No 5e threads for now, please

[Samuel Leming]

What? What are you taking offense to in that?

You're equating 4E fan with bad behavior. How could that be helpful?

In context, I'm guessing we're both fans of older editions. Did I get that wrong and you're a 4e fan being sarcastic?

Okay. And I suppose you're automatically not one of them?

My post count would be much higher if I was.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Sorry, but how is saying, that people should be more positive and talk about what they like instead of constantly trashing what they do not like, the wrong attitude?

I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.

Only talk about the positive? This place would be an echo chamber.

 

[rounser]

You're equating 4E fan with bad behavior. How could that be helpful?

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you're getting that. I'm just saying that it's potentially in a 4E enthusiast's interests to shut down perceived challenges to the 4E way of doing things by censoring discussion in this way.

Under such a ban on meta discussion of the game and it's direction, you could instead just restrict talk to the 4E way of doing things, rather than suggesting that there might be other ways to go, or other such perceived challenges to the current status quo.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.

Only talk about the positive? This place would be an echo chamber.

I think there is a difference between negativism and constructive criticism.

I think there is little point in discussing a game you do not like. You can be more productive discussing a game you do like and help to make it even better for you or others. You can't really critique something constructively you don't like at all. You have to tear it apart.
You can go the other way - you start with a game you like, and then add elements from a game that itself you dislike, but that has some elements you find attractive.

But if there are just certain elements of an edition you don't like, that can be discussion worthy. There is a hope that you or someone else finds a way to "fix" it, or maybe someone can even help you understand the element better and maybe you grow to like it after all, once seen in a different context or different focus.

 

[Samuel Leming]

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you're getting that. I'm just saying that it's potentially in a 4E enthusiast's interests to shut down perceived challenges to the 4E way of doing things by censoring discussion in this way.

Trying to shut down discussion like that is bad behavior. I only see four people here trying to do that, so I don't think it's '4E enthusiasts' in general. Do you see my point?

Under such a ban on meta discussion of the game and it's direction, you could instead just restrict talk to the 4E way of doing things, rather than suggesting that there might be other ways to go, or other such perceived challenges to the current status quo.

I'd hate to see such a ban and I don't think it'll go that far. I agree with your principle but I don't agree that there's much of a threat of that happening. This is just a 5E ban.

And 6E I guess...

 

[Jack99]

I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.

Only talk about the positive? This place would be an echo chamber.

You completely missed my point. I am not saying we should be all positive, but I am recommending that people talk about the game they like, not the one they dislike, because as MR mentions, it rarely leads to constructive criticism, which is the only good and valid criticism.

I like 4e, I guess that's not a secret. That doesn't mean that I love every single aspect of it, or that I wouldn't change certain things, if I was in charge. And I certainly do not mind debating those things. But I can not do that. It takes exactly 3.2 post on average, and we will have the first telling us how 4e is a video-game, how Rouse stole his girlfriend or how Mearls dressed up as a ninja and ruined his D&D game. Or how WotC can't be trusted, how they lied, or how all their digital initiatives sucks and are vaporware, how Pathfinder is the one true D&D, etc etc, ad nauseum.

That has very little to do with constructive criticism or debating. Where I come from, it's called whining, and it ruins any sort of attempt we have at ever debating and improving D&D.

So yeah, I think it would be better if people stuck to talking about the game they actually like. I am pretty sure we would get much farther than we do now.

Cheers

Edit: removed something that could have been misunderstood.

 

[rounser]

Trying to shut down discussion like that is bad behavior.

I wouldn't put it that way exactly (and didn't). I was just pointing out what I'd consider an "obvious" potential conflict of interest in this case.

I only see four people here trying to do that, so I don't think it's '4E enthusiasts' in general. Do you see my point?

I see your point, but I'm not saying all are trying to do that, simply that it's congruent with such interests.

I'd hate to see such a ban and I don't think it'll go that far. I agree with your principle but I don't agree that there's much of a threat of that happening. This is just a 5E ban.

I think shutting down discussion in this way does exactly that. "Just" a 5E ban hits right at the heart of meta discussion of how the game could be, and neatly knocks commie traitor talk of there one day being a 5E on the head, reinforcing the status quo as rightfully having no end, as who can possibly improve upon it?

4E is your friend, citizen.

(Not that I think this is necessarily the motivation behind the ban, obviously, but rather a side effect of it. Come to think of it, Paranoia style moderation next april 1st could be amusing...)

 

[wedgeski]

I think shutting down discussion in this way does exactly that. "Just" a 5E ban hits right at the heart of meta discussion of how the game could be, and neatly knocks commie traitor talk of there one day being a 5E on the head, reinforcing the status quo as rightfully having no end, as who can possibly improve upon it?

I think the mods have made it clear that discussion is as welcome as it's always been, just don't couch it in terms of a mythical 5E, because it's getting up their goats. Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Samuel Leming]

This site doesn't cater only to 4e fans, and I do believe that the mods have stated that they like it that way.

Since some games are better suited to some play styles than others, threads comparing and contrasting the suitability of different versions of D&D for different styles of campaigns can be constructive even if many of the participants don't like every game discussed. Limiting people to only discussing games they like is silly. I don't want somebody to be excluded just because they disagree with you guys. The key here isn't WHO takes part in a discussion, but how somebody behaves in the discussion. If somebody wants to blame everything on Mearl's underwear then ignore it and let the mods deal with it.

 

[Noumenon]

Are there any other games like Magic: the Gathering, where you welcome a 5th and 6th edition because they bring in new people but you can keep playing with your 3rd and 4th edition cards? Or is it going to be like the NBA where new rules mean you have to change your game too?

Wow. Sounds like you had the moral high ground, and you just squandered it in pointless nitpickery.

Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what.

I don't think I got my point across here. What I'm saying is most discussion boards don't have any small group of people who can say "We don't like this kind of thread. We've been getting on each other's nerves too much." On my Buffy the Vampire Slayer boards, or LiveJournal, or JoeUser.com, if somebody said "I think we need a no-fight policy" or "I think we've all been on edge lately" I'd think they meant to include me as part of the "we," or else they'd say "I."

Maybe that is what you meant by "we rubbed each other raw," that everybody here was doing it. I was just primed by the first post to read it like you meant a smaller group that was fed up.