Edition war?

[pawsplay]

Regarding http://www.enworld.org/forum/4978222-post10.html

Originally Posted by Umbran

Need I mention that edition warring in here is not going to be acceptable?

I didn't see red ink so I hope this acceptable to discuss here. Umbran, I'm having a hard time seeing an edition war here. "Tyranny of X" is a pretty common expression. It's a use of personification in which an object is portrayed as having the characteristics of a despotic ruler. The poster wasn't insulting any person. He was expressing how he felt about 4e in play.

As the thread as in in open, wasn't marked as a "fans only" thread, and did not in the OP specify or imply a positive approach, I would imagine a plurality of viewpoints would be acceptable. Why is it okay to say 4e streamlined the game for actual play, but not that it's tyrannical? Isn't that very close to saying that only people who think 4e's design was an improvement are allowed to express their opinion?

I know at one time the moderation was tuned to a very sensitive level of heat, but I thought we were sort of past that. I would appreciate some clarification whether Umbran's response was a friendly warning, a "smoke alarm" post, or indication that the post responded to was considered out of bounds on this site. I took the post as a sort of "tread carefully" thing but the more I thought it, the more I wasn't sure what the intent was.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I didn't see red ink so I hope this acceptable to discuss here.

That's cool.

Umbran, I'm having a hard time seeing an edition war here.

That's because there wasn't one... yet, which is part of why there was no red ink. This was an informal caution about how easily things could go that way if people didn't watch what they said, and how.

"Tyranny of X" is a pretty common expression.

Yes, it is. But "common" does not mean, "I can use it without considering what it will be read as in this context."

Consider - the poster came into a thread about four different editions, and spoke about only one of them. The statement was entirely negative, and used... I'll call it hyperbolic language.

It is not reasonable to expect that nobody will see that as edition-bashing. Someone will, and they'll also feel that the post was picking a fight, and feel that if that one was okay then minor retaliation was okay...

You see where that goes?

If he'd been more even-handed in critique, either showing some positives with negatives, or evenly criticizing multiple editions, he might have avoided such a reading. But in this context, the way that was said, the reading was pretty inevitable.

I simply headed arguments off at the pass.

Why is it okay to say 4e streamlined the game for actual play, but not that it's tyrannical? Isn't that very close to saying that only people who think 4e's design was an improvement are allowed to express their opinion?

See above. "Tyranny" is a pretty emotionally charged word. He could have said, "excessive", or even "extreme", or a host of other things, but didn't. I allow that our posters are a pretty intelligent lot, and unless I'm told otherwise, I expect they mean what they say - so he meant to use the emotional charge. And that charge is not particularly useful an a thread that was designed to be mostly about historical analysis.

I know at one time the moderation was tuned to a very sensitive level of heat, but I thought we were sort of past that.

We mods still get dinged frequently for allowing what many (incorrectly) call "passive aggressive" posting - taking potshots that are normally under the radar. In this one case, in that thread, the path downhill was pretty darned obvious, and I chose to head it off with a light mention, so that we'd not have needed a hammer later.

[pawsplay]

Thanks for clarifying!