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.
On the whole, I want to thank the mods here, you guys mostly do a fantastic job, and thank you for putting up with my bollocks for years.
I think the problem is not so much with the community but how the custodians of the game have chosen to proceed, and the aftermath of that.
__________________ "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.
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.
That's pretty much the exact definition of thread-crapping, and these posts should, hopefully, be reported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrus
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.
An equally drastic alternative would be to ban anti-edition threads/comments altogether. In essence, apply the idiom, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
I don't either option actually solves the problem, they're just sticking heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. The problem is a small subset of posters that will deliberately go out of their way to start edition wars. Any solution has to deal with that subset, and not with the community as a whole.
I've mentioned a couple options earlier in the thread, but I'd like to put forth a specific option with regards to posters inciting edition wars. The only* real way to "punish" posters, regardless of the infraction, is to ban them from using the site and the boards. I use the term punish loosely here, because I question whether that is really a punishment to people who break the rules. Perhaps it is better to say it is the only way to make breaking the rules have consequence. Any solution would have to be necessity stem from that. I would suggest making the bans for edition war nonsense twice what they would normally be for other infractions. For example, if a temp ban for attacking another poster is one day, make it two days if it's an edition war situation. Make this known with an announcement. Make it clear that it won't be tolerated.
I know it sounds a little draconian (and more than a little jerky), but it would work. The reason it would work is because the repeat offenders would simply offend themselves into a long-term temp ban or a permaban. The people who want to keep posting will learn to behave themselves. After a while, the edition wars should reach some sort of minimal level.
I'd point out that the edition war ban here earlier when 4E came out did a significant amount to minimize this stuff, even if it left it simmering. That's why I think a flat out moritorium on it isn't the ideal situation.
Another suggestion is to point banned members towards the boards at RPG.net or Paizo or WotC. If they really want highly-polarized partisan discussion, those boards may be more to their liking. Perhaps with an outlet there some of the offenders will simply leave it be here, or stop posting.
Of course, it does require more work from the moderators, and that's the downside. After all, who wants to constantly moderate? It's a crappy job having to be the parent all the time. So I don't know if that's something to be considered.
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.
Or go the opposite route: stop trying to accomodate anyone and just let the battles rage until they burn out on their own.
Planting a flag won't ensure a more harmonious membership; in fact it'd alomst certainly guarantee quite the opposite, until and unless you start booting out those who run under different colours than those chosen. And that would be a sad day.
I don't think there is a catch-all solution.
Maybe an addition to the "Edition War" post sticky:
"Remember the pitfalls of being anti-anything, be it Winona Ryders latest haircut, Micheal Bays latest action fest, or an edition of your favorite RPG. You risk being - whether you want it or not - being more rude, and you provoke people disagreeing with you. Monitor yourself and make you express your opinion adequately, avoiding insults, baits or rudeness.
But better yet - rather talk about what you love and like."
Mods, but maybe more importantly any poster worried about Edition Wars should focus on "positive" things. What do they like and why do they like it. What questions do they have on a specific topic - be it in-game, a rule or something else. Report cool experiences you had and explain or ask how to replicate them, or bad experiences you had and ask how to fix them.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Planting a flag won't ensure a more harmonious membership
Neither will not moderating posters. There are a couple of forums that have tried this and become widely reviled as the squatting places of the Internet's worst trolls as a result.
Mmm, ok so it sounds like the mods are not anti 4e or anti 3e, but anti perceived 'negativity'.
Personally, I like both 3e and 4e, and am currently taking a break from my ongoing 3e campaign to start a short 4e campaign next month.
However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.
A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.
So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?
In particular, indiscriminate banning of everyone involved in a conversation may be quick and easy, it may even fend off accusations of bias ("See, we banned both sides!"), but I don't think it's a good idea.
Mmm, ok so it sounds like the mods are not anti 4e or anti 3e, but anti perceived 'negativity'.
Negativity is fine; it's rudeness that's the problem. Unfortunately, the negativity and the rudeness seem to be firm bedfellows.
Quote:
However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.
A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.
Hmmm? The post you got the 3 day ban for was: "I can't "man up and talk straight" to you, sir, because that would get me a suspension, and you're not worth it."
Admittedly, an incredibly minor infraction which would have ordinarily have gone unnoticed. Unfortunately, it came shortly after a civility warning. But that aside (I won't dispute that it was very minor), the ban reason clearly was "ignoring a mod", not "negativity".
I think this is, perhaps, a perfect example of what I meant above when people see the reasons for a ban as something contrary to the actual, and indded explicitly stated, reasons.
Someone else would be crowing on RPGnet by now about how they got banned for "not liking 4E" or some such nonsense (you, of course, not being that someone else - I can't imagine you acting in such a manner).
Quote:
So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?
Sure. I think that goes to the level of the infraction rather than the reason for it, though.
One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason. That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.*
*I realise you emailed me, but I found that email too late. Sorry about that!
However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.
A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.
So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?
In the mod's defense, I don't think that was a typical thread nor a typical day. I think they were just fed up with the shenanigans. I know I was, almost welcomed the ban, people were acting strange.
__________________ "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.
One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason. That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.
That sounds like a fine houserule. Err, I mean it's a great idea.
Mustrum "Hopes he never has to see that feature in action" Ridcully
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.
Seriously? I don't know if being moderators pushes the worst of the site in your face, but personally, this is the most civil RPG messageboard I've found that also has a large wealth of edition neutral material. I don't know about others, but the edition war vehemence seems pretty rare, and when it does arise, it's really easy to spot and avoid. The vast majority of what I see on EN World is no different than the civil discussion that has been happening here for years.
Yeah, unfortunately there will be some who will complain about biases (and nearly always biases against them, of course), but I'm quite comfortable believing that they are the minority and the vast majority appears to be people like me who just like to talk D&D and other RPGs. I doubt EN World "picking a side" would increases civility at all, and just drive traffic of those interested in the losing side away. Plus I could see edition neutral discussions being diminshed by everything having the filter of one edition.
Maybe I'm wrong and EN World is made up of more complainers and haters who want to talk about one system only than fans like me that quietly enjoy EN World and don't rant and rave and complain. But planting a flag and choosing a side would make EN World less useful for me, and as the only messageboard I still visit multiple times a day (the nastiness on others have driven me away from them), EN World would lose a lot of use to me, which obviously I'm against.
I just wanted to say a couple things about a couple things mentioned in this thread.
First of all, the moderators here are some damned fine individuals. I think they do a great job overall and I'm proud to be among them. I also think that (to use a trite cliche) "our strength is our diversity". We have a wide range of personalities in all respects but this extends to our tastes in gaming and games of choice. Some really like 4e. Some really like 3e. Some don't care for 4e at all. Some are lukewarm to it. Some prefer different systems altogether. I think this really helps cover all the bases and lets us keep an eye on each other as well. We're all friendly with each other but we DO call each other on our screwups.
The second is on the nature of moderator warnings. When you see one of us bust out the ominously colored text, read it. If it is directed at a specific individual who is being a problem in the thread, and if that individual is not you, then move right along. If it is a general warning that the thread is getting out of hand then be very careful about what you post next. We are NOT drawing a line at where the current hostilities are and say, "Ok guys, don't get any nastier than you are already." What we're doing is placing a sizable "demilitarized zone" in the middle of the argument that has gotten too heated. If you violate that zone, at all, then you're going to get smacked down.
And don't ask us where the edge of the zone is. That's part of the effectiveness of this technique. If we tell you then everybody will be back to the edge of that zone as soon as possible, taking pot shots hoping they'll hit a target on the other side. If you're unsure whether something would be acceptable then don't post it. This is your chance to be extra polite to your fellow posters and get your points across in the nicest way you know how. Exercise that opportunity.
One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason. That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.
I think this is a good step that will probably clear up some of the backlash and misconceptions. I think increasing the severity toward the repeat offenders who are regularly banned only to return when their sentence is up and they feel their bowels stirring would be something to consider.
I think this is a good step that will probably clear up some of the backlash and misconceptions. I think increasing the severity toward the repeat offenders who are regularly banned only to return when their sentence is up and they feel their bowels stirring would be something to consider.
Thanks Morrus for your explanation, that was helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rel
The second is on the nature of moderator warnings. When you see one of us bust out the ominously colored text, read it. If it is directed at a specific individual who is being a problem in the thread, and if that individual is not you, then move right along. If it is a general warning that the thread is getting out of hand then be very careful about what you post next. We are NOT drawing a line at where the current hostilities are and say, "Ok guys, don't get any nastier than you are already." What we're doing is placing a sizable "demilitarized zone" in the middle of the argument that has gotten too heated. If you violate that zone, at all, then you're going to get smacked down.
I think I missed this, or at least its significance, in the thread where I got banned. I didn't think my comment was skirting any lines - I had decided I wasn't going to take the bait and thus come close to any line - so I wasn't worried about any prior mod warnings. So I was pretty gobsmacked to log on later and find I'd been banned, later finding out it was along with several other people - some who seemed to deserve it, others not, even on the basis of a hyper-sensitive demilitarised zone.
I think being able to contact the mod directly will be very helpful. I was kept in the dark several days, until Piratecat posted on therpgsite - where I had gone to complain about being banned - and put things in some perspective.
I'm not entirely sure what I think about all this. I like the strong moderation on ENW, I prefer it to the lopsided modding on rpgnet or the invective-filled free-for-all on therpgsite. I appreciate the even-handedness and lack of bias of most of the mods, most of the time. For guys who presumably don't get paid, you do a great job. OTOH in this particular case the post-general-warning tripwire was set at a different place than I could possibly have imagined, and I think I wasn't the only one. I think that lack of predictability makes it less helpful as a deterrent, and I can't concur with its use in this particular case.
I'm not entirely sure what I think about all this. I like the strong moderation on ENW, I prefer it to the lopsided modding on rpgnet or the invective-filled free-for-all on therpgsite. I appreciate the even-handedness and lack of bias of most of the mods, most of the time. For guys who presumably don't get paid, you do a great job. OTOH in this particular case the post-general-warning tripwire was set at a different place than I could possibly have imagined, and I think I wasn't the only one. I think that lack of predictability makes it less helpful as a deterrent, and I can't concur with its use in this particular case.
Yes, well, that's the tradeoff. If we are gentle, and there is a "false positive" or borderline case, you aren't apt to really mind it overmuch. If we are rather more harsh, then those same edge cases are going to be less pleasant.
So, is that tradeoff worth it? Folks, ask yourself, are you willing to take one for the team?
Just to say that Xath has replied by email with clarification on her actions, and in conjunction with what Piratecat said on therpgsite about the sad personal event in his life that weekend, I think I understand what happened: Piratecat was understandably upset, while Xath was following PC's instruction that there would be bans without further explanation for 'the slightest hint of rudeness'. On that basis I can understand why I received the suspension. Thanks to the various mods for your patience.
Has the army of people registered in the last two months posting major edition war crap been noticed?
I've noticed several people with very low post counts posting deliberately inflammatory threads (i.e., trolling), yes. I didn't realize that any of them had registered so recently, though.
While I think the ratio of thread closure seems a bit high recently, and I can't always see the reasoning behind the closures (particularly when someone says he/she hasn't even read the thread before closing), I don't perceive moderators' actions to be the dominant problem.
I perceive the dominant problem to arise from the sort of peer moderation non-moderator posters exert on one another in most forums, this forum included. Peer moderation, of itself, is wonderful because it shows a community's desire and effort to take care of itself. At the same time, peer moderation is problematic because, given that anyone can participate, it will wildly fluctuate in quality.
For that reason I'd appreciate if Enworld communicated to its posters to be more conscientious when peer moderating. For instance, just reading this thread on this page, and reading some other recent threads, blanket accusations of trolling abound. Trolling is a serious issue, but so are unfounded accusations thereof. It should be an issue of honesty and responsibility to only issue negative characterizations of other people's posts by
1. clearly saying which post you mean, avoiding generic elusive references like "they", "some", "people", or "we all know who I mean",
2. clearly saying why one thinks the accusation is warranted i.e. the reason on which one declares a post to be indicative of trolling.
I observe how some posters are very conscientious about observing 1. and 2., and I value their integrity for doing so. It's just I wish that their practice was more widespread.
I perceive the dominant problem to arise from the sort of peer moderation non-moderator posters exert on one another in most forums, this forum included. Peer moderation, of itself, is wonderful because it shows a community's desire and effort to take care of itself. At the same time, peer moderation is problematic because, given that anyone can participate, it will wildly fluctuate in quality.
For that reason I'd appreciate if Enworld communicated to its posters to be more conscientious when peer moderating...
I get a little queasy thinking about posters moderating (i.e., explicitly commenting on) other posters; that's crossing the line into rudeness. I think the best way to get to what you're saying is to follow a model we've practiced for years: posters setting the tone of the discussion, being an example of good citizenship. I agree that we could use more of that again.
__________________ What family doesn't have its up and downs?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
