of critical threads step over the line, the game which attracts the higher number of criticised threads gets a higher number of people being moderated when they criticise it. And that game, movie, album, TV show, whatever, will nearly always be the "new" one. People then comlpetely mistake the line of causality; they believe that the action was taken because of the poster's opinion (even when the moderator explicitly posts otherwise - they'll just claim he/she is lying) and not because of the real reason, the one they can't see in themselves, which is that, at that moment, they were simply being an ass. For many, it's always someone else's fault, not their own.
I know; I'm guilty of it, too. It's human nature. It can be hard to see one's own failings and mistakes. Human nature will tend to look elsewhere for an explanation - any explanation, including unjust accusations of others' motives - than admit they're in the wrong. And - let's be frank here - those accusations of moderator bias, dishonesty, financial motives, etc. are wrong.*
A Star Trek site will have had the exact same problem with the new movie, and if it had been around would have had the exact same problem when The Next Generation was launched.
Ascribing undue motives and so forth to the situation is natural, of course; but that doesn't make it rational.
Quote:
Is there a way to address some of the current concerns through increased transparency?
I can't think of a way which wouldn't be humiliating to the posters involved. We're not about to create a pillory so everyone can point and laugh at anyone who got a warning for something.
*You can even apply logic to the ad dollars accusations; it's not in WotC's interests to spend money preaching to the converted. I'd suspect that they'd be more interested in advertising if they felt they had an audience to convert. They're a business. They don't spend money if they don't need to, and any pro-4E bias, if it existed, amongst the moderation would be contrary to that aim. It doesn't even make sense! Our motive is "make everyone like 4E so WotC doesn't need to advertise here"?! I mean, the logic of the accusations isn't even internally consistent!
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 25th June 2009 at 12:54 AM..
I think it does. If there are more pro-4E/anti-3E posters on the boards, the boards skew pro-4E.
You state that as if pro-4e and anti-3e are the same, or go hand in hand. Wipe that idea from your head, because you cannot be farther from the truth. It is, in fact, quite possible to be pro-4e/pro-3e. There's any number of folks on these boards who like both games for what they do well.
I will repeat what others have said before me in this thread: the pro-X people on either side are generally not a problem. Folks could talk about what makes their favorite edition cool until they are blue in the face, and we'd have few problems.
It is when anti-X shows up that there's a problem. It is not possible to be anti-something and not be negative. It is very, very easy to be anti-something and speak negatively about the people who like the something. And that's where the trouble starts.
And, as a simple matter of logic, the people who prefer 3e had more negative feelings, and thus had a stronger tendency to be anti-something.
So, jerky behavior had a tendency to be correlated with edition preference. This produces what is sometimes called a "confounding bias" - action against jerks happens to hit those who prefer 3e somewhat more, even when moderators didn't consider what edition the speaker is talking about. So, to the outside, it can look like we have an edition bias, when we don't.
Somehow, back before 4e was released, we were able to discuss 3e without having go beat on another edition to do it. Return to that, and you should find your 3e discussion remarkably unmoderated, and in fact protected by the mods, most of whom still like 3e.
Somehow, back before 4e was released, we were able to discuss 3e without having go beat on another edition to do it. Return to that, and you should find your 3e discussion remarkably unmoderated, and in fact protected by the mods, most of whom still like 3e.
I think that Rolflyn's concern is with people who are pro-4E who feel the need to beat on 3E to discusss 4E, if I am reading him right. I don't believe that he is saying that all pro-4E posters are also anti-3E, just that certain posters seem to be both.
I think that Rolflyn's concern is with people who are pro-4E who feel the need to beat on 3E to discusss 4E, if I am reading him right. I don't believe that he is saying that all pro-4E posters are also anti-3E, just that certain posters seem to be both.
I meant a combined Pro-4E and Anti-3E outlook. There are those that are pro-4E that go into 3E threads and post how awesome 4E is and thus they aren't negative, but they aren't creating goodwill. Or those that drop a note that they left 3E long behind and are very happy that they did so.
I don't see the reverse as much. But I'm willing to admit it is because I stay out of 4E threads.
In any event, I find things far nicer for 3E and Pathfinder fans at other sites. If ENWorld doesn't see this as a problem, that's your call. I saw a thread about the problem, thought I'd post and clarify. I know one voice won't change anything, but I would be remiss if I sat silent.
I don't see the reverse as much. But I'm willing to admit it is because I stay out of 4E threads.
Turst me, it's there and far worse. Anti-4e sentiment, when it occurs, is much more vitriolic than anti-3E sentiment. Believe me, we have to moderate it! I myself percieve an anti-4E bias, with 4E continually refered to as a video game, compared unfavourably to WOW, described as limited and gamist and as nothing more than a tabletop skirmish/war game, as so forth. It's all a matter of perception (in my case, because those are the ones which end up in the moderator queue most often, highlighting a very strong anti-4E sentiment).
Quote:
In any event, I find things far nicer for 3E and Pathfinder fans at other sites.
And that's fine; I'm not trying to persuade you that you should prefer EN World to your chosen sites. I'm merely suggesting that it's possible that you may be more sensitive to one particular side of the issue.
As a side-note to everyone, it's easy to say "EN World seems X to me"; but do you have any actual constructive suggestions on how to address the problems from a moderation front? Preferably suggestions that don't stem from the false premise that the mods treat anyone differently depending on their edition preference rather than their demeanour because, that premise being untrue, it's not really a suggestion we can work with.
We're totally open to practical suggestions (doesn't mean we'll adopt them, but if you've thought of some great idea that we haven't, we'll never know about it unless you tell us!) Unfortunately, people just repeating "I believe there's a bias in X direction" just doesn't help us resolve anything except give us the opportunity to reassure folks that we don't have an edition-bias when moderating. Which is an approach which is clearly not working.
It could be that folks on both sides of the coin are experiencing exactly the same thing in opposite directions, and so everyone sees EN World as being anti-them. The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 25th June 2009 at 03:25 AM..
The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.
Given the posts in this thread, I'd have to agree.
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
Last edited by rounser; 25th June 2009 at 04:45 AM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
