Rules question: personal attacks on game designers

CapnZapp

Legend
Question for possible discussion. Just tossing ideas out there. There have been relatively frequent attacks on game designers who may or may not be active members of the forum. I'm not talking about criticisms of games (which I think should never be quashed), but actual personal attacks on the designers themselves. For example, Mearls and Crawford have frequently been called liars, lazy, incompetent, stupid, intentionally sabotaging the game because they want it to fail, etc. I'm assuming Mearls and Crawford aren't members of this forum, because otherwise I'd expect moderation of said personal attacks just like any other poster, and they aren't, ever.

There is another forum I won't name, but one of the rules there was that game designers were afforded the same protections as posters. One of the reasons given was because when you have a community that has frequent name calling and attacks on designers themselves, no game designer will want to be part of that community and put themselves in the line of fire with that kind of aggressive behavior. And wouldn't we want the people who actually design the games be part of the community to answer questions? It also just gives a bad impression of the community when members can just sling out personal attacks whenever without recourse.

I am not saying instituting a rule where public figure game designers are afforded same protection as active posters is the answer. I just think we should have a discussion, and see if it is, or if there's a better solution.
I'm not saying you're talking about the same forum, but I can tell you RPG.net has such a rule. In theory they might have the best of intentions; in practice it becomes impossible to criticize various games or discuss rules systems in a frank, blunt matter.

In short, the ceiling over there is awfully low. Honestly, unless you're sharing something that's only positive, the discussion atmosphere is outright stifling.

(And no, this is not code for right-wing conspiracy theories. I'm talking about role-playing games and role-playing games only)

I wholeheartedly hope enworld does not go that route. Apparently, there is such a thing as too heavy moderation.

Cheers
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
I'm not saying you're talking about the same forum, but I can tell you RPG.net has such a rule. In theory they might have the best of intentions; in practice it becomes impossible to criticize various games or discuss rules systems in a frank, blunt matter.

In short, the ceiling over there is awfully low. Honestly, unless you're sharing something that's only positive, the discussion atmosphere is outright stifling.

(And no, this is not code for right-wing conspiracy theories. I'm talking about role-playing games and role-playing games only)

I wholeheartedly hope enworld does not go that route. Apparently, there is such a thing as too heavy moderation.

Cheers

Considering you're one of those people who frequently have attacked designers directly and personally (not just criticism of the game) over the years, I can't say I'm surprised you'd be against such a rule.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
sniffs, sniffs, "do I smell a personal attack on @CapnZapp"? Hmmm..? @Sacrosanct?

Huh? It's not a personal attack. It's a well known observational fact. Over the past few years, Cap'n Zapp has frequently made direct attacks on the designers, calling them lazy, incompetent, liars, and other things. This is hardly a secret, because he's done it with regularity. I'm not insulting or attacking him. I'm simply pointing out what he has said in the past.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Huh? It's not a personal attack. It's a well known observational fact. Over the past few years, Cap'n Zapp has frequently made direct attacks on the designers, calling them lazy, incompetent, liars, and other things. This is hardly a secret, because he's done it with regularity. I'm not insulting or attacking him. I'm simply pointing out what he has said in the past.
You don't consider it a personal attack to say, in response to what another poster said, "you do "X", so I don't trust you on this"?

For example:

"Considering that you, Sacrosanct, have shown that you don't care for the Psion, and behave rudely to others, I don't feel like your input in this thread is valid, because you're biased."

Does that not feel like an attack?

Edit: Dang autocorrect making my grammar incorrect!
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
You don't consider it a personal attack to say, in response to what another poster said, "you do "X", so I don't trust you on this"?

For example:

"Considering that you, Sacrosanct, have shown that you don't care for the Psion, and behave rudely to others, I don't feel like your input in this thread is valid, because your biased."

Does that not feel like an attack?


For one, that's not remotely the same thing. The topic of this thread is personal attacks. So when someone who repeated makes personal attacks says that they wouldn't like a rule where they would be moderated for saying personal attacks, that seems unsurprising and is directly related to the topic. Not "we're talking about topic X, but you did topic Y as well, so..." like you're trying to infer.

Now, if I called CapnZapp any of the names he called Mearls or Crawford, then yeah, that would be a personal attack. But pointing out what a person had said is not a personal attack.

Despite your best efforts to start something, I'm not going to continue with you on this.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
For one, that's not remotely the same thing. The topic of this thread is personal attacks. So when someone who repeated makes personal attacks says that they wouldn't like a rule where they would be moderated for saying personal attacks, that seems unsurprising and is directly related to the topic. Not "we're talking about topic X, but you did topic Y as well, so..." like you're trying to infer.

Now, if I called CapnZapp any of the names he called Mearls or Crawford, then yeah, that would be a personal attack. But pointing out what a person had said is not a personal attack.

Despite your best efforts to start something, I'm not going to continue with you on this.
I'm not trying to start anything, but I respectfully disagree with your conception of what constitutes a personal attack here.
 


Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
The thing is, you need to be within range to make an attack on a game designer, and even then, they typically have pretty high AC's so unless you're crit-fishing you're not likely to land many hits.
 


Remove ads

Top