Edition wars need to stop.

[Obryn]

How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"? It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs. It's a company. If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.

I'm all for a rational discussion about the pros and cons of WotC/Hasbro running D&D. That's not what we have, here.

You stated WotC's poor stewardship as an unarguable given, which is yet another part of what causes the very message board arguments you're criticizing.

Would leaving that part out have lessened or diluted your message at all?

-O

 

[Mistwell]

I perceive a number of problems with the OP which distract greatly from your message.

First, I also noticed a bias against 4e as well. I understand you didn't mean it that way, and that you claim you do not mean to assign blame. But, it's a big distraction when you don't make an attempt to stay neutral in your examples. I automatically assume a bias runs through the entire text when I see it happen like that so frequently.

Second, what I perceive to be your bias creeps into what you perceive to be trolling. I view a lot of your "poster" responses as trolling, not the supposed troll in your examples. You don't see it that way I assume, but I do. If you made the examples more neutral, it would be easier to follow your point. As it reads to me now, you post often two trolls in one example, both responding to each other, and then you take sides with one of the trolls and exaggerate the other to make your point (at least that's how I see it). It just doesn't work for me. It dilutes your point.

Third, and I apologize in advance if this is not the case, but you sure seem like someone who used to post here but who does not post here anymore. You seem like someone who made a new account. And I am not alone in that guess - others at circvsmaximvs had the same reaction. So, if it is not a correct guess, it would help if you gave some more background on yourself. Or if it is true..just come out and say it please.

As for why this would matter, it's because a persons reputation and experience matter. If a doctor specializing in disease X tells me how to diagnose disease Y, that person is more credible automatically than an anonymous non-doctor Z on the internet telling me how to diagnose disease X. And if WOTC author A tells me the intent of a rule he wrote, that person is more credible than Banned-For-Trolling Poster B tells me the intent of that rule. Reputation and experience matter.

I know you feel that if the argument is the best, then it should win out regardless of the speaker. But, that's only true in absolutes, where there is a 100% correct viewpoint. Those arguments are rare, and almost non-existent when discussing RPGs. Most discussions in this field involve "slightly better position than the contra position". So, when discussing what is trolling regarding RPGs, there will never be a 100% best answer. This is why reputation and experience come into play.

If, say, a mod with a lot of experience in monitoring trolling and reading "bad post reports", who also has the reputation for being a fair and just mod, takes a position on this topic, it has a lot more credibility than "Banned-For-Trolling But Otherwise Anonymous User".

So, did you used to post here under another handle? If not, what is your background?

 

[jdrakeh]

If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.

Well, then, if I tell you that your favorite game sucks, there's no reason for you to be offended! See how that works? When you attack things that people like, they often take offense. In the spirit of your original post, I suggest that if you don't want to offend people, you refrain from attacking things that they may like and/or care about. This the first step toward stopping edition wars — not criticizing WotC.

 

[Mistwell]

Troll: Pathfinder sucks hardcore...

MST is most often combined with another form of trolling, usually TT or PAT. MST involves a person “crusading” for a cause (usually coming off as a shill; hence the name) and disrupting any topics related to the cause...The MST-ers may have their reasons for their petty crusades, but their bottom line goal is to eradicate any discussion of the positive merits on their chosen topic.

How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"? It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs. It's a company. If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.

This is an excellent example of what I was referring to regarding bias in the OP. You can clearly see that saying "Pathfinder sucks..." is part of a troll, but you cannot clearly see that saying "WOTC sucks..." is part of a troll. However, it is. It's OK if it doesn't offend you...but you've got to be able to see it offends others and that you would need to adapt your behavior to accept that if you're going to be credible on a topic like this.

Right now, from my perspective, you're not credible on this topic. It looks to me like you have an axe to grind, and you're cloaking it in the aura of neutral objectivity. Or, to use your terms, you have a petty crusade, and you're shilling neutral objectivity to further your petty crusade.

 

[B.T.]

Well, a lot of people round here are major fans of WotC and the products they've produced, either in the past or at present, so there is a reason. Even if that's not, in your opinion, a good reason to be offended, the fact is people will be and I think you know they will be. And isn't it trolling to say things you know will offend a lot of people?

I am absolutely a fan of D&D, particularly 3e. However, that doesn't stop me from saying things like, "WotC sucks. They produce a glut of products, releasing material without playtesting, and then making a new system when the old one is faltering."

They are a fine example of corporate greed. That doesn't mean that D&D is a bad game; it doesn't mean that the writers are bad people; it just means that WotC has to make enough money for Hasbro. And it's a shame because that "money, money, money" mentality has a negative effect on D&D. (How many "Dragon" books did we have in 3e? Races of the Dragon, Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, Dragons of Eberron...argh.)

Well, then, if I tell you that your favorite game sucks, there's no reason for you to be offended! See how that works? When you attack things that people like, they often take offense.

This is a wonderful example of PAT. Your condescension is unwelcome, and your point is invalid:

You are equating liking a game to liking a company. Liking a game is a matter of personal taste. If you said, "Pepsi sucks," I would say, "No, Pepsi is better than Coke." If you said, "The Pepsi company sucks," I would say, "Probably, but I like their pop anyhow." The fact that anyone is getting riled up over the criticism of a company is what astounds me. They are a business. They are not Mike Mearls or Scott Rouse or anyone else who posts here.

If I said, "Mike Mearls sucks," that'd be one thing--some of you probably like him as a person, and you would rightly be offended (to some extent). But to become agitated because one criticizes a company is madness. There is no personal stake in a company.

First, I also noticed a bias against 4e as well.

Do not mistake the bias of 4e with bias against 4e supporters. It is true that I probably come down harder on the behavior of the 4e-supporters because I have encountered far more of their kind on various messageboards (from here to RPG.net to /tg/ to WotC's forums). I have rarely encountered the "4e is WoW, it sucks, and you're retarded for liking it" crowd, but I have frequently encountered the "convert to 4e or be assimilated" crowd.

Again, I direct no particular animosity toward one group or another because I know that the rabidly anti-4e/pro-3e crowd exists. I have had the grave misfortune of speaking with individuals who think that the 3e fighter is not broken (and even those who think that 3e is not broken overall), but even amongst my friends (who have universally rejected 4e or show completely disinterest), I have never met someone who spurns reason.

This, of course, may be due to the fact that I interact with them in person rather than over a relatively-anonymous messageboard.

But now my words are taking up too much space, and I digress, so let us move on.

I view a lot of your "poster" responses as trolling, not the supposed troll in your examples.

How do you mean?

So, did you used to post here under another handle? If not, what is your background?

My ears are thoroughly burning at the thought that this post--this minor post, this drop in the bucket of geekdom--has garnered so much attention. I certainly understand your sentiments and your desire to know me. Allow me to assure you that I am not this Bugaboo fellow; beyond that, my identity is irrelevant. Would I value your opinion any more if you were the President? Would I value your opinion any less if you were some backwoods cannibal hick?

No, I would not. I judge a poster by his words, and even Presidents can have bad ideas, just as backwoods cannibal hicks can have good ones.

Your point stands that reputation matters, but embrace my non-identity for what it is. Let all your preconceptions about my character wash away, and take in my words alone. Are they true, or are they not? That is how you must judge my words.

[I also find it amusing how jdrakeh has become so enraged that he is slandering me in another forum. I take no offense, good sir, and I will not allow it to color my opinion of you here. You may call me ill names directly if you so desire; my skin is thick. Send me a private message. And I assure you, jdrakeh, that I have not intended my post to be so inflammatory, though the notion of people planning "incursions" to ENWorld to troll makes me chuckle.]

I am now departing for bed. Good evening.

 

[Mistwell]

Do not mistake the bias of 4e with bias against 4e supporters. It is true that I probably come down harder on the behavior of the 4e-supporters because I have encountered far more of their kind on various messageboards (from here to RPG.net to /tg/ to WotC's forums). I have rarely encountered the "4e is WoW, it sucks, and you're retarded for liking it" crowd, but I have frequently encountered the "convert to 4e or be assimilated" crowd.

Again, I direct no particular animosity toward one group or another because I know that the rabidly anti-4e/pro-3e crowd exists. I have had the grave misfortune of speaking with individuals who think that the 3e fighter is not broken (and even those who think that 3e is not broken overall), but even amongst my friends (who have universally rejected 4e or show completely disinterest), I have never met someone who spurns reason.

The fact that several of us immediately could tell you were not a fan of 4e, but were a fan of 3e, should tell you that you failed to portray no particular animosity in your examples, despite your disclaimer. My point was that your examples would have more merit if you rephrased them more neutrally.

My ears are thoroughly burning at the thought that this post--this minor post, this drop in the bucket of geekdom--has garnered so much attention. I certainly understand your sentiments and your desire to know me. Allow me to assure you that I am not this Bugaboo fellow; beyond that, my identity is irrelevant. Would I value your opinion any more if you were the President? Would I value your opinion any less if you were some backwoods cannibal hick?

No, I would not. I judge a poster by his words, and even Presidents can have bad ideas, just as backwoods cannibal hicks can have good ones.

I didn't ask if you were some "Bugaboo fellow". I asked if you had ever posted under a different name here. And you avoided answering.

Your point stands that reputation matters, but embrace my non-identity for what it is. Let all your preconceptions about my character wash away, and take in my words alone. Are they true, or are they not? That is how you must judge my words.

I already explained how both reputation and experience are relevant to assessing your words. A doctor specializing in Disease X has a more relevant opinion regarding Disease X than a backwoods cannibal hick.

Your words are influence by your biases and experience. How I perceive them is influence by your reputation and my knowledge of your experience. If you previously posted on this board under a different name, it is relevant to your reputation and experience.

I asked you if you posted under a prior name, and if not then tell us about your background. You decided to not talk about your background. You instead gave an odd response about a single specific "Bugaboo fellow" without denying you used to post under a different name. I think your non-denial makes the answer obvious. Yes, you used to post under a different name it seems.

So fess up...what is your prior handle? Why the deception? It IS relevant, and I've explained why repeatedly. If you prefer to PM me the information, that's fine.

 

[rounser]

I also find it amusing how jdrakeh has become so enraged that he is slandering me in another forum.

Cowardice and slander like this is now a firmly ingrained part of the ENWorld culture, thanks to CM. Don't expect the rot represented by those cowardly threads to stop, this place is not what it once was.

Hi CM!

 

[jdrakeh]

This is a wonderful example of PAT. Your condescension is unwelcome, and your point is invalid:

You stated that attacking a company is fair play and that nobody has a reason to be offended when you do so. I merely pointed out that attacking a company is no different than attacking a game where fans of that company are concerned. Pointing this out isn't trolling. Further, it's a perfectly valid point.

You are equating liking a game to liking a company.

Yes, I am. They are, in fact, similar. You seem to want a free pass for attacking WotC, though, so are working very hard to justify it by claiming that attacking one object of fandom (WotC) is different than attacking another object of fandom (D&D 4e). The disingenuine nature of your original post has become clear.

I also find it amusing how jdrakeh has become so enraged that he is slandering me in another forum.

I am not "slandering you" in another forum. Everything that I posted at Circvs is fact. In this thread you initially represented your 'examples' as having been culled from actual trolling that you witnessed here and then, when asked to link to one of those examples, stated that you couldn't because you had made it up. That's not slander. It's a representation of actual events.

You deliberately and falsely attributed a horrible bit of behavior (in this case, somebody equating Paizo's design philosophy to racist legislation) to a particular community (in this case, ENWorld). What did you hope to gain by making that admittedly false representation? I can only see one reason for posting such things, and it most assuredly isn't to bring about peace and love.

Also, I'm not enraged. At best, I'm mildly amused.

 

[rounser]

I am not "slandering you" in another forum. Everything that I posted at Circvs is fact.

You lack the courage to put your comments to the person, and you slandered him behind his back. You show nothing but cowardice and the only thing you can hide behind is that you're part of a group where that's the norm.

You're caught red-handed, and have shown your true colours and character. At least have the honesty to admit it.

 

[jdrakeh]

You lack the courage to put your comments to the person, and you slandered him behind his back.

I did not slander him. Slander implies misrepresentation when, in fact, none was involved. I also called BT out on his misrepresentation of ENWorld very early in this thread. So much for my lack of courage.

You show nothing but cowardice and the only thing you can hide behind is that you're part of a group where that's the norm.

You're caught red-handed, and have shown your true colours and character. At least have the honesty to admit it.

Or I could hide behind the truth! Mainly because I am being honest and I have been forthright. I might have used more colorful language at Circvs, but the point and substance of my posts both here and there was the same. I don't use the language that I use at Circvs here because I respect ENWorld's rules for such things.