Forked Thread: Three more days

[Fifth Element]

Nevermind.

 

[Corjay]

Well that and the fact that you know... [WOTC's forum is] about the most unreliable forum I think I have ever seen.

Enworld is turning out to be a close second, though it is still the best for its moderators alone. It's the only forum I know where they will boot a person from a thread instead of just booting them from the site. That's a flippin' awesome tool and policy. It shows much more respect to the offending poster, as it may not be the poster's tendency to go from thread to thread stirring up trouble. But, yeah, Enworld isn't doing too hot on its connectivity.

 

[Boarstorm]

I like how obviously biased the poll is.

The "edition war ban" is an enabler for passive-aggressive behavior. Made worse by those of the pro-4E clique who cannot tolerate any criticism of 4E whatsoever.

The Mods just need to clamp down on off-topic or threadcrappish posts. The edition war ban itself is not needed. So that's my vote, but I won't enter it into the poll above due to its inflammatory language.

Please enlighten me as to how the poll is biased.

It seems to me like no one can start a thread anymore without SOMEONE getting offended by some word or phrase that they believe is biased and using that as a lever to turn an otherwise valid discussion into a flame war.

I'm reminded of a quote. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it was something along the lines of "When you have a vested interested in being oppressed, you see oppression wherever you go."

 

[Hussar]

I like how obviously biased the poll is.

The "edition war ban" is an enabler for passive-aggressive behavior. Made worse by those of the pro-4E clique who cannot tolerate any criticism of 4E whatsoever.

The Mods just need to clamp down on off-topic or threadcrappish posts. The edition war ban itself is not needed. So that's my vote, but I won't enter it into the poll above due to its inflammatory language.

ROTFLMAO. Yes, all problems are due to people who like the new edition. There are absolutely no posters dive bombing into threads with "4e is teh suxxors" and "It might as well be Decent!". Come on Korgoth. Own up man.

The lack of moderation towards posters is a problem. Trolls on either side of the edition war just keep the flames roaring and nothing actually happens to them, except the thread they didn't like in the first place gets shut down. And then some posters who do nothing but make pithy attempts at "wit" get a warning in every other thread they post in...and just keep doing it.

You just got Hong'd.

I vote that we allow "edition wars", but only under the condition that we allow Razz back and give him moderator permissions.

Spoiler

Actually, I agree with the Mouse's opinion.

I want Nightfall AND Razz back. Both added lots of goodies to the board.

 

[Corjay]

Please enlighten me as to how the poll is biased.

It seems to me like no one can start a thread anymore without SOMEONE getting offended by some word or phrase that they believe is biased and using that as a lever to turn an otherwise valid discussion into a flame war.

I'm reminded of a quote. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it was something along the lines of "When you have a vested interested in being oppressed, you see oppression wherever you go."

That reminds me of a few:

"Wherever you go, there you are."
"You see what you want to see."
"If your attitude is bad, you'll see bad wherever you go."
"Can't we all just get along?"

 

[small pumpkin man]

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's what I get for voting before I read the thread. This is a better suggestion yes.

 

[Korgoth]

Please enlighten me as to how the poll is biased.

OK. Here are the two options:

"Yes. Edition wars just cause fights."
"No. Edition wars are the way to have real discussion."

The poll is clearly weighted toward the "Yes" option. First, because "wars" implies "fights" so the Yes choice is practically a tautology. Second, because there's an enormous difference between allowing "edition wars" (which at some point slipped from being a sarcastic shorthand to becoming a category) and thinking that they "are the way to have real discussion"... in fact, not only is the "Yes" option practically a tautology, the "No" option is practically a contradiction.

And I have no vested interest in being oppressed. I'm not oppressed by anything on this free web forum. I'm just constantly irritated by disingenuous flamebait. And before you retort with "then just don't visit the site", I'll remind you that if everybody but the 4E Rules Discussion crowd leaves General Discussion, General Discussion just becomes 4E Rules Discussion II. Which may be what some people want, but I presume that's not the intent of the Admins since they bothered to set up two different fora.

 

[jdrakeh]

Personally I think the cease fire should be permanent. . .

If the topic ban isn't permanent (which may be an unrealistic proposal), I at least would favor tougher sanctions on obvious trolling.

I would favor the locking and deletion of any "Flip you, your game sucks, why don't you play System X instead?" threads with a warning to the offending poster. I think a second offense might be fairly punishable with the same locking and deletion, as well as a two week suspension. A third offense punishable by banning seems fair.

Threadcrapping of a similar nature wouldn't justify the locking or deletion of an otherwise productive thread, though I think that the same suspension/banning policy could be applied without too much trouble and still remain entirely fair. Perhaps the troll's individual posts could be edited or removed, instead to clear the otherwise useful thread of 'clutter'.

 

[Boarstorm]

OK. Here are the two options:

"Yes. Edition wars just cause fights."
"No. Edition wars are the way to have real discussion."

The poll is clearly weighted toward the "Yes" option. First, because "wars" implies "fights" so the Yes choice is practically a tautology. Second, because there's an enormous difference between allowing "edition wars" (which at some point slipped from being a sarcastic shorthand to becoming a category) and thinking that they "are the way to have real discussion"... in fact, not only is the "Yes" option practically a tautology, the "No" option is practically a contradiction.

You're seeing shapes in the clouds, imo. Whether you like it or not, "edition wars" HAS become a category unto itself and it does have a definable meaning. You may not like the term, but (to quote WotC) its got traction. For the sake of argument, though, let's call 'em apples.

That said, then options are really pretty valid -- either a) Apples should be banned because they cause fights; or b) Apples should not be banned because conflict is the source of growth.

By definition an apple contains conflict -- that's why they're called apples. The question is then whether or not that conflict is constructive or destructive. That's up to you to decide when you cast your vote.

And I have no vested interest in being oppressed. I'm not oppressed by anything on this free web forum. I'm just constantly irritated by disingenuous flamebait.

I would suggest that this "flamebait" exists only in your perception, and not in the intent of the OP.

And before you retort with "then just don't visit the site"

Please don't put words in my mouth. I would sooner stop visiting (if the forum has become unpleasurable for me) than suggest someone else do so. I may not agree with you, but I don't roll like that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

One of the problem with the whole "edition wars" things is that I've seen many times - and very recently aimed at me - where a person will take something that has nothing to do with an edition war and say "You're obviously trying to start an edition war. Reported."


The idea of what does and doesn't constitute an insult to an edition is so...vague that I CAN understand why some people are having their hackles raised higher when it seems saying only the lightest criticism of anything involving 4e is seen as a horrible edition war. Remember when someone had the audacity to write their thoughts on the editing of the book and that blew out of proportion?