OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Lonely Tylenol]

2) Use much more of the (awesome, IMO) "don't post in this thread anymore" tool. I don't see enough of this, and it's an excellent way to remove a troublesome poster but not going to the extreme of banning (if it's not quite warranted). The above is simply a fantastic tool of the mods and should be used more often, IMO.

What if the mods could click a button that removes the thread from your view as though it were a post by an Ignored user? Like, a little mini-ban. It might be more effective than just telling people not to post anymore. If told to do so, they may comply, and still follow the thread, seething at every comment they're not allowed to rant against, only to unload in a different thread as soon as one of their opponents says something they disagree with. Not being able to view the thread anymore means that you're less likely to remember to hold a grudge.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's also chilling in the context of moderation -- imagine if, instead of a ban, you were simply invisible. All of your posts were only visible to you.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[EricNoah]

"Forced ignore" or "forced invisibility" only works on someone when they are logged in. It would simply be a matter of logging out and then you'd be able to see all of the stuff you were forced to ignore, or see that your own posts were not actually making it to the public eye. I don't see it as an effective solution. I think the term "passive aggressive" gets thrown around too much, but putting someone on forced ignore and not telling them seems to be the height of that. If the mods don't want someone around they should just ban them.

 

[Arnwyn]

Well, actually, I'm quoting you because your idea is hilarious... and terribly wrong. I imagine it would be fun to add yourself to someone else's ignore list and then follow him around and make fun of him.

Why, I never thought of that!

But really, in the end, there'd be no point in following around and making fun of said person, as everyone else can see you - including the moderators. And, it's no different than figuring out you're on someone's ignore list anyways... the ignore feature exists today, after all.

What if the mods could click a button that removes the thread from your view as though it were a post by an Ignored user? Like, a little mini-ban. It might be more effective than just telling people not to post anymore. If told to do so, they may comply, and still follow the thread, seething at every comment they're not allowed to rant against, only to unload in a different thread as soon as one of their opponents says something they disagree with. Not being able to view the thread anymore means that you're less likely to remember to hold a grudge.

Sure. I'm all for the use of technology to improve things like this.

I just posted that one suggestion based on what the mods can do (and have done) today.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

"Forced ignore" or "forced invisibility" only works on someone when they are logged in.

Same goes for bans. Register under another email address and post all you like for 3 days. If you're going to be enough of a jerk to be banned, there are plenty of jerky ways to undermine the mod system. I've got 50 invites kicking around on Gmail. I could populate these boards with a horde of my baleful dopplegangers in under an hour.

 

[Jack99]

First of all, I wanted to give a couple of big fat thumbs up to the mods, I personally think you are doing a great job, and that most discussions remain fairly civil (for a message-board discussion, that is..).

About handling the situation, as it is, you might want to use a more heavy-handed approach to banning (faster and with less warnings). That will of course piss off a few people, but most will come back either way, and a lot might learn just where your limits are.

I realize this will probably give you some more work, on a short term, but I do think that it will help you get back your old standards.

Just my 2 coppers,

Cheers, and keep it up,

 

[JohnSnow]

I've put this thought in a couple of threads so far, but I think it's worth keeping in mind.

In the context of a new edition being released, we should all realize that the way we play D&D isn't the only way to play D&D. Everyone plays the game a little bit differently. Where I think people are getting wound up is in the belief that the way they play is the way everyone plays (or ought to).

We all need to give WotC the benefit of the doubt that they are making the new edition of the game to appeal to the majority of their customers. That may mean that we don't agree with all their decisions. It may mean that some of the things they change are things we didn't particularly think needed changing, or even things that we didn't want changed.

That's an inevitable result of change. Some people will like it (or love it) and some will hate it. Many will be neutral.

People need to stop predicting "the death of D&D." People need to stop with the overdramatic claims that WotC is "destroying D&D" just because they're making the game different. The guys at WotC are gamers themselves, and we have to trust that they're making a game for the bulk of gamers.

That may mean we don't always agree with their decisions. It's not personal.

By the same token, someone disagreeing with how WotC is changing the rules may still have a point. I just wish we could discuss the changes themselves without people constantly harping about how this change or that is only good for people who enjoy "badwrongfun" or that "WotC is destroying D&D" "WoW is destroying D&D" or "grognards are destroying D&D."

We all play differently people. The sooner we realize this (and give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt that they aren't actively trying to destroy D&D), the sooner these boards will get civilized again.

 

[Simplicity]

Hm. I feel partly responsible for this snarkburst due to my open letter thread. But that said, I want to say something about some of these suggestions.

Suggestion: "Don't say anything that you wouldn't say if you were face-to-face."

Nonsense. I don't post to messageboards to be the boring, rather quiet person that exists in the real world. In text, I'm a different personality (yes, yes... anonymity + audience ...).
But that's not a bad thing necessarily. While it's hard on moderators, the boards are actually seeing LIFE again. The threads being posted are pulling me back to ENWorld wheras before... it was getting a little stale. There's a bit of the old 3e rumors ghost about, and I like it. Let's not kill that cat too soon.

Suggestion: "Stop threadcrapping."

Kind of hard to define. How about we just draw a line at making things personal? What's wrong with saying Wizards sucks or Wizards rules. Fine do that. Whatever. If there's any merit to it at all (basically, it's not spam) then, let it be. Sometimes people have valid points to make about suckage or ruleage.

 

[Simplicity]

In the context of a new edition being released, we should all realize that the way we play D&D isn't the only way to play D&D. Everyone plays the game a little bit differently. Where I think people are getting wound up is in the belief that the way they play is the way everyone plays (or ought to).

We all need to give WotC the benefit of the doubt that they are making the new edition of the game to appeal to the majority of their customers. That may mean that we don't agree with all their decisions. It may mean that some of the things they change are things we didn't particularly think needed changing, or even things that we didn't want changed.

That's an inevitable result of change. Some people will like it (or love it) and some will hate it. Many will be neutral.

People need to stop predicting "the death of D&D." People need to stop with the overdramatic claims that WotC is "destroying D&D" just because they're making the game different. The guys at WotC are gamers themselves, and we have to trust that they're making a game for the bulk of gamers.

That may mean we don't always agree with their decisions. It's not personal.

By the same token, someone disagreeing with how WotC is changing the rules may still have a point. I just wish we could discuss the changes themselves without people constantly harping about how this change or that is only good for people who enjoy "badwrongfun" or that "WotC is destroying D&D" "WoW is destroying D&D" or "grognards are destroying D&D."

We all play differently people. The sooner we realize this (and give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt that they aren't actively trying to destroy D&D), the sooner these boards will get civilized again.

There's no requirement for people to give WotC the benefit of the doubt. People will believe what they choose with the evidence they've seen to date. It's not like we're completely ignorant of some of the changes that 4e is proposing. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with those changes or even believing that because those changes are bad there will be more bad ideas in 4e.

Believing that doesn't make you a grognard. Just someone with an opinion.

I want 4e to succeed. I'm personally not liking some of the things I'm seeing. I'm going to say something about that. Maybe changes that make me happier will make the cut. Or maybe I'll howl at the wind. I've had my quiet period of reflection on the current state of 4e and preview information. I consider that period over now. Commence gnashing teeth.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Suggestion: "Don't say anything that you wouldn't say if you were face-to-face."

Nonsense. I don't post to messageboards to be the boring, rather quiet person that exists in the real world. In text, I'm a different personality (yes, yes... anonymity + audience ...).
But that's not a bad thing necessarily.

This is a site for discussion of D&D. That should be the primary goal, not its theoretical value as a therapeutic tool.

No one is asking posters to be bland and lifeless. Again, all that's being asked for is civility. That's not too much to ask for, and if it is, there are countless sites that provide a more bare knuckle experience, if that's preferred.