Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 4365995" data-attributes="member: 99">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.</blockquote>

Verification