Mods shutting down threads for threadcrapping

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Re '+' threads - my only concern with those is that someone starting one might just want an echo chamber; and IMO the biggest barrier to real discourse and discussion (be it civil or otherwise) in all venues is people either constructing or hiding in echo chambers where opposing or contrary points of view are simply not allowed. A '+' thread for discussing and refining a proposed new idea for the game before opening it up to criticism? Sure. A '+' thread for discussing anything more meaningful? Bad idea IMO.
IME, echo chambers are exceptionally difficult to actually create and maintain. You are going to experience challenge to your ideas.

+threads are extremely useful when discussing something controversial in a context wherein that controversy just is not relevant and would only serve to derail the thread, such as threads I’ve made about building warlord or swordmage classes.

If I make a thread about disliking the 5e magic system, and wanting feedback on my proposed replacement, it’s bad practice to come and try to convince me that i shouldn’t try to do that.
They don't actively engage any more, which is too bad; but does anyone know whether WotC quietly monitors these boards (officially or not) as a source of unfiltered and informal feedback? I think I'd at least try to high-level monitor sites like this were I in charge, if I could spare the person-power, as it would be a useful feet-on-the-ground information source untainted by the marketing department's survey designing.
And instead tainted by self-selection, and the skew of these forums.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
They don't actively engage any more, which is too bad; but does anyone know whether WotC quietly monitors these boards (officially or not) as a source of unfiltered and informal feedback?

Obviously, I don't know one way or the other. However, I do know that depending on them doing so is playing it passive-aggressively. Like a kid in Junior High School talking to a friend really loudly hoping that a third party would hear it.

This is not how mature folks communicate. If you want them to know something tell THEM. Don't tell us and hope the word gets around.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
So… we have to keep discussion to the mechanical errata even though the news is kinda big right now?!? Are you naughty word KIDDING ME?

No. Not kidding.

And also recommending you watch your language. The language filter is not there so you can fill posts with the emotional content of expletives without consequence.
 

Riley

Legend
I think it took me a good 5-6 names to sort out almost all bad-faith arguments and chronic downers.
Reviewing my ignore list today, I have a fairly long list (~100!), accumulated over many, many years. Many of the accounts on there are now deleted/banned, or haven’t posted in years. (Yay?)

When I’m reading a thread on a fairly innocuous topic, I’ll often click through to read the posts of those I’ve ignored. Sometimes I’ll unignore them, because they seem to often be worth reading.

But that ignore list has definitely made my time on ENWorld happier, and kept me out of needless conflicts with people who usually end up getting kicked out of the offending threads by mods anyway.
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Re '+' threads - my only concern with those is that someone starting one might just want an echo chamber; and IMO the biggest barrier to real discourse and discussion (be it civil or otherwise) in all venues is people either constructing or hiding in echo chambers where opposing or contrary points of view are simply not allowed.

With respect, moving into echo chambers is a symptom, a result of other behaviors, not the root problem/barrier.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Question for the moderators:

There's a pretty major news update to the topic of the thread that got shut down (not just the errata, but an official statement from WotC on D&D Beyond). How would you want that news to be handled?

Managing the news is normally Morrus' thing, but he may be occupied. Barring word from him...

While this is valid news, it isn't what I'd expect to be a fast-developing story, as most of WotC is probably off for the long weekend now. So, the situation is going to be roughly the same early next week - we can reassess at that time how it should be handled.
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
This is always the best response to the "vote with your dollars" idea. If all you ever do it vote with your dollars, then any company that does see a drop in sales has to guess as to why. And they might very well get it wrong.
This has been my practice for I don’t know how long. Decades at least. Learned from my Mom, The Queen of All Shoppers.

I do vote with my dollars. And in extreme cases (good* or bad), I contact the company directly. Sometimes, the results are more or less what I desired. Sometimes here’s no result I can discern. Sometimes, the “other side” wins.

Sometimes- comically- I get coupons or gift cards to entice me to shop with them again. Whether I use them or not depends on the particular complaint in question.


* One of my customer comments was helpful in getting an assistant manager a raise…18 months before his location was closed by the parent company.
 


beancounter

(I/Me/Mine)
do your opinions change when presented with new evidence?
Both are valid methods. Effectiveness clearly varies.. Voting with you dollars can work. Remember "new" Coke, the Chevy Nova, or Betamax?

I think it's niave to believe that posts from a single forum influence WoTC.
 
Last edited:

Mercurius

Legend
I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to accuse anyone questioning whether something is bigotry or not, as being a bigot.

Having different views on what is or is not racism does not mean one is racist, or "not getting it" and needing to be educated. Sometimes people just disagree with what constitutes racism or is problematic. I'd like to think that this is a community that would embrace, ah, a diversity of viewpoints on such matters, and not fall into OneTrueWayism in terms of how this or that must be interpreted, and if you don't interpret it the Right Way, then you're one of them.

Or more to the point, if you don't automatically think the depiction of the hadozee in the Spelljammer product is problematic or racist, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant or, worse, racist. It may simply mean that you interpret the data differently. Again: clear and obvious bigotry and questioning whether something is bigotry are not the same thing.

What I see happen again and again and again on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not excluding something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.

Maybe ENW isn't the place to talk about such things, but if they're going to be talked about, I'd hope it could be a place where people feel safe to share their views, regardless of whether they agree with the majority view or not. I understand and support not allowing actual, outright bigotry, but differences of interpretation are an important part of such discourse.

Edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:

Irlo

Hero
I find it disturbing how quickly disagreeing with the majority is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I mean maybe I missed a memo, but is the culture of this board now that if you don't agree and echo the dominant sentiment of a thread, you shouldn't post in a thread? Hopefully that isn't the case. It is one thing to (rightfully) castigate obvious bigotry, quite another to question whether something is bigotry.
I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not. I don't see that disagreement is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I think that dismissiveness is.
What I see happen again and again and again on this forum is that someone links to the latest outraged tweet, and there's a large outcry of echoing outrage, and then some folks say "I don't see it" or "I disagree," and then the latter folks get attacked and/or labeled as "anti-inclusive" even though they're not excluding something but rather, ironically, their view is being excluded from discourse.
Whereas what I see happen again and again is that criticism is characterized as outrage -- usually with the point being that the outrage is misplaced, manufactured, out of proportion, or actually sought after by the aggreived. "If you look for problems, you'll find them. Being offended on behalf of someone else. Screaming racist at everyone who disagrees with you." I read these sorts of comments not as earnest disagreement and engagement in the conversation, but as active and intentional marginalization of others' thoughts and concerns and experience.

I don't recall anyone who simply posted "I don't see it" get the sorts of responses you're citing.

But, repeating for emphasis: I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not. I don't see that disagreement is labeled as "trolling" or "disruptive" or "anti-inclusive." I think that dismissiveness is.
Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.
Whereas what I see happen again and again is that criticism is characterized as outrage -- usually with the point being that the outrage is misplaced, manufactured, out of proportion, or actually sought after by the aggreived. "If you look for problems, you'll find them. Being offended on behalf of someone else. Screaming racist at everyone who disagrees with you." I read these sorts of comments not as earnest disagreement and engagement in the conversation, but as active and intentional marginalization of others' thoughts and concerns and experience.

I don't recall anyone who simply posted "I don't see it" get the sorts of responses you're citing.

But, repeating for emphasis: I don't read everything in these forums, so you might be seeing something that I'm not.
Yeah, I see that, but disagree with your interpretation - at least insofar as such comments being inherently dismissive or disingenuous (aka, trolling). We're in a bind: How can someone voice disagreement without it being seen as dismissive? Meaning, if someone earnestly feels the way you express in that quote, how are they to communicate that? Should they just be quiet and not participate? Should they assume they are in the wrong and seek to learn the proper way to see things, perhaps examine their own defensiveness, even if they don't feel like they're defensive, but assume that they are?

When people say "I don't see it," what usually happens is that those who "see it" see it as an opportunity to educate them, and if they continue not to see it (that is, disagree with the interpretation), they're labeled as anti-inclusive or dismissive, or condescendingly as "not ready to see yet." What if someone can see and understand the interpretation, but just disagrees with it?

Meaning, I'm pointing to a problem of underlying intolerance for different viewpoints. An us vs. them mentality that I think does great harm and prevents actual understanding of different viewpoints and sows further division. I'm advocating for greater tolerance of different viewpoints - not of actual bigoted ones, mind you - and not assuming that "if you don't see things as I do, that X, Y, and Z are racist, then you're dismissive or racist yourself." It is a kind of intolerance and division that is poisoning our culture, including the RPG community.

And just to be clear, I do think that some on "the other side" hav their problems too, mainly having to do with diminishing the prevalence of systemic bigotry and the lived experience of those who have experienced prejudice. Not everyone who disagrees with every outcry of racism, maybe not even most, but some. But again, not seeing the depiction of the hadozee as racist (for example) doesn't mean one dismisses the experience of another.
 


Mercurius

Legend
Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the locked thread. Poster was specifically gaslighting folks.
I didn't follow that thread word for word, but did they dismiss the lived experience of another--that is, outside the context of the topic at hand--or just their interpretation of the hadozee? That's a crucial difference.
 

Irlo

Hero
Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.
It doesn't seem that hard to me. Don't tell people they're not experiencing what they tell you they're experiencing. Don't tell people they're inventing reasons to feel offended. Discuss one's own thoughts and reactions without telling others, directly or passive-aggressively,that theirs are invalid.

I can tell you that I don't see the reactions you've described on this forum. But I'm not going to tell you that you're seeing them only because you're looking to be offended.

Yeah, I see that, but disagree with your interpretation - at least insofar as such comments being inherently dismissive or disingenuous (aka, trolling). We're in a bind: How can someone voice disagreement without it being seen as dismissive? Meaning, if someone earnestly feels the way you express in that quote, how are they to communicate that? Should they just be quiet and not participate? Should they assume they are in the wrong and seek to learn the proper way to see things, perhaps examine their own defensiveness, even if they don't feel like they're defensive, but assume that they are?
If you express concerns that an RPG product is harmful or off-putting or insensitive or thoughtless, and if it's my sincere belief that your expressed concerns are coming from a place of misplaced outrage because you're trying to get yourself and others riled up about something that doesn't actually matter, then, yes, absolutely, I should just be quiet and not participate. Yes, I should assume I'm wrong and look for a better way to see things. Yes, I should examine myself thoroughly.
 

Disagreement and dismissiveness seem to be somewhat of a spectrum, and a matter of interpretation. Plus, I think most of what you call "dismissive" is not dismissing the problem of actual racism, but disagreeing with an interpretation on what constitutes racism.

So I'm not sure how one can disagree without it being interpreted by some as dismissive.

I think disagreement would be presenting an argument for why a given depiction is not racist while taking the concerns and point of view of those who disagree seriously. Being dismissive is when people reference a "twitter mob," or "virtue signaling," as if those taking offense are unthinking, childlike, and/or seeking attention.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top