Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4979990" data-attributes="member: 15538">Regarding <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/4978222-post10.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/4978222-post10.html</a>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.</blockquote>