-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Thanks for All the Fish
- Thread starter Raven Crowking
- Start date
- Status
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
It was those threads? Apparently I read different posts than RC did. I read a never ending stream of people (politely) telling the OP how utterly wrong he was, that those organizations were, sick, twisted, and evil, and how they wouldn't mind them existing in their games -- as evil entitities to mercilessly slaughter.
Have fun doing whatever RC....
Have fun doing whatever RC....
Right. But from what I understand from RC's posts- correct me if I'm wrong- some people may have been disciplined for being less than polite in those threads in response to either Hunter99's posts or the posts of others. I never saw it myself, but that seems to be the gist of what RC's saying.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
I wish to weigh in on this situation. I do so not in my capacity as a moderator. In fact I'm going through a very busy career transition and I'm on hiatus from my moderator duties at the moment. But I have opinions as a long standing member of this site and here they are.
First of all, we play fantasy games with evil villains in them. I see nothing particularly wrong with having these evil villains commit acts or hold attitudes that our modern sensibilities know are reprehensible. However when the line blurs between our own beliefs and those of such villains then others are right to call us on them. None of that changes the rules of ENWorld regarding being polite and respectful of course.
Speaking of reprehensible behavior, calling somebody a "rape-supporter" on the basis of not moving as quickly as the insult hurler would like in dealing with an unprecedented situation that hasn't been an issue in the history of this messageboard, is a great example. It is simple, reactionary name calling and, in my opinion, grandstanding. Furthermore, it was done repeatedly and with every intent to provoke a response.
Now the person crying "rape-supporter" may think that they are doing so for some greater good. But what they are really doing is making it more difficult and frustrating to run this website. There is a very real and reasonable concern that this will lead to others believing that hurling of insults across the internet being the best way to effect a policy change. That's never going to be the case and reasoned words and a bit of patience will always serve you better.
If RC has determined that he doesn't care for how this all played out and the response of Morrus and the rest of the team here at ENWorld, that's his prerogative. And, while I think it silly and time consuming, he can delete his posts if he wants. I do think that doing all of that while still commenting via rep comments is a bit drama queen-ish but that too is his right.
The bottom line for me is this: I think that Morrus approached an unprecedented situation the way a good leader should. He did it with caution and did not act rashly. If some felt it was too little too late then that's for them to decide. But if they choose to go around throwing accusations of somebody being a "rape-supporter" when that person is nothing of the sort, then they can hardly be surprised when the insulted party chooses to sever any contact with them.
I, for one, am thrilled that those folks will not be posting at my favorite places on the internet any longer.
First of all, we play fantasy games with evil villains in them. I see nothing particularly wrong with having these evil villains commit acts or hold attitudes that our modern sensibilities know are reprehensible. However when the line blurs between our own beliefs and those of such villains then others are right to call us on them. None of that changes the rules of ENWorld regarding being polite and respectful of course.
Speaking of reprehensible behavior, calling somebody a "rape-supporter" on the basis of not moving as quickly as the insult hurler would like in dealing with an unprecedented situation that hasn't been an issue in the history of this messageboard, is a great example. It is simple, reactionary name calling and, in my opinion, grandstanding. Furthermore, it was done repeatedly and with every intent to provoke a response.
Now the person crying "rape-supporter" may think that they are doing so for some greater good. But what they are really doing is making it more difficult and frustrating to run this website. There is a very real and reasonable concern that this will lead to others believing that hurling of insults across the internet being the best way to effect a policy change. That's never going to be the case and reasoned words and a bit of patience will always serve you better.
If RC has determined that he doesn't care for how this all played out and the response of Morrus and the rest of the team here at ENWorld, that's his prerogative. And, while I think it silly and time consuming, he can delete his posts if he wants. I do think that doing all of that while still commenting via rep comments is a bit drama queen-ish but that too is his right.
The bottom line for me is this: I think that Morrus approached an unprecedented situation the way a good leader should. He did it with caution and did not act rashly. If some felt it was too little too late then that's for them to decide. But if they choose to go around throwing accusations of somebody being a "rape-supporter" when that person is nothing of the sort, then they can hardly be surprised when the insulted party chooses to sever any contact with them.
I, for one, am thrilled that those folks will not be posting at my favorite places on the internet any longer.
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
I have to echo this question. Though I am not sure if RCK will ever see any responses here.
Thanee
First Post
And that is perfectly right.
Though the "sentence" should be chosen with the "emotionally charged" topic in mind... permanent bans might be a bit harsh (but I havn't seen the post, so maybe they are not).
The end does not justify the means.
And as far as "The Rules" go... AFAIK, the rule is, that topics that are perfectly game-related are ok as long as the discussion is on a reasonable level (in this specific case, it was apparantly decided, that despite the game-relation the topic should not be discussed further, probably because the level of discussion it spawned was everything but reasonable).
From what I can deduce here, Morrus and the Admins/Mods did the right thing.
Bye
Thanee
P.S. There is a Report button. If you think a post/thread is objectionable, use it! Replying to such a post is almost always the wrong choice, regardless of whether you think your opinion on the topic is "right".
I'm going to try my best to not comment on actions taken against individuals in this case. But I would like to question the way the mods are interpreting The Rules, because I'm not sure I understand or agree with them.
The first rule of ENWorld is:
I am seeing a problem with the examples given, and with how the rule is being enforced. Specifically, the rules only talk about being civil at the personal level, with the person you are actively in a discussion with. Civility is not something that only exists on the personal level.
A personal attack is uncivil, but so is a blanket attack, be it a gross generalization, religiously intolerant remark, or generally acting like a jerk. It seems to me that many extremely uncivilized comments in these problem threads were allowed simply because they were being uncivil in general, rather than being insults of a personal nature. There was frighteningly high number of blatantly sexist, homophobic, and racist remarks that went by without reprimand, seemingly because the mods didn't see a specific target to the comments (I can provide examples if requested).
Frankly, I don't agree with this interpretation of the phrase "keep it civil". If we really want to create a open, friendly community, we need to extend civility to groups, not just individuals. You may not like gays or blacks or women, but ENWorld is not the place to discuss it (even if you don't insult any specifc gays, blacks, or women).
The first rule of ENWorld is:
The Rules said:
I am seeing a problem with the examples given, and with how the rule is being enforced. Specifically, the rules only talk about being civil at the personal level, with the person you are actively in a discussion with. Civility is not something that only exists on the personal level.
A personal attack is uncivil, but so is a blanket attack, be it a gross generalization, religiously intolerant remark, or generally acting like a jerk. It seems to me that many extremely uncivilized comments in these problem threads were allowed simply because they were being uncivil in general, rather than being insults of a personal nature. There was frighteningly high number of blatantly sexist, homophobic, and racist remarks that went by without reprimand, seemingly because the mods didn't see a specific target to the comments (I can provide examples if requested).
Frankly, I don't agree with this interpretation of the phrase "keep it civil". If we really want to create a open, friendly community, we need to extend civility to groups, not just individuals. You may not like gays or blacks or women, but ENWorld is not the place to discuss it (even if you don't insult any specifc gays, blacks, or women).
That's fine, because we don't use the "personal only" interpretation - the FAQ lists examples, but is not meant to be exhaustive.
We frequently do moderate on the basis of incivility to groups - the "no religion" rule is largely such a case. Same for "no politics". In those topics, it is frequent that folks are uncivil to others with broad brushes. And, now that it is clear that there's a new problem area, we've put up a new standing rule.
- Status
Similar Threads
