Return of the Edition War

[Piratecat]

I was in a really foul mood this last weekend. Normally when that happens I recuse myself form moderating for a while; I didn't recognize it at the time, though. I think it's worth me apologizing for the overly stringent result, because I largely things worse instead of better. Sorry about that.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Windjammer

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 as you allude to doesn't really happen here past individual posters being allowed to report a post (which is something that all vBulletin forums allow to my knowledge). Indeed, moderators and admins regularly warn or even ban posters for acting as though they were moderators. Looking into almost any moderated thread will turn up a moderator or admin reminding posters that the correct course of action when one disagrees with another poster is to report the post, not respond to it. Incidentally, the following is the kind of thing that I regard as trolling:

1. Accusing an unspecified group of people of certain behavior.
2. Negatively characterizing those people (frex, as cowards and liars).
3. Challenging those people to particpate in behavior that is specifically against forum rules.

The second and third things are what make a trolling attempt, really. The first thing is so unspecific as to be harmless. If something like that is really causing people angst, then they're strung way too tight, IMO ("I just know that he's talking about me!"). When people get into calling each other names (a violation of forum rules), and challenging people whom they disagree with to break forum rules in the hope that they'll be moderated. . . well, I think that is the quintessential essence of trolling.

Trolling forums is just like trolling for fish. . . the person doing the trolling is throwing out bait (deliberately rude or inflammartory comments designed to provoke a heated response) and hoping that somebody will bite it, so they can be reeled in and bopped in the head. What seems to be at the heart of the issue currently is that some people* want to be able to post deliberately inflammatory threads or replies and not be held accountable for it, while demanding that the targets of their efforts be subject to the harshest moderation possible.

I think the answer is — and has always been — to adhere to the simple maxim "What's good for one is good for all." AFAICT, that's pretty much how moderation here has always worked. I can say that as somebody who has been moderated as a current fan of d20/OGL games and as a past vocal critic of same said games. Most of the people I see who are currently raising cain about ENWorld mod action are people who were, in fact, fairly moderated for clear breach of the forum's rules. I don't think that there is any grand conspiracy plotting against them. I think the truth is much more simple. I think they just don't like being held accountable for their actions.

*And, no, I won't name names — doing so is against the forum rules and constitutes a personal attack, as I've learned in the past. I also don't feel that naming names will lead to any kind of a productive discussion, nor is it necessary for one.

[S'mon]

I think peoples' view on what counts as inflammatory varies a lot, depending on their own strongly held beliefs.

[Windjammer]

I see that my post was misleading since I took a certain understanding of "peer moderation" for granted without making any effort to spell out what I mean. Apolgoies. So here I try again.

To begin with, peer moderation (as I understood it) has nothing to do with endowing non-moderator posters (or worse, a subset thereof) with a moderator's rights and/or duties. The division of labour between moderators and non-moderators is important for a site's well being (for reasons others have already pointed out here).

What I meant, rather, was that peer moderation of a different sort, where people do not comment on other people as such but on their posts, is a natural given on any forum, this forum included. To be plain, every time one uses the quotation function and comments on the merits or demerits of a particular posting, and (more particularly) on its general nature regarding certain qualities (constructiveness, neutrality, being well-researched as opposed to ill-founded), peer moderation is in place. This has nothing to do with personal attacks since the target of such a remark - even if highly critical - is never the person but the posting. (I'm sure I missed stating this vital qualification in my previous post!)

At the same time, using the quotation function isn't tantamount to peer moderation per se. Sometimes we simply ask for clarification, voice a follow-up question, or simply voice an opinion to the contrary. These aren't instances of peer moderation but of straight on-the-topic-discussion. Just to repeat, "peer moderation" rather covers the type of comments all of us engage in when we explicitly or implicitly comment on other people's "posting standards" with regard to particular postings of theirs. (I can't stress enough how important this qualification is!)

And this is what I meant when citing unfounded accusations of trolling as an instance of offending on this score. (I'm sure there are other instances, and more important ones, this one was just on my mind at the time of writing.) Accusing other people of trolling is a very important step in peer moderation. However, equally important is to keep to certain standards oneself when doing so. It's the absence of these standards - which I detailed above - which deteriorate a lot of discussion on these boards in my estimate.

If you're still unclear as to where I'm going with this, perhaps the following will help. Enworld isn't the only forum which on occasion struggles with the inevitable pitfalls of peer moderation. Here's a singularly instructive thread on Paizo which addresses a similar issue over there head on (no need to read too much of the thread, you'll get the gist of it soon enough ). Basically, there comes a point when less than careful peer moderation amounts to thread crapping, which is when peer moderation has overshot its purpose of precisely avoiding that. The parallel of Enworld to Paizo is interesting because, despite some superficial (and nonetheless important) parallels, the underlying cause of the problem in the two cases couldn't be more varied. Basically, on Paizo's boards 4E-supporters have to resort to peer moderation because they don't have any other option - they are compensating the absence of top-down moderators who take care of anti-4e-threadcrappers. This isn't the case on Enworld - my perception re Enworld is that the moderators always have to keep a step ahead of peer moderation. And this isn't exactly an easy affair, let alone on a day-to-day basis. For, when peer moderation gets ouf of hand, it becomes all the harder to maintain sober moderation practices oneself.

To guarantee that this posting itself adheres to my self-declared standards, I wish (in closing) to pin my observations on concrete examples. NB This isn't meant to be exhaustive but exemplifying of what I've written here.

In my estimate, a couple of recent threads didn't deterioriate because they were discussing controversial subjects in an insensitive manner - threads discussing: the extent to which the inclusion of virtual table tops influenced the design of the 4E ruleset; the question of whether the Retro-Clone movement is on safe legal grounds; the issue of whether elements of 4E met suboptimal rigors of playtesting. No, these threads had to be closed because they, and I mean ALL OF THEM, were continuously threadcrapped by certain people who had no interest in seeing the questions raised therein getting answered, and went to extraordinary measures to prevent others from discussing these questions and seeing them answered. Basically, the amount and nature of this threadcrapping had in each instance reached intolerable levels where discussion was no longer possible.

That such a development is highly detrimental to a site dedicated to the very discussion of such issues is, I hope, not a controvercial claim. What is controvercial, I think, is the distribution of blame or, to use a word I vastly prefer, of responsibility. All of us, and I mean ALL, are responsible for the nature of discussion on these boards and if not ALL of us make a WAY higher effort when peer moderating then fruitful discussion about a crucial, but crucially important, set of issues related to D&D will have no future on this board.

[Samuel Leming]

The reason that you're continuing to have edition wars is because of threads like this:



where jerks say things like this:

[Edited out namecalling of a specific member - Morrus]

OK, he's skirting just beneath the the rules so I can't report him and Umbran has already 'oranged' him, but these kind of statements are intended to cause trouble.

It doesn't bother me when somebody says a game I like is crap. I just take that to mean he prefers a different kind of game. When somebody says the WAY I've been role playing for the last 32 years( and the way the hundred or so people I've gamed with) is crap then I find cause to be offended.

As far as I know 'acting as your character would based on a given situation' is the most common way of playing these games. It's even the most common definition of role playing! Gloating that D&D has removed support for that is trying to be offensive.

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Just to chime in- I tend to actually seek out recently locked threads in order to see what happened. By reading the ominously colored text- even in threads I didn't or even have an intention to participate in- I constantly remind myself of the boundaries. It helps rein in my own baser instincts.*

Its worked pretty well so far- in all my time here, AFAIK, I've only had one "Time out" and that was for something I posted in haste while sleep deprived and thus was poorly composed...

Which resulted in an entirely justified kick in the pants because even though I didn't say what I meant, what I said was ultimately my responsibility...and what I said was pretty inflammatory.

On the whole, I can honestly say I haven't seen too much in the way of mods overusing the Banhammer. Keep up the good work, y'all.

* Which is why I once proposed having a section of the website- call it "The Abyss," why not- devoted to the banned threads. It might be more educational than the forum rules sticky.

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Samuel Leming

The reason that you're continuing to have edition wars is because of threads like this:



where jerks say things like this:



OK, he's skirting just beneath the the rules so I can't report him and Umbran has already 'oranged' him, but these kind of statements are intended to cause trouble.

And responding by calling him a jerk here in Meta is not the way to handle it. Someone "skirting beneath the rules" isn't license for you to break the rules. The best approach, as always, is to report the post or ignore him; don't escalate it.

You've put me in a difficult position here. I've edited out the reference to a specific poster, leaving it as a general comment. Please don't do that, though.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Morrus

And responding by calling him a jerk here in Meta is not the way to handle it. Someone "skirting beneath the rules" isn't license for you to break the rules. The best approach, as always, is to report the post or ignore him; don't escalate it.

You've put me in a difficult position here. I've edited out the reference to a specific poster, leaving it as a general comment. Please don't do that, though.

Having read the post before you edited it, I have to agree and know that particular poster gets reported regularly with no apparent action taken (none in the threads where I personally know he gets reported and he's still here, so obviously not banned). I've got to ask, is the poster in question actually posting within the limits of what is acceptable behavior?

Samuel Leming, OTOH, has been here for years without any infractions of which I am aware and this poster has him so up in arms he actually risks breaking the rules. That's gotta tell you something.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

Just to chime in- I tend to actually seek out recently locked threads in order to see what happened. By reading the ominously colored text- even in threads I didn't or even have an intention to participate in- I constantly remind myself of the boundaries. It helps rein in my own baser instincts.*

Its worked pretty well so far- in all my time here, AFAIK, I've only had one "Time out" and that was for something I posted in haste while sleep deprived and thus was poorly composed...

Which resulted in an entirely justified kick in the pants because even though I didn't say what I meant, what I said was ultimately my responsibility...and what I said was pretty inflammatory.

On the whole, I can honestly say I haven't seen too much in the way of mods overusing the Banhammer. Keep up the good work, y'all.

* Which is why I once proposed having a section of the website- call it "The Abyss," why not- devoted to the banned threads. It might be more educational than the forum rules sticky.

I do the same thing.

I try to avoid the blatant edition war threads entirely (you can usually tell them simply from the thread title). I'll also tend to avoid threads that end up devolving into edition wars (even if the thread subject wasn't initially about edition wars - sometimes the "Edition Warriors" can turn even good and unbiased threads into edition wars, as I think almost happened with one of Xechnao's latest threads - the mods did a great job setting the tone early in the thread).

But, I will check out threads that were closed to see why, and just to see examples of what the mods are looking for. Humans are subjective and imperfect, but despite these shortcomings I think the mods here do a hell of a job. I can't imagine it's easy. Nobody likes being the bad guy (except for when they're DM'ing), and these guys take a lot of flack for it, but for the most part I think they are very consistent and fair. Their efforts do seem to pay off with a mostly friendly and helpful environment for the forums. I didn't get a "Time-Out" like you mentioned Danny, but I have had a gentle and well-deserved admonishment from Pcat. And he was 100% right.

I decided to take his advice after that and actually started to use the "Ignore" function for a couple of members. I tried to avoid doing that since I started posting here but after Pcats advice I gave it a try. It's honestly made my enjoyment of the site much better since. I find that I don't even notice their absence unless someone quotes them.

So, I'd second what you said Danny and say to the mods, "Keep up the good work, y'all." That is unless it's me that's screwing up.

[Samuel Leming]

Originally Posted by Morrus

And responding by calling him a jerk here in Meta is not the way to handle it. Someone "skirting beneath the rules" isn't license for you to break the rules. The best approach, as always, is to report the post or ignore him; don't escalate it.

Heh.

I quoted and moved on with composing the post without considering that the name was attached to the quote. If I had thought about it I would have just deleted it or replaced it with something silly like YARB, JARB or even Peter Dragon. The quote makes my point just as well without having a specific name attached, but now that the quote is gone my post really doesn't work that well.

Anyway, to try this from another angle, I don't think the edition wars problem is really caused by people giving their opinions on one game or another. The real issue is that some people are throwing hate at the other side. It's the expression of that hate, within the rules or not, that needs to disappear.

[Samuel Leming]

Originally Posted by Mark

Having read the post before you edited it, I have to agree and know that particular poster gets reported regularly with no apparent action taken (none in the threads where I personally know he gets reported and he's still here, so obviously not banned). I've got to ask, is the poster in question actually posting within the limits of what is acceptable behavior?

Samuel Leming, OTOH, has been here for years without any infractions of which I am aware and this poster has him so up in arms he actually risks breaking the rules. That's gotta tell you something.

Thanks for the support. I really need it right now.

There really doesn't appear to be a rule against acting like a jerk here as long as you don't step over the line and break an actual rule. That's why some people on other boards say we have a reputation for being passive-aggressive.

I think I see the moderator's reasons for this though. Jerklike behavior is subjective. You know it when you see it, but not everyone agrees on what makes a jerk. The moderators need to be objective. When taking an action they need to be able to point to a specific infraction. Otherwise a moderator can be more easily accused of letting personal issues influence his rulings.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

I was in a really foul mood this last weekend. Normally when that happens I recuse myself form moderating for a while; I didn't recognize it at the time, though. I think it's worth me apologizing for the overly stringent result, because I largely things worse instead of better. Sorry about that.

Now that things have calmed down again I'd just like to say here that I think you've behaved like a gentleman in apologising PC, and have minimised any lasting damage.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

I
I decided to take his advice after that and actually started to use the "Ignore" function for a couple of members.

I have a bit of a problem with the ENW Ignore function because when an Ignored poster starts a thread, it preserves the thread as visible, but without their initial post. This makes for confusing reading! Invisibling the entire thread might be better.

[Mark]

Another problem with the ignore function becomes apparent when someone who is prolific and prone to derailing threads gets off on a tangent. It is mostly useful, though.


Also, I agree that PC is most definitely a gentleman.

[Arnwyn]

Originally Posted by S'mon

I have a bit of a problem with the ENW Ignore function because when an Ignored poster starts a thread, it preserves the thread as visible, but without their initial post. This makes for confusing reading! Invisibling the entire thread might be better.

Indeed. AFAIC, ENWorld's Ignore function is broken and essentially non-functional. For me, if an Ignore function doesn't entirely scrub the existence of a poster from ENWorld when I'm browsing, it's pretty much valueless.

(And while this is completely wishful thinking, I'd still love the ability to add myself to others' ignore lists... some people shouldn't ever respond to me! )

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Arnwyn

Indeed. AFAIC, ENWorld's Ignore function is broken and essentially non-functional. For me, if an Ignore function doesn't entirely scrub the existence of a poster from ENWorld when I'm browsing, it's pretty much valueless.

And yet, when I set it to do that a while back, people complained that they'd prefer to see the threads so they could change their mind on a case-by-case basis about viewing them.

Can't win, really.

FWIW, I personally prefer it the way you do.

[Arnwyn]

Originally Posted by Morrus

And yet, when I set it to do that a while back, people complained that they'd prefer to see the threads so they could change their mind on a case-by-case basis about viewing them.

Can't win, really.

Heh!

That complaint doesn't make much sense to me... if one is going to go so far as to use the Ignore function, then there really shouldn't be any "case-by-case basis"... Crazy illogical people!

And sadly that still doesn't fix the 'see the offending poster in quotes' problem.

[LightPhoenix]

I think the reason for it was two-fold. First, just because someone ignored starts a thread, doesn't mean that the non-ignored replies in the thread have no value. Second, I think perhaps that people wanted a way to "cheat" the ignore option - ignored people can still be detected, if not always read.

[Mark]

Do I sense the beginning of an Ignore List Settings War?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Reading the Pathfinder thread on changes to the Allip, I think we are mislabeling the whole thing.

It's not an edition war.

It's a playstyle war.

Samuel Lemings example is great for that, too. It's not about the individual edition, but the playstyle it supported or suggested, and how people like or dislike that playstyle.