Forked Thread: Three more days

[mudbunny]

I vote that the ban be lifted, but that the mods instigate a zero-tolerance policy on starting edition wars in any thread not specifically created for that purpose. IOW, if someone starts a thread comparing the editions, fine. But if there's a thread talking about any other topic, and someone comes in and starts claiming that the entire topic sucks because X other edition was better, that person is instantly banned for a week. Second offense results in perma-ban, no exceptions.

This. I get enough edition wars on the WOtC forums. I come to ENWorld for a higher level of discussion.

 

[Corjay]

I like this peaceful atmosphere. If I want edition wars, I'll go to any other forum. I'm enjoying being here because there aren't constant edition wars going on here. Edition wars are disruptive and serve no good purpose.

 

[roguerouge]

Legitimate? Really, edition wars are just people telling each other how they're having badwrongfun. I mean, that's it really. We've been debating issues this whole time, and its practically devolved into that a few times. The ban wasn't on discussing differences between editions (even with value judgements), it was on large scale "My game is better than your game" threads.

Please note that I have no position on the relative merits of the editions. I do, however, have a stated goal of a more free discussion.

John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty":

"Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. ....

"Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. ...

"...With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. ...

"... opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour."

"This is the real morality of public discussion: and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it."

 

[Nifft]

I'd like to have discussions which are allowed to compare these two recent editions.

The one that won't be out for another year and ends in -inder?

How do you know about Nifft's Big Houserule Binder?

Shocked, -- N

 

[roguerouge]

This.



If we have to lift the ban, I'd vote for these restrictions as well.

If only someone had proposed moderator elections a few months ago on the meta forum... then you'd have a more direct say.

Oh, wait... http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223473

If you feel passionately about this issue, perhaps you should post to that thread too. Propose a limited plebiscite model of law-making, rather than my cowardly very limited republican model.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

I vote that the ban be lifted, but that the mods instigate a zero-tolerance policy on starting edition wars in any thread not specifically created for that purpose. IOW, if someone starts a thread comparing the editions, fine. But if there's a thread talking about any other topic, and someone comes in and starts claiming that the entire topic sucks because X other edition was better, that person is instantly banned for a week. Second offense results in perma-ban, no exceptions.

And with the new ability to fork threads, it's even easier to continue an edition war conversation without derailing a thread.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I never saw an edition wars thread that was worth reading, so I would vote to extend the ban.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

I never saw an edition wars thread that was worth reading, so I would vote to extend the ban.

The sad thing is that if I wanted to start a thoughtful compare and contrast of things I liked and disliked between 4e and 3e, it would be considered an edition war thread.

The ban was good to get the boards under control because they were too heated. We can't ban topics forever just because it's a topic that people disagree on. It's not like we're banning discussions about politics, racism, or anything else of that sort. A discussion about the likes, dislikes and differences between two versions of a game should be allowed.

 

[Darrin Drader]

How do you know about Nifft's Big Houserule Binder?

Shocked, -- N

Actually I was citing the currently unannounced Grinder RPG, in which players take on the role of meat grinders and attempt to churn out more sausage than their competitors. One important aspect of the game is that sometimes competitors "accidentally" fall into the grinder and inadvertently boosts daily production by 10% for the day. It will be a D20 system game published under the OGL, and will feature character classes such as the meat head, the ham-fisted thug, the turkey, and of course, the fowl mouth, among others.

 

[Corjay]

The sad thing is that if I wanted to start a thoughtful compare and contrast of things I liked and disliked between 4e and 3e, it would be considered an edition war thread.

The ban was good to get the boards under control because they were too heated. We can't ban topics forever just because it's a topic that people disagree on. It's not like we're banning discussions about politics, racism, or anything else of that sort. A discussion about the likes, dislikes and differences between two versions of a game should be allowed.

I've noted that peaceful, non-combative statements of this kind have been permitted frequently. Only when someone starts turning it into an edition war is any moderation necessary. Even then they may just ask to keep it polite or if necessary remove the offending poster(s) from the thread.