Forked Thread: Three more days

[racoffin]

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.

My wording may have been slightly off, or was misinterpreted. I'd "vote" for what Mouseferatu suggested, meaning that I would agree with it.

As for the other bit, I'm utterly disinterested in moderator elections. I have as much 'say' here as most other folks: I can voice an opinion that, as long as it is civil and reasonably sound, might be listened to by other people. I can also not post, which I did for a long time, and instead inflict my opinion on my wife over what I read. I won't sidetrack this thread anymore with the elections bit, I'll go to that thread.

 

[KingCrab]

Permanent ban for 2nd offenses might be a bit to much, but weeklong for a 1st offense and monthlong bans after that sound fair.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Permanent ban for 2nd offenses might be a bit to much, but weeklong for a 1st offense and monthlong bans after that sound fair.

I think the mods "strategy" generally works well.

- Identify individual problem posters. Warn them. If they ignore, ban them from the thread. If they repeat their behaviour over multiple threads or start threads about how they are not allowed to speak on their topic and incite the same discussion as in the closed threads, ban the poster from the boards.

- Close threads that are inherently problematic. Either because of the topic (remember Grandma and the no-politics rules) itself, or because most posters in the thread have become insulting or overly aggressive (be it passive or active).

 

[lutecius]

I think there has been a deeper problem with enworld, the mods are more likely to lock threads than [temporarily] ban the few posters who stepped over the line. This style of moderation is bad IMNSHO because it allows someone with a grudge or bias against the thread to simply ‘act up’ and get the thread locked.

this.

Yes, I do love reading over and over (and over) how people shouldn't think about fantasy too much or too hard, it's really enlightening after the 402nd time.

not sure it's entirely on topic, but that too.

 

[Eosin the Red]

There isn't an edition war out there right now?

I play Hero and even I notice that most threads are polluted with back and forth sniping. I also note that people cannot either have fun with 3E/4E or dislike 3E/4E without a whole lotta thread crapping going on. I've actually even hit the report post button for maybe the second time ever.

I say we ban all conversations about D&D systems* and just be a free love diceless forum.

*Note: It would still be permissible to talk about Hero, GURPS, True20, M&M, Burning Wheel, Unisystem, Storyteller, and Rolemaster.

 

[Rel]

In this instance I am not speaking on behalf of all the moderators or any of them besides myself. I'm also not suggesting that the following is or will be an ENW policy. I offer this only based on my observations over time:

It seems to me that the more narrowly defined topics lead to more productive discussions and less flaming in general than broad-brush topics. For instance, if you have a thread where the premise is that "4e is great and fixes tons of problems with 3e", it's entirely possible that most posters would admit that 4e has some elements that they aren't so fond of or that 3e had a lot of good things going for it. But due to the broad base of the topic, people are polarized by an overall stance on each edition. If you happen to like 3e overall then any attack at it may feel like an attack on your opinions. And then we are off to the races.

If a topic is more narrowly defined then I think it is sometimes easier for people to exchange ideas while not feeling like an entire edition (that they like!) is under attack. And it gives people a chance to give ground and find compromise in certain areas. So they are able to say things like, "As much as I like 3.x, I must say that I'm not wild about the buff spells. I think that 4e did a good job with that." Suddenly those you disagree with are looking more like people with slightly differing opinions and less like Those Other Edition Lovers (Oh How I HATES Them!).

Personally I'd like to see an environment where those aspects of any system, not just D&D, can be compared and discussed reasonably. I just don't see a lot of merit to discussions that are overly broad where things devolve into a bunch of dive-by, "your system fail at every level" posts.

 

[jdrakeh]

*Note: It would still be permissible to talk about Hero, GURPS, True20, M&M, Burning Wheel, Unisystem, Storyteller, and Rolemaster.

Hey. Hero

 

[Jack99]

Extend the ban or lift it and crack down harder on those that constant troll threads of the "opposing" edition..

 

[SSquirrel]

I'd just like to point out that as of my vote, punch and pie is 2 votes ahead of the "no" vote. Punch and Pie for the White House in '08!!

EDIT:Alternately, we could remove the ban and invite Nightfall to come back and play

 

[Qualidar]

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.

That.

- Close threads that are inherently problematic. Either because of the topic (remember Grandma and the no-politics rules) itself, or because most posters in the thread have become insulting or overly aggressive (be it passive or active).

And not that. If most posters in the thread have become insulting or overly aggressive, boot them.