Is an Edition Warz moritorium possible?

[Michael Morris]

Well, now that you think about it, that could be fun too

 

[Lanefan]

We have a moratorium on new edition-related threads for a few weeks. With luck, that'll help substantially.

Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too. Does that mean the whole topic is banned?

Lanefan

 

[hafrogman]

Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too. Does that mean the whole topic is banned?

Lanefan

I think you'll find that one was locked because it was degenerating into a flame war and had already reached 1,000+ posts. Only one was locked to decrease the numbers in existence. Some of them are still alive out there.

 

[Umbran]

Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too. Does that mean the whole topic is banned?

Consider - the ones that did get closed (which was not all of them), got closed because people were getting acrimonious, and no longer really communicating. With that as the case, would you expect a new thread to do anything but continue in the same way? Probably not.

Thus - even if there were not a ban on the topic for the moment, it isn't like you'd likely get anything constructive out of a new thread right now anyway. If you want real, thoughtful discussion, let it rest a bit, and come back to it after folks have had a chance to cool down.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It's all fun & games until EF and IUH get a button to send threads back to ENworld...

It would have to be called the "Go Back ot ENWurld" button.

 

[Piratecat]

Moratorium on new ones, fine; but the existing ones all got locked down too. Does that mean the whole topic is banned?

Lanefan

As others have said, when people are being rude, threads get closed. When people are being constructive and not bickering, threads stay open. The acceptable line for passive-aggressive sniping on this topic is currently slightly lower than normal. Fully half of the already existing threads are still open, if I remember correctly. I hope it stays that way!

 

[Quasqueton]

Edition Wars usually erupt because of Edition Insults. Sometimes the Edition Insult is subtly or "cleverly" inserted into an otherwise civil discussion. Sometimes the Edition Insult is expanded upon and used as a thesis for an opening post to start an Edition War thread. Sometimes the Edition Insult is wrapped up in enough non-insulting or disarming text to give the poster a seemingly legitimate way of claiming innocence or accident.

What I've found very perplexing is why those who left (A)D&D in the past for "being such a bad system" are so adamant that the game they are currently playing "really" be D&D.

I can't see many 3E fans liking Holmes very much, honestly.

It's not the fluff, it's the system itself. The "3e" ruleset is a different game than D&D. "3.5e" is really d20 Fantasy, 2nd edition. It has nothing to do with "not being worthy" of the name.

Of course, the part about playing anything you want in OD&D and Holmes Basic that 3e players may not like is that DM approval is required . . .

So, what was the first product where D&D's soul was sold?

And then there’s the well-known buzzwords: video gamey, KEWL POWERZ, etc.

And Edition Wars don’t always erupt because of one statement or one post – sometimes there is a critical mass reached when folks just can’t ignore the undercurrent in so many posts.

ENWorld has a permanent ban against the subjects of religion and politics, yet there have been some threads discussing both without getting closed. And usually when someone says something inappropriate on the subject (a Religion Insult or a Politics Insult), the text of the post gets edited by a mod. This prevents others from responding to the insult, and usually the discussion is allowed to continue. I think this is a good idea. How about use it for Edition Insults?

I’d have no problem with a Mod editing out something I say if they think it would start an Edition War. Or if the statement/post was found insulting by some other folks. Put a note in that current sticky on the General forum that directs people to report posts (and how to do so) that they find insulting. If more than one person reports that post, a mod should edit it to remove the Edition Insult.

Don’t just contact the poster by email and wait for him/her to edit it – that just leaves the insult out on the forum for folks to respond to, possibly for hours. This is how you seem to handle Religion Insults and Politics Insults. You nip it in the bud.

Also, how about, giving posters warning points for Edition Insults? Ban them when they acquire so many in a time period? I believe there are some posters who come here *just* to throw out Edition Insults – whether to start a war or just to annoy the regulars here. They should not be suffered.

Quasqueton

 

[Piratecat]

I'd like to point out that edition insults, like everything, are a two-way street. Frankly, 3e fans are often being as rude to earlier editions of the game as proponents of old D&D are sometimes being to 3e. If you think someone's being rude or you get offended, don't be rude to them back. That way lies madness, closed threads, and annoyed mods.

We're not going to start editing specific edition insults. That's a burden I'm not going to place onto our moderators. We're generally adults here, and we moderate under the assumption that people act like adults. Babysitting arguments has never been something we put up with for long.

Anyways, different people have different tolerances for such things, and some folks are a lot quicker to take offense than (for instance) I am. I'm of the opinion that discussing these things can sometimes be really interesting, but that such discussions flow a lot more smoothly when people phrase things as their opinion instead of as absolutes. I'm okay with someone who says "I dislike 3e", while I'm not okay with that person unilaterally saying "3e sucks."

Going forward, we'll expect people to be respectful of one another's opinions. If someone can't respond to another person except in anger, we've got a newly-improved ignore feature that may help.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'd like to point out that edition insults, like everything, are a two-way street. Frankly, 3e fans are often being as rude to earlier editions of the game as proponents of old D&D are sometimes being to 3e.

I agree, that does happen. And that should not be allowed either.

If you think someone's being rude or you get offended, don't be rude to them back. That way lies madness, closed threads, and annoyed mods.

Easier said than done. If that concept worked so well, there wouldn’t be a ban on religion and politics, here. People don’t like to be insulted, and insulting a person’s favorite hobby (or version of the hobby) is essentially insulting that person.

We're not going to start editing specific edition insults. That's a burden I'm not going to place onto our moderators.

Very well.

We're generally adults here, and we moderate under the assumption that people act like adults. Babysitting arguments has never been something we put up with for long.

Adults can be jackasses, sometimes. It happens. Some are even such intentionally, and regularly. But I was not suggesting or asking for anyone to “baby sit” arguments. I hope my post didn’t come across as asking for mods to sit and watch every thread for arguments – I was just talking about responding to reports.

Anyways, different people have different tolerances for such things, and some folks are a lot quicker to take offense than (for instance) I am. I'm of the opinion that discussing these things can sometimes be really interesting, but that such discussions flow a lot more smoothly when people phrase things as their opinion instead of as absolutes. I'm okay with someone who says "I dislike 3e", while I'm not okay with that person unilaterally saying "3e sucks."

If you are saying this as a disagreement to what I said, then I obviously didn’t explain my thoughts/opinion on the matter very well.

Are the statements in quote boxes in my previous post acceptable for ENWorld discussion? Is this:

Yes, but this is 1e, where weird departures from the norm are, well, normal.

Quasqueton

 

[Umbran]

Edition Wars usually erupt because of Edition Insults. Sometimes the Edition Insult is subtly or "cleverly" inserted into an otherwise civil discussion.

And, frequently enough, an insult is seen in a discussion where none was intended. From a moderation standpoint, that is a non-trivial problem.

ENWorld has a permanent ban against the subjects of religion and politics, yet there have been some threads discussing both without getting closed. And usually when someone says something inappropriate on the subject (a Religion Insult or a Politics Insult), the text of the post gets edited by a mod. This prevents others from responding to the insult, and usually the discussion is allowed to continue. I think this is a good idea. How about use it for Edition Insults?

There's a major difference - religion and politics are not on-topic for these boards. We don't lose much of what people come here for if we ban those topics. However, comparison and contrast of different systems is on topic, and often a constructive exercise. People could learn a whole lot about games and gamers if they got into it but didn't walk down the road of insult.

So, that brings us back to our problem. We want to see thoughtful, coherent, civil discourse about various games. Editing out some of those for possible offenses will put a damper on such discussion, because the moderators will have to err on the side of caution.

An occasional temporary block on a relelvant topic is preferrable to a long-term wet blanket upon it.